Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 7

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Partial Release of Use Restriction and Right of Reentry for CDOT Parcel between the City and County of Denver and Metropolitan Football Stadium District for land the Metropolitan Football Stadium District will convey to the Colorado Department of Transportation. Authorizes the partial release of use restriction and right-of-reentry for City parcels previously deeded to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to construct a new headquarters on Stadium Parcels B6, B7, and B8, at approximately West Colfax Avenue and Mile High Stadium West Circle in Council District 3. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-19-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-17-16.

DenverCityCouncil_11282016_16-1143

11 eyes, 1a1. Hey, not a constable. 1087 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, next item. Councilor Lopez, you're calling on Constable 1143 for a question and a vote to postpone final consideration to December 12th, 2016. That's correct. The other Lopez Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. That as I say, I don't have a problem with this. That is correct. Why did you say I couldn't hear? No, I'm just joking. All right. So, Councilman, you're going to put Bill 1143 on the floor for publication. I move that council bill 1087 be ordered published. No. 1143 1143 1140 oh oh. Sorry. Yes. Yeah. I moved that council. Bill 1143 be ordered published. Sorry, I'm a step ahead of myself. Yep. Okay. It's been moved in, so I might have messed you up there. It's been moved in a second. Councilman, go ahead and make your comments. Is so I still have questions on it. I was going to ask them on the floor, but I couldn't formulate them all in a sort of succinct way. So I really just need the extra time to have that conversation offline. But before I'm comfortable putting it mean having to moving it through. So, Councilman, are you asking for us to vote this down just to postpone further to a date certain on 12th? 12th. Okay, great. Councilor Lopez. Thank you, I. Thank you, Mr. President. I know this is and this is around our boundary and council district three and one by the stadium. This is for that seat on for the new headquarters. And so here's the thing. I, I wanted to call up Geoff or or somebody from that can kind of speak to this from real estate. If we postpone it, does that create any kind of problem with with the transaction or with Sudan? I mean, here's the thing. I I'm more than happy to. You know, hear this. And a week later, if it doesn't mean that we're going to be putting anybody behind the eight ball here, because I know this is big, this is a big deal. I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city and county of Denver. Councilman, the. City that is planning to break ground on this property on December 5th, they can't move forward. They're actually financing the project with CLP. Funds and. It's a requirement of the lender to have this released in order for them to move forward with the loan. So it would certainly create issues and or problems on their project in terms of construction contract and timing. Thank you, Mr. Steinberg and Mr. President and Councilman Espinoza, I don't get this is real cut and dry. I mean, I think when it when it came to committee, it had some question. But it. It's. See that moving onto a parcel that is empty. And I think it's a big deal here for the west side. And I think. If that's the case, we should not postpone and you can have your questions or ask them now I guess, and the figures are suffice, but I wouldn't want to see it postponed because I think it throws a monkey wrench in this whole thing . Hey, just. Just a point of order. So on the on the floor right now is the actual publication. So we will need to order it published and then we'll vote on that and they will vote for a postponement later. Councilman Espinosa, do you want to respond? With regard to publication. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Regards to Councilman Lopez's request. Yeah. I mean, I'm happy if everyone will bear with me. I'm happy to ask the questions now. Like I said, I'm not totally succinct in how I was going to formulate them, but I'm happy to do that now, recognizing that there is now a deadline. I think it's silly. We are not obligated to move until 1219 on this. So why would CDOT, you know, put their shovel in the ground a full 14 days ahead of that date? But, you know, I've been in this position before. I can work with the situation. Okay. Tell us briefly. Mr. President, I wanted to suggest, since it is just publication, that we ordered it published, that would allow Councilman Espinosa a week to get answers and then not delay final, but to postpone publication until 1212. It's not it is definitely not a good idea because that would delay it now until the 19th. Thank you. Thank you. You know, Councilman Councilman Espinosa, I think we're. Go ahead and vote on the publication. Do you want to respond to Councilman Flynn's? That's fine if you're really interested in killing a really good project. Okay. I do have legitimate questions that I thought would be better save for a discussion with Jeff and company, but that's great . Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Ortega. Sussman. Black. Clark. All right. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting and announce the results. So I'm just like you. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Constable 1143 has been published. Councilman, you'll have a week to to meet with the team and get your questions answered. Okay. Counsel Madam Secretary, please bring up the next item. Council Bill 1078.

A bill for an ordinance amending Articles III, V and VII of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by repealing and reenacting a new Division 3 of Article III establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in City Contracts for Construction, Reconstruction, and Remodeling, and Professional Design and Construction Services; repealing and reenacting a new Article V establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in City Contracts and Purchase Orders for Goods and Services and Opportunities for Minority and Woman-Owned Businesses and Small Business Enterprises in Procurements for Goods and Services; and repealing and reenacting a new Article VII pertaining to the development and utilization of Small Business Enterprises in City contracting and concessions. Amends Articles III, V and VII of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by repealing and reenacting a new Division 3 of Article III establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise

DenverCityCouncil_04132020_20-0286

They were all right at the next screen and then yourself. And then for accountability for. This person, I'm. Going to. Be placed upon final consideration in defense. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions and comments by members of Temple. Thank you, Mr. President. I raised some questions about this last week on introduction and got answers, some pretty extensive answers this afternoon to a number of those questions that I sent to Audrina Gibson. Thank you for coming down the arena. And under these difficult circumstances that we're all operating under, I have a great concern that the prompt provision that's in this ordinance that requires the prime contractors, the general contractors that have city contracts of $1,000,000 or more to pay their AWB subcontractors within 35 days of that subcontractor submitting the invoice for the work. In actuality is shifting the problem of prompt pay from us because we don't pay promptly in every circumstance and probably in most circumstances within 35 days. Shifting it to the prime contractors or to the subcontractors under them who may have third tier or fourth tier subs as well. And so we're kind of making those prime contractors the bank for our city contracts. And Mr. Gibson has and her office has provided through working with public works and the airport and all the other folks to do contracting. They have developed a ten point initiative that is trying to fix our end of the logjam, if you will. And but I'm still concerned how we will measure that going forward, because my concern in voting on this tonight is that we're opening a box of problems when maybe we could have taken time to come up with a way to solve that before we came to council. So maybe, Mr. Gibson, without going into detail with all the questions that you answered in which I forwarded to some other members who were interested in that same issue, could you talk to us about what happens if this doesn't work? What happens if a year from now we discover that a lot of crimes who used to do business with us will no longer bid on our work because they can't afford, particularly if the Prime is itself an mbie or we prime acting as a GC on one of our contracts that they can't afford to pay within 35 days their subs and then wait for payment from us for maybe six months. If there's a lot of change orders involved, how will we know and how will we fix that? Thank you. Okay. Okay. Good evening. Adrina Gibson, director of the Division of Small Business Opportunity. This is a new norm for me. So excuse me if I'm a re-adjusting. Thank you for having me and asking for me to come down. And Councilman Carlin, that's quite a large question. So I'm going to try to answer it to the best of my ability, but feel free to reiterate any of those questions in the meantime. So I think the first question that you had was the concern around the city paying their crimes and your concern with moving this bill forward, which is directly related to Mwb, which is a small minority women owned businesses with regards to 50% pay. And so just a couple of items with that, I want to state that the concerns that have been brought forward with contractor prompt pay is not the same as city pay. There are two distinct issues that we've been solving for for the last several months. You had brought up the concern that if we move forward with contractor prime pay, which is to pay mwb ease within 35 days, we could be opening up larger problems, a can of worms, if you will. But those can of worms have already been opened for several years and for many of our small businesses. And we're solving for that problem by putting this contractor provision into place for solving that issue. As it relates to that, the city pay is our responsibility. Responsibility. It's our accountability as the city to pay our prime contractors within 35 days of an acceptable invoice. The contractor prime pay aligns with that. It flows down from the city to the prime to the small businesses. It's with no surprise that we haven't been necessarily holding up to that as truthfully as we could. But throughout this extension that we received in December, that's what we've been focused on more than anything. And even outside of the contractor, shoring up our processes, our procedures and our policy to ensure that we are, in fact, meeting the requirements of city pay and getting our times paid with within those 35 days. It's not enough for us to remove contractor pay. The contractor can't pay is just it's fair. We have city pay for crimes. We should have prompt pay for small businesses as well. And during that time, while we're implementing as we're doing right now, we will ensure that our crimes are being paid on time because we have been working diligently, weekly and work groups with all of the city agencies collaborating to make sure that we better we can better measure our ability to pay on time that are the pay apps and the invoices. And those reviews are cut in half, that our technology systems are shored up and moving at a quicker speed. Nine different initiatives have moved forward with the help of the mayor's office and convening all the city agencies so that we're working on implementing those. I think to some of the city council members make examples of those nine initiatives and the action item lab for where we're at with each of those initiatives. I just want to again restate that, yes, my job is small minority women owned businesses and we've been focused on that. But with that, we've also been focused on making sure the crimes are paid in a reasonable time as well. So we are aligned. It's just and it's equitable. It's it's not enough to remove it because of the uncertainty, but rather to push forward in these times and make sure that in a very balanced way we're doing everything that we should be for both crimes and for small businesses. But. Am I still muted. In your views that you'll have to mute yourself? Very good. Thank you. Adrina, could you address perhaps how will we know that we are succeeding? Do you and will you commit to come back to committee to counsel? What are the measurements? Because my understanding is from pay for the fines from the city. We start our clock when when the invoice is accepted, when we check everything out. But for the bodies, the clock starts when they turn in the invoice before the Prime or the GC actually can say, well, is all the work accepted, etc.. Are there differences between the two systems that we can try to align better? Because I'm concerned that we're required especially to smaller crimes. Even those who are be themselves might not have the wherewithal to borrow the money to pay their subcontractors while waiting for us to go through change orders to finalize costs and to issue them a check. What will they pay them with if it's not the money that they're expecting from us, short term loans? Or how are we going to work with them on that? So how will we know, say, over the next year that that this has been a successful effort? So to answer your first question, yes, I am committed to coming back to city council. And I know that Councilman CdeBaca had asked for us to also put together a plan to show and measure how we're doing with regards payments to you and their needs, as well as to our crimes and how that's being measured. And in fact, one of our initiatives, one of the nine initiatives that we're pushing forward is our Power BI dashboard, which will look at an agency by agency to see how quickly we are paying our crime within that 35 year period and what area of the flow chain is being reviewed, maybe slowing that up or what was the reasoning for it. But we are looking at keeping that clock on so that we can see throughout the many different approvers, if you will. What is the lag time and where we bolstering and streamlining those efficiencies. So we will have an actual system that we're working on right now in place to be able to look at that. And yes, I am committed to coming back regularly to make sure that you will see that these changes are being met. It's not just the job of this, though, but also of all of the other city agencies. And we have a system that will allow us to do that. Okay, Adrina, I would like and as long as the administration is sitting up here, also, I would like to see a report maybe in a year that takes into account the number of bidders on each contract so that we can see are we getting more bitters or are we losing bitters where we might have expected five times to come in and bid? We're only getting to two. So to measure that impact also, it would be nice to have public works in the airport. Give us that kind of report after a year, because some of the crimes are very concerned that that will thin the field of potential bitters by putting this additional, in some cases , what could be an onerous requirement. Thank you. Yes. And I would just like to state with that. We'll make sure that we put that report together. But I do want to just note that looking at whether it better does or doesn't fit on a project can be a multitude of things, especially given the economy that we're in right now. And to your other concern, which I've also heard from nine MWP, is their ability or their unwillingness to potentially work with the city. I just want to reiterate that this provision is nothing new. It's nothing pending as the city has it for the crimes. Our city has this provision and Zita has it on their central 70 projects. Many of these firms, including Mwb, are very familiar with this provision. If they've worked within this provision for several years, in fact throughout all aspects. And then, as you know, in Central 70 and small businesses who were small businesses and now crimes grew throughout this provision, it actually assisted them in keeping their doors open. And so I just wanted to state that for the record also that many of the businesses that we work with, contractors in Vietnam, are very used to this provision and have no effect on it, that I'm aware. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Thank you. You know, a couple of other people in the queue and have a number or take a look at some really good work where you wanted to be able to. Give me an idea. First of all, Councilman Cashman, the director of the company Casanova, over your way. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I believe. Lot of feedback here. I'd like to start by giving a sincere shout out to our former colleague, Councilman Wayne New, for the incredible amount of ground work he did over a year or two in addressing a variety of dispo related issues with prompt pay for subs being perhaps the most important of the issues that we looked at , he was kind enough to involve Councilman Ortega and myself in discussions, and we interviewed sub after sub after sub that told horror stories about the lack of prompt payment, the lack of adequate payment from Prime's that had been paid. And this is a while I agree 100% with my colleague, Councilman Flynn, that we on the city side have the responsibility to do what we're asking our primes to do. I truly feel that in Ms.. Gibson, we've got the right person with the right background to ensure that all sides in this situation are treated fairly. I very much, again, appreciated the work that Councilman Nu did along the way. I'm sorry. He's. I hope he's watching tonight. I hope he's watching tonight. He deserves credit for where this where Dismas sits today, which I think is in a far stronger position than it did a couple of years ago. So I will look forward to both keeping an eye on Ms.. Gibson and her staff to ensure that our crimes are treated in the way they deserve. And I look very forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. And now we're going to go to council member or take our. You can go ahead. Okay. Thank you so much. I first want to say thank you to Adrina and Jason Moore, who spent a lot of time with me walking through different provisions of the ordinance. Some of that was with other people who had many questions about it as well. And I just want. To. Get on the record a couple of clarifying points. So first of all, throughout the process, when I met with Diaz, both staff and contractors, both Prime as well as Mwb is this issue was brought up over and over again, correct. So now that we're getting ready to adopt, it is not the first time that this issue has come up. Can you just clarify that? The battery for this is going. Okay. Yes. This has been an ongoing matter for small businesses for some time coming on board last year. This was actually brought forward by many of the small businesses within the community, small and large, who brought this directly to the mayor's office. Many of the council members. And it was a topic of ongoing discussion internally, where we convened subcommittees through our business equity leadership team and many of the agencies and their staff. So I have a couple more questions from an article. We can't hear you in chambers and we got a quick look at the bison. So, Zach, I remember the first president order. And you tell them to switch over to alcoholism. Are you ready for me or. Can we get to your audio? I get it from my definition here and the feedback. So it was just as I. Give. Thumbs up. I think we already. All right, go ahead. So what I'm going to do is just kind of roll through the next three items, just very briefly, so that we don't have to bounce back and forth. I appreciate a lot of this is about how quickly the primes get their buildings in because if they're. Holding up, getting their billings in, then that's going to hold up them getting their their allotments on a monthly basis as it's anticipated. So it's incumbent on everyone, including the minority and the women. Of subs on a project to be as thorough as possible. So one of the questions related to the billing is we heard this over and over that if there is a question about one item on a bill that gets submitted by the Prime and it's holding up everybody else that has their billings in with that monthly allotment that that one item holds up the entire billing, not just that one item. And so I'd like you to address that. So let me go on to the next two items. If it looks like we have major issues with the prompt pay or any other provision of the ordinance, we don't have to wait for the next disparity. Study you all, and we together can look at making changes to the ordinance just like we did working with Councilman New to make the one change that was reflected in when the prime would submit. I mean the subs with submit their billings and it showed transparency in the billing process. And then the last issue is about. Creating the transparency that we need in tracking what's happening with on call contracts. There are some that end up having these goals attached to a project, but there are some that may not. And unless they go through the SBA, we normally don't see that that criteria. And I think being able to track that data is equally as important as tracking the ones that have the goals attached to. So that's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember. Go ahead. Okay. So to answer and further elaborate on many of the points that Councilman Ortega brought up. Yes. When we started looking, the first question was with regards to accountability and some of the information that we received back about crimes, building payoffs, which was which has and continues to cause I'm due financial strain on small businesses. Yes. The process for prompt pay is with regards to multitude of things. I mean, there can be the instances which were brought in by Councilman Flynn where the city needs to go through their checks. Checks and balances to make sure that we've received all of the documentation needed. However, there's also the case in which you have prime contractors that will hold their invoices from submitting them to the city because it incurs interest and they want to keep it in the bank as long as they can before they have to then submitted or the documentation isn't ready or someone's going on vacation. That does happen. Prompt pay for contractors so contractor can't pay as well as with the city. Proper pay allows for accountability on all ends to require the city is doing their checks and balances that all documentation is present, that we're living within those 35 days and we're moving the process forward. It requires accountability from the prime contractors to say, I need to have all of this documentation, I need to get it in because I'm going to be required to pay my says you're very soon. So let me make sure that all of this information is correct, which we are now creating checklist for our crimes. Let me make sure that the certified payroll is complete, which they'll receive earlier notification on if something is missing, as well as the accountability on the small business to make sure that all of their eyes are dotted and t's are crossed when they're submitting that information up to the crime. So, again, it's it's not enough to just rely on paid when pay, because there are other there are other issues that occur with crimes paying their subs outside of just the city potentially being delayed in paying them. And so with regards to all of those processes, from city to crime to small businesses, our nine initiatives employ accuracy , timeliness and streamlined process improvements. The second question that Councilman Ortega brought up was that if there's one air within an entire park, which can be several pages long, it holds up payment for all of the subcontractors working on the project. That's absolutely correct. In many instances, because of paid when paid, you can have one piece of information that will delay the payment of another mwb or another non mwb. So that prime contractor then is met with a situation of waiting until that issue is resolved or pulling that one piece out and then resubmitting the pay. It's it's unfair for the subcontractors and even their employees to have delayed payment for the work that's been completed because of another error, be it on the prime or the other subcontractors working on the project. And so that is an error within the paid when paid contractor properly means that it allows for that small business once their work is done. They've invoiced for it. It's been deemed completed and acceptable by the prime per their scope of work and their subcontractor specs to be paid and be able to have that cash flow to move on to another project, to be able to pay their people, to be able to put food on their kids table. And so it's it's just and it's fair. And then with regards to looking at the ordinance in moving this forward and in the future, seeing if there's additional edits that need to be made or additional rules that need to be put into place. We're doing that now. The ordinance is the enforceable language. Our rules and regulations will allow us to provide that fine line of detail as to how prompt payment will flow from the crimes to the subcontractors and what areas are disputable where we have leniency and flexibility. And once we come back from this in a year or so or the next disparity study, it will be able to measure all of that and if needed, amending any time between there. But the rules in Mexico, it really allowed for us to allow for that additional flexibility and detail. And tracking of the data. Yes. To my point, too, Councilman Flynn, we do have our dashboard that will allow us to track this information to see how we're doing with payments to crime as well as payments crimes are doing with payments to these. Council member Ortega. Are you good to go? Okay. All right, then. Let me go over Councilmember Lynne, if you can unmute yourself. I see you're back in the queue. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. I know that some folks were mixing questions and comments, so I just want to make sure I got my comment in. And that is that this is an important program that will expire at the end of this month if we don't pass this. And I think it has a lot of challenges to this provision. This prompt pay provision has a lot of challenges to it. There's just so many situations, as Mr. Gibson has pointed out here, where it is maybe the fault of the prime by holding onto the payments that are received from the city. But in many cases it's where the city has not paid. And I'm particularly concerned about those instances, and this is something else that needs to be tracked over the next year or so as this gets implemented. When when a when a prime pays the subcontractor for a piece of work and then later invoices the city for it , but then the city might reject that work that's already been paid for by the prime. So there's a lot of a lot of areas that need that are disconnected right now that need to be reconnected. But what I wanted to say, my comments was that I will vote yes on this tonight and get this passed. But I do it with some hesitancy, as I've said in other situations where sometimes you're 55, 45 on how to vote, you're not always 100% not all these votes are 100%. Yes, sir. I know it's an important program that needs to go forward. We're trying something that I think is very risky for all sides and it has to work. Right. And so we want to make sure that in a year's time, in two years time, that we keep track of the right data, the right measurements to make sure that it is working. And it's not hurting us. It's not hurting the suburbs and it's not hurting the primes as well. One other reason that I want to vote, that I'm going to vote yes now is that I there are only seven of us here in the room. And in order to avoid any unnecessary problems down the road with any potential challenges to some of the members participating virtually, I think it's I think it's advantageous to us to have seven yes votes here in the room. And so for that reason as well, I put aside my misgivings and vote yes and just rely on the staff to implement these initiatives and get it right. Thank you. Thank you, councilmember. Someone to go to council member all. Thank you, Mr. President. I am. Here we go. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilmember Torres for her inclusiveness of the disability community on another topic tonight. And in that similar vein, I just want to put on the record that I hope that future surveys include the disability community. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Horowitz, in other questions or comments, we are going to move on to the vote. So, Madam Secretary, try this a little bit different. If we can make this work a little bit better and you can hear everything, if all of you are participating remotely and unmute yourselves now and then if you can just pause for a quick second. In between the in-person and the Outlook Room, I think our audio work a little bit better. Is that really? No. All right. Don't do that. Okay. All right. Never mind. I'll just try and go through it slowly again. So I'm secretary. See if I've been. There you go. When you are. And you. All right. You should be getting a. Black. Car. When Brendan can eat Soya Torres. See the burka? I go more. I was hired. By. Cashman. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I council president. Madam Secretary, please. Both following up through the 13 hours, 13 eyes, accountability. Your decision has passed. All right. Please put the next item on our screens and you'll be ready to put up to six to on work this.

Recommendation to receive and file a report from Long Beach Water Department regarding the excellent quality and safety of the drinking water in Long Beach and to assure the citizens of Long Beach that various factors that caused the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan do not exist in our city. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0377

Okay. So item 16, Madam Clerk. Report from Water Commission and Water Department recommendation to receive and file a report from the Long Beach Water Department regarding the excellent quality and safety of the drinking water in Long Beach Citywide. Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank you for indulging me last week, and I was very late in the evening and there was nobody here to hear this report. I thought that it would be appropriate to table it for a week so that we could have a bigger and broader audience and not only here present, but also on the on the tube. Over the last year, we've heard a lot of reports about what's been happening in Flint, Michigan. And there's have been several reports about other municipal municipalities across the country that may have similar issues in their infrastructure, all piping piping that is probably lined with lead and therefore having a potential another catastrophic situation as it happened in Flint, Michigan. During those reports, it came to my attention that there are over 2000 municipal water municipalities across the country and that many of them may be in danger of encountering a similar situation in Flint. So I asked the director, Chris Garner, if he would be amenable to coming to the city council and to present the the efforts that we have here locally to ensure that our water is safe and that we have taken measures to ensure that it remains that way. And so I hope that when we're done today, that our our council and our residents have a clear understanding as to where we stand in regard to our water quality, and also maybe give some additional information as to what we can do also ourselves to ensure that it stays that way. So I'll hand it over to our staff director, Chris Gardner. Thank you very much. As Councilmember Ranga mentioned, we had a discussion recently about the Flint, Michigan, tragedy. And what makes it even more of a tragedy is it could have been avoided with proper respect for the science of water treatment. So what we have done tonight is we brought I brought my water Einstein with me, my director of operations tight saying . And he will walk you through real briefly. On what happened in Flint, Michigan, and what went wrong, and then how in Long Beach we do it differently. And then give assurance to you and to. The residents of Long Beach that the drinking water in Long Beach is very safe. And he will explain to you in terms I can understand and hopefully the rest of you can understand such. Honorable Mayor and members of City Council. Thank you for inviting us down to provide a brief presentation on what's happening in Flint, as well as give you some explanation of what Long Beach Water Department is doing that is different from the city of Flint and provide some assurances on the water quality that we provide to our residents . So first and foremost, what is happening in Flint. Flint, as you have heard on the news, is experiencing lead contamination problem and the source of that lead, the primary source. The lead is the lead service line and that's the pipeline that goes from the city main to the house. A pipeline is made of pure lead. Other sources are lead that's been introduced to the system is from household plumbing fixtures. So there are in brass fixtures. There's also lead and there's also lead in some of the old solder of when you solder copper pipe. So what happened was in 2014, the city of Flint had decided to switch the water supply from Detroit water to the Flint River. When that happened, it caused a major shift in water chemistry, and that caused the water to become very aggressive and caused the the scale that protects the pipeline from leaching lead to become unstable. To compound the issue, the operations of the Flint Water Treatment Facility had decided not to implement corrosion control, which would help to restabilize that scale and prevent the lead from leaching from the led service line, as well as corroding the lead the brass fixtures within the household plumbing. So consequently, there was a lot of delays in appropriate action and ultimately resulted in the lead issue that you're hearing about in the news. So what is different from Long Beach, from Flint? Well, first and foremost, Long Beach does not use lead service lines. We use copper service lines. So that primary source of lead does not exist. There are some brass fixtures in homes, so that does provide a source of potential lead contamination. But Long Beach has been using its water supply for over 50 years. We're primarily groundwater. We're about 60% groundwater, and we're about 40% purchased water from Metropolitan. And that water is very stable. We've been using it for a long time, so we don't have that rapid change in water chemistry that caused the problem in Flint. At the same time, we do have an active corrosion control process where we work to add chemicals to the water to make sure that whatever scale that's on the pipeline remains relatively stable and that does not allow the water to corrode any fixtures. And then lastly, we've been monitoring for lead since 1992, and all the monitoring results reported to the state has been below the compliance detection limit. So from the monitoring, we know that we don't have a levee issue. So hopefully this provides you with some assurances that the water that we provide to the residents is safe to drink . With that concludes my short presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd be happy to answer any water quality questions you may have. Thank you for the report. So having that information, would it help residents to put like, say, a water filter on their faucets to clean the water to make sure it's even cleaner than what it is already? Or is it recommended? Do we need it or not? The water that is delivered to your home is perfectly safe to drink. Now, whether you decide to put a additional filtration device, it's a personal taste preference. You can do it. The only thing I would caution you is, for example, if you use a better filter, what it does is it removes the chlorine from the water, which is the upset, objectionable taste that some residents complain about, that chlorine is there for a reason. It prevents biological growth from reoccurring in the water. So when you remove it, you have to drink it right away or refrigerated. Do not leave it out. It could cause problems for you later on. You I was good at. That was going to be my next question. You did mention that you put some chemicals in our water to I guess, to make sure that it's clean as possible and it avoids, I guess, parasites from growing in there. What are the types of chemicals you put in there? Fluoride as an example. Equal fluoride in our water. Yes. We've been floating for a long time since the seventies. When you add caustic soda, which raises the and that's what helps keeps the scale stable in the pipeline system. We add a chemical disinfectant. It's a combination of ammonia and chlorine and what we call chlorine means. And that's what is the disinfectant that's in the water. It stays in the water and prevents the michael michael biological activity from going out of control. And another point you mentioned, you made mention the fact that you report, you test our water on a periodic basis. How often and you report those to a state agency and are those results available on the Internet or can we access those test results to make them available? Or is it something that we have to go to the State Department in order to get those results? So we collect about 55,000 samples a year to test for various contaminants that may be present in the water for the lead testing. We do it once every three years and then actually this is a year for lead testing. So we do over 100 samples and we actually in the the bill stuff, we had asked residents because of the sensitivity issue of Flint, we're offering additional testing to the residents if the residents want to volunteer. There is a limit to how many samples we could take and couldn't test the entire city. It would be too much of a cost, but we are adding that in terms of the water quality results. We do. We do report monthly the water order results to the State Water Resources Control Board. That is the governing agency that that regulates us. In terms of the results itself. We do publish an annual water quality reports that is available that used to be mailed out to every account on file. But in an effort to be more green, we have converted to electronic. So we do make it available on our website so you can get access to all of our quality monitoring data on our website. And if you do want a hard copy, you can contact the water department and we will provide you a hard copy. Excellent. One last question. These two had a long to guard program. We do. We still have the long current program. Wonderful. That's all I have. The Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you for the report. You know, we've been hearing so much on the news. And so I think also my my colleague, Councilman Roberto Arango, to bring this forward, sometimes we have to, you know, tackle the challenge head on and really learn a little bit more about this. So appreciate it very much. I don't have any other questions. I think you answered them all. But appreciate the the report. By Councilmember Ranga. I also want to thank both of you for being here this evening. I'm going to be partnering with the Sierra Club very soon. We're going to try to hold a a town hall meeting, if you will, workshop on water quality and what can be done so that the community can be better informed as to how we can best improve our water quality as far as that goes, but also on the conservation efforts that we can add as well in terms of preserving our water. So I want to thank you both for being here this evening, and thank you for your indulgence as well. And I know was late last last week, but early. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to also thank you both. I mean, Mr. Gardner especially. And we had a chance to spend some time doing some lobbying on behalf of the water department over in in Washington. So I want to thank you for your work. Do you have anything that you wanted to add? Now, we we again, we appreciate the opportunity to talk to you and to the. Public about the water quality. And as I mentioned, if anybody has on the public, there has any question about their own water quality in their house, contact the Long Beach Water Department and we will do testing for that and. Give them some assurance. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And as always, keep continue to conserve. I mean, lawn pictures and a nice job. The residents have done a nice job through this last year of really conserving water. And we've got to continue that. There's a lot more work to do. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion any second. Is there any public comment on this item? Please come forward. Mr. Mayor, city council members, a name is Ben Rockwell. I would like to thank the water department for giving us the reassurances that they've brought tonight. I feel that this is very much in line with what we need to hear. I would be saddened if we ever had any contamination problems such as happened in Flint with the number of lives that have been endangered, not only the children's lives for their mental capacities and others, but all those who are older and perhaps beginning stages of Alzheimer's. This is something that is very important to all of us. And I want to thank our water department for the reassurances and spite of the reinsurance that they have given us. I don't like the taste of chlorine and some of these other chemicals. So I do have water filters so that I can have my drinking water, my cooking water, such that I am getting rid of the chlorine and some of the other substances that could be injurious to my health. And thank you very much. Thank you. Peter Rosenwald, Honorable Mayor, members of the Council, assembled citizens a sometime in the 1980s or early 1990, and I believe the Water Department had a program where you could get a container and take your water in to the testing area. It will take it into the water department and and have it tested. I just remember this. I never did it. But I'm just curious. Does anyone remember that by any chance? And. What were they looking for at the time? Thank you. We still have the program. If a resident feels like there's a concern. You can call us up. We'll talk to you over the phone. Listen to what your complaint is, what your concern is. And if we feel there's a valid. Concern, we will go out to your house and we will collect a sample and test for you and give you the results. So let me go ahead. And Mr. Gardner. So if you wanted to want to finish your public comment and then we'll kind of get to public comment. Thank you, Mayor. This was something that the water department would give you a sample container and you would bring it in. So I'm glad that they have that. And I also I don't believe I usually would read the water insert and I don't believe seeing this in mentioned, maybe it's not mentioned because it would engender a lot of people calling the water department or asking for them to make an inspection. But anyhow, that's my comment. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name's Ellie Gonzales. I as on file. I'm really glad that this item made it before you today. I think it's really important that we do an assessment on our water infrastructure. I want to speak not specifically about Flint, but the issues around Flint. So some of the issues that came up, it's not just about the water in the lead. It's also about communities being lied to for about a year, actually about two years. It's also about communities that still don't have access to clean water. Now, when we're talking about entire cities losing their water infrastructure, I want us to remember it's not just Flint. It's many of the communities that have dealt with fracking for the past ten years that have lost their access to clean water. And if you don't believe me, you can go ahead and ask some of these people. In fact, the mayor of a former mayor of the city of Denton, Texas, a Republican truck driving, you know, gas, gas loving guy. His city was so heavily fracked that his water was able to catch on fire. I'm sure you guys have seen some of the YouTube videos. And so he was out here in the city of Carson helping them promote their ban on fracking. So so their community doesn't have to deal with what he had to deal with. His kids got sick, his wife got cancer. You know, and these are very real things. These are things that already happen in our communities. So I want to just mention that communities do get lied to. And then the government does work with companies to say, oh, no, you don't know what you're talking about. You're not a scientist. You're you're you're you're not educated enough. That's what they told these people in Flint, Michigan. And I want us to think for a second, can that ever happen here? I want us to make no mistake about it. There is a grace upon this city. This is a wonderful city. But when we practice the same sort of practices or relationships with industry, we can also fall victim to the same sort of accidents or incidents which occur, which lead to governments then being involved in covering up their mistakes. So the company that that did the water testing for the residents of Flint that said, oh, no, you guys don't know what you're talking about. Your kids aren't getting sick. You that's an odor thing. That's a taste thing. That company is called Veolia, and they actually do testing here in the city of Long Beach, actually in Signal Hill. And they work with some of the drilling companies, again, right here in Signal Hill to help them produce water tests, the testing results that show that that the water is safe. They also Veolia has also done studies here for the communities in Watts near the Exide battery plants, where communities say that their water was contaminated. So I just want us to think that to just remember that when people like me come up to this council and say, hey, you guys, you should really take a look into fracking , since so many communities have already suffered water contamination, that maybe you don't want to be one of those elected officials that say, oh, no, you don't know what you're talking about. So I do just also want to make one other mention. The person who introduced this presentation, I've got nothing personal against the gentleman. He worked for the Oil and Gas Department for 25 years. He was just appointed because you guys had some beef with the other guy. Thank you. Okay. Any other public comment on this item? Seeing none. Members to go ancaster votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. We're going to do item number seven.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the development of an incentive program to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants through the Housing Choice Voucher Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07112017_17-0545

Great. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Andrews and your team. Let's move on to item 28. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to receive and file a report on the development of an incentive program to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants through the Housing Choice Voucher Program citywide. By Sam Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm pleased to see this report come back this evening as chair of our housing authority. I've had the opportunity to work with Ms.. King and her team, as well as a number of landlords, property owners, members of apartment association on ways to modernize and improve our housing choice voucher program. And it wasn't it wasn't particularly easy, but we were able to put together a package of things that we think we can we can support as a city. And and and the hope is that it will increase participation and adoption to increase our Lisa Lisa up rate. So at this point, I'd like to just hand it over to staff and ask for a report on where we are. Alison King, bureau manager. The Housing Authority has been working on this for quite some time. Alison. Thank you. As part of the incentives that we'd like to roll out, we are, first of all, grateful to the County of Los Angeles for the measure h money that is forthcoming. We have not yet been made aware of the exact amount that we would receive, but we are replicating the program that the County of Los Angeles Housing Authority is currently doing, and they are rolling that out to other housing authorities in the county that are choosing to participate with this effort to incentivize owners and to house the homeless. It is a three prong incentive that provides, first of all, a holding fee for owners. That holding fee would allow an owner who has a unit to turn their paperwork into the housing authority and have it inspected. And we would then provide them a fee while we are forwarding and referring homeless applicants over to these owners. It prevents the time that they generally have to wait for payment. They are still going to be allowed the opportunity to vet clients as they see fit, and there is no requirement that they select a tenant, but they would use their own criteria for that. In addition to that, there will be a damage mitigation fine a fund that will be set up should a client within the first two years of their occupancy create any damage to the unit that would exceed the security deposit? The third prong of the incentive is for needed items for the participant themselves, whether that would be a security deposit assistance with getting utilities turned on or the required appliances. That program for the first year we have requested to house 220 homeless persons in our community and we are getting additional funds for subsequent years. 429 Fiscal Year 2019 and fiscal year 2020. In addition to that, the Housing Authority is setting aside some nonfederal funds to be able to assist the first 75 clients that also have been searching for units for a significant amount of time but are currently holding vouchers. They do not indeed meet the HUD requirement for homelessness, but they have been displaced for some time and are unattached to a unit. They too would be able to access funds that will come from the Housing Authority for the first 75 using those same incentive strategies. Thank you, Ms.. King. And I like it because it addresses the folks actively searching for housing who are holding a voucher, and also individuals who are facing homelessness and dealing with homelessness. And one thing I don't know that I heard mentioned was we were able to talk with both housing authority and development services about coordination on the inspections to make sure we reduce the burden on landlords and tenants. So thank you so much for your hard work on this. Councilwoman Mongeau. I have really enjoyed working with your department. I think that the things you are doing are really exceptional. So thank you so much for your partnership and I look forward to continuing to work together on the amazing things that each and every one of you put a lot of thought into. And I can tell that you really run this department from your heart. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I just wanted to thank Vice Mayor. I was happy to be on this original item. Do we have a timeline on when we expect these incentives to go into effect? Ms.. King. Frankly, no. The county fiscal year did start as of July one. There are still some final details yet to be determined. So we are hoping to hear and we are one of a few housing authorities at its request to roll out the program before December. So we are asking for first quarter funds. Great. And I did want to ask just briefly, I recall creating the incentive package, which I think was a great idea, as well as waiving some of the permits and things that we've sat down with some of the apartment association. Has the discussion been brought up around rental insurance yet? It has not. Okay. That's fine. We'll save that and make sure that we bring that back. Okay. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mrs. King. I'd just like to take just a moment to thank you and your staff, because I know how hard you guys work, because you guys do give me a chance to come back every now and then. But the work that you've done in this situation, I think, is going to open a door for so many people out there trying to get them a place to stay. And I want to thank you again and again, you and your staff. Please keep up the good work. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Please come forth. Good evening. I would like to thank Vice Mayor Reg. Richardson for all the work that he's put in over the last few months in putting this program together. I'm a firm believer of this program because I do believe that it helps a lot of people who might otherwise be homeless, and it might help some homeless people come into housing. I want to especially thank Alice and King because I've been working with her over the last several years to try to put programs together and understand the programs a little bit better. You have worked tirelessly to. Do this, and I appreciate the outreach that you've had to the community, the housing provider community and all the people in the community. But I want to thank Vice. Mayor Reg Richardson for putting the organization to it and reaching out to the community and making the progress more progress than I've seen in quite a while. And I'm very excited about that and I appreciate it. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the Council and Staff Gary Shelton's. My name is a couple blocks from here. You might know I've been following issues of housing and homelessness for a lot of years. Thank you, Mr. King, for all your work on this. I've known you for some time. I wanted to direct your attention to item number two or paragraph number two, whatever you want to call it. It's the waiving of the fees, which I somehow missed in the in the staff report. It might have been there, but I'm sorry if I missed it. And I I'm wondering if know a couple of things that you might ask Mr. King. Number one, did Los Angeles waive the fees as well? And if they did, how were they able to afford it? Because it seems like an unaffordable possibility here under under the way it would work for us in Long Beach. So if Los Angeles did do it. How did they manage to do it? And I hesitate to use this word, and I use it in the most positive sense. It looks like there's a couple of perhaps false assumptions in the in the calculations that are used in this in this part. I'm not positive whether $57.50 is a per unit fee. If it's a four unit building, a six unit building or a ten unit building, or if that's only if it's at a $230 base price for a four unit building, it calculates to 5750 per unit. But is that actually 57, 50 and a ten unit building as well, or is it the $23 that we might expect it to be instead of 57, 50 if it's less. The larger the the the number of units in the building, then, then the loss is the less and the number of FTE ees that would be unavailable to us would be less. So maybe the impact isn't all that great. Also, the inspections are over the course of a five year span. And so even though it appears that there's an annual fee for the inspections, I'm not sure if that is every five years or if it really is every year at 57, 50 or $230, wherever the annual fee is per apartment. Finally, even regardless of that amount, if we were able to afford to give a landlord $57.50 back or whatever it might actually be or not, charge him that for a for an inspection. That might be a small amount, but actually the perception is very great and the incentive would be very great, I would say. So I appreciate your finding a little bit more out about the waiving of this fee and whether we really can afford it or not. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, City Council Robert Fox, Executive Director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations. I had the privilege of sitting down with Ms.. King and having lunch and going over a lot of issues. And I'm gratified to find that she's a good woman and she's done a great job. And I admire the proposals in front of you. In fact, I admire them so much that I'd like to expand them a little bit. We're dealing with only the homeless population in this particular proposal. We have at present 4980 vouchers rented out. However, we are able to take 7398. And the problem that Ms.. King and I talked about was how do we get landlords into this program? So I've been trying to do that, and the incentives that are here in front of us seem really pretty good. I would encourage waiving the fees because again, it's more psychological than $57. But what a landlord is looking for, if we really want to rent up that 30%, which is not rented up in vouchers at this point in time, if we could incentivize landlords with a damage mitigation fund, I know that it's we're proposing $200,000 here in this particular thing for a very limited number of people. But I would like you all to consider the idea of taking this incentive program beyond the homeless and beyond the 75 to make it concurrent for the entire department, even if it were on a temporary basis. So because if we lose the federal funding, because we didn't rent everything up, that's a significant chunk of change that we will have a difficult time getting back in the future. So I want us to think about that particularly I'm not as concerned about. The fee is, as I am with the damage mitigation fund, which is really important to landlords, whether we use it or not. It's just psychological more than anything else that we're there to help you make this thing work. And I like the holding fee idea because it does take a certain amount of time when you're taking a Section eight tenant or a housing voucher tenant before all the paperwork is solidified. And that gives the landlord an incentive that they're not going to be losing rent over a certain period of time, as Alison and I had talked about. It's a great idea. I guess my suggestion is, is there a possibility somehow with the money that's coming in from Proposition eight, Measure eight, to expand this program, if maybe this will be an experimental program, but maybe expand it in the future so that we can move this to all housing voucher program participants. Thank you so much. Thank you. And it's open to both homeless and non homeless at this point. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Vice Mayor and the City Council members. My name is Johanna Cunningham, executive director for the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. I first want. To thank the vice mayor for including. Us and having the collaborative spirit that he's had since the beginning of this project. And I greatly appreciate working. With Allison King. I have worked. With her since I started working. Here in Long Beach. It's been four years now. And I appreciate that collaboration. In that partnership. Working on this particular project. I do like the current recommendations that have been brought before you. I think they're a good start. I appreciate working with. The Housing Authority and it's. Always they're always open to new ideas and to having a discussion and to really vetting different ideas. And situations around this. And we have a lot of work that we still need to do as we continue to work on this issue. But again, I just want to say thank. You for the work that's been done so far. And I appreciate. Look and look forward to continuing. Our work together. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Josh Butler, executive director for housing. Ron Beech And I first like to think all the landlords for coming out tonight. Maybe they could all stand up. They're not here because tenants aren't asking for any rates, so they don't show up. But when they ask to step up to the plate and be involved in the process, I don't see them packing the house. If every one of them took one Section eight tenant, we might be able to do something. But they can't because vacancy rates are 2% in the city. There is nowhere for people to go. At last count, 1000 Section eight vouchers in the hands of residents who cannot use them. Our vacancy rate. There wouldn't even I don't even know if there's enough available apartments to put every single one of those people into. You'd have to start moving people out. And that is a real concern of your current renter population, is that they're going to get moved out. They're not going to get opportunities at units that are available. So you have a housing crisis here. It requires real solutions. And the landlords, you keep going to the table asking for landlords to solutions to these problems time after time after time. Yet they are not going to do it. Their job here is to make as much money as possible. And I think it's very ironic that we're going to use Measure H funds that were approved by taxpayers that those groups openly opposed that will now go into their hands that they can use. It's like, how is this even become a reality that we look at this situation that they can fight against all these measures, then turn around and take their hand and open it up and say, go ahead and we'll take that money now. And yet they'll turn around and send threatening messages to their tenants saying, You voted for this measure. So now I have to raise your rent. So not only are you taking the money from the taxpayers, you're raising our rent, too. So the landlord community will double dip on this. It's time for us to start talking about renter protections. It's time for us to start talking about building affordable housing in a serious way. And we are making steps forward. But the years of lagging behind have caught up with us, and we're now paying the price. Cities all over the state of California talk about Long Beach, and they can't believe that we're the largest city in the state of California, the largest population of renters on the entire West Coast, from San Diego, all the way up to Seattle. That doesn't even have basic renter protections. We want to be a world class city. Then we should treat 60% of our population like world class citizens and give them the same basic rights that they have up in Portland. You know, it takes more than crosswalks and microbrews and coffee shops. It takes a population, it takes a community to make a city. And it takes investing in your current base of residents to make that happen and not just continually outreaching outside of our borders to attract people in who yeah, they're moving here because it's cheaper than everywhere else. We have a lot of work to do. I'm disappointed that more landlords haven't shown up tonight. We're very hopeful that they can help us solve the problem because we could lose significant federal funding as a result of this. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah. The world's. Secret. Good afternoon. The Honorable Council. People are Malcolm Bennett. A proud landlord and property. Manager for. Over 42 years. And I certainly like to thank the council and thank Councilman Richardson and working with me. I think. This is a obvious sign of how. People can come together. Elected officials, community rental owners. We can come together and work on some positive solutions to a housing crisis that we have here. This is just an example of how we can come together, talk about issues, and collaborate and come up with kinds of issues at work that everyone, our property owners and developers in the building. We're the only ones that can provide housing because we're the only ones that either have housing or can develop it. So we look for positive incentives so that we can work together to make it a level playing field so that. We can create the kind of housing. And I commend Long Beach for the lead that they've taken. I just understand now you're looking at expanding the second unit, the Granny Flats, and these are the kind of things that really put people in housing. We can talk about it and all we want, but. Coming together, sitting down at the table and coming up and taking having the courage to take positive steps and move for it. So once again, I commend the council, thank Mr. Richardson, and certainly have been a pleasure working with Ms.. King. We work with a lot of Section eight housing throughout. The city, and I think Long Beach is really taking the. Lead on some of these issues. So you be commended for that. And once. Again, I'm proud to be a rental property owner, property manager into my. Fourth year of this. And I think now we've been. Coming together more. At the table. And talking about things and really making them. Happen. So, once again, thank the council, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bennett. Seeing no further public comment, members, please cast your vote. Councilman Mongo. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file information regarding restoration of the senior meal program at Cesar E. Chavez and Silverado Parks. (Districts 1,7)

LongBeachCC_02212017_17-0124

Motion carries. Item 20, please. Item 20 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to receive and file information regarding restoration of the senior meal program at Cesar Chavez and Silverado Park District one and seven. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Can we get a staff report first, please? Yes. Marie Knight, our director of Parks, Recreation and Marine. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. In July of 2005, the Human Services Association HCA, a nonprofit organization under contract with the County of Los Angeles, began serving congregate meals at six senior service sites here in Long Beach. In 2012, HCA notified the city of its intent to eliminate the senior meal program at Cesar Chavez and Silverado Parks beginning in June 2012. The decision to eliminate services came on the heels of funding reductions from the county that HSA anticipated for fiscal year 2013. At that time, the congregate meal programs at both Cesar Chavez and Silverado Parks, along with the site in the city of Lakewood, were chosen to be discontinued, primarily due to their low attendance. At that time, the staff prepared a two from four to the council, indicating that it would cost approximately $73,000. At that point in time to restore those sites. Currently the meals are served at four of our sites, and the numbers that are served to date on an annual basis are on par with what the six sites were at that point in time. In 2016, our Senior Advisory Commission again raised the question regarding what it would be, what would be needed financially to restore these sites, and therefore that would prompted the report to the city council. Per HSA. The current cost to the city to restore a congregate meal program at Chisholm, Chavez and Silverado Park is just over $51,000 per site, and this cost assumes serving an estimated 30 meals a day per site at $6.95 a meal for 250 meals annually. So I do want to mention and apologize to the council, I know that this report has been delayed in coming. The original request was before I came on board, and so for a while it was lost in a little bit of my transition. It was also lost in my understanding of what a two from four was and who was it to and from and what was it for? At one point in time, it was my understanding that this was an item that was to come from our with our strategic plan for senior services. And when I realized that that was not the case, we moved it forward to our commission. Our commission, our senior advisory commission then established a subcommittee to look into the issues. They wanted to meet with Long Beach Transit because at one point in time they thought that there were some changes in the transit route that might have affected the number of seniors attending the meal sites. So they wanted to hear from the representatives of Long Beach Transit, and that proved to be a little bit difficult. They scheduled several meetings and unfortunately at those meetings, Long Beach Transit did not have the appropriate folks in attendance to answer their questions. So staff reached out and made a determination that the routes indeed had not been changed. And so subsequently then we moved this item forward to the council, and that ends my report. Thank you for that very detailed report. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Well, Marie, thank you for the staff report and just being forthcoming with the delay, because it was very frustrating, to be quite honest, that we hadn't received anything until a year later. The report specified 90 days. And so now we're here at a year. And in quite frankly, the information in here I don't think is as comprehensive as we could be. So what I'm going to request is that we look at this a little bit further because I think this is very important for the community. I'm going to ask that we actually go back to the drawing board and come back on April 18th. That gives us almost about another two months to look at these two items again. So specifically with the first part, and I understand that the meals it looks like at Chavez and Silverado have gone down. But I truly believe it is relative to the transportation issues. And so in the eight years that I've been with the city of Long Beach, I know for a fact that we've had passport service cut back around Chavez Park. The free passport service also cut off at Park Pacific Towers. This was some few years ago, seventh and Pacific. And then the free passport, although it's not related, but it does still contribute to the overall issue with seniors getting access to the senior center and food programs. As I know that the Free Passport Service was cut off, passed a fourth on on fourth Street, passed Alamitos. So there was a charge after that which was on the path to the senior center there. So those elements, I think, kind of changed. And it'd be good to to see how that when they when they were cut off and how they affected the meals served at each of those locations. And. The first part, I would like us to get really creative with funding. I know that we just. I think a few agenda items ago, we had just collaborated. I know our public works department collaborated with the city shuttle or I'm sorry, a county shuttle to be able to provide additional shuttle services to Alamitos Landing. And so I don't know what could be done there, but I'm asking us to get a little bit more creative, to figure out some opportunities, whether it's through transportation, whether it's through working with our health department, food finders, nonprofits, whoever it might be to add a food program back at these two locations because we don't have any food programs for seniors on the west side of the city. And the transportation issue is still a prevalent issue for seniors getting to those locations for that reason. So, again, asking to come back April 18th with more information and we'll continue to work with you. But thank you very much. Robert. I am taking this motion alone to support the comments made by Councilmember Gonzalez. She hit the nail on the head when it comes to these two locations. They are in the highly needed areas, especially when you look at Silverado Park. Anytime you remove a program, that's one less program that that area has. And we need to find the financing. We need to find the money to support these programs regardless of how. It comes out like saying that they don't participate. We need to have programs here regardless of how you feel or how staff feels about it. So I want to have the I want I want my colleagues to please support the motion on the floor as we need more information so that we can make it clear that programs such as these are needed, even when there's a belief that they're going being fully utilized. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I'd be interested to know what the protocols are, but when when we talk about C one and C two funding that was awarded to either HSA or any other agency that is broken out at the state level by zip code and income and a couple of other factors. And so I'd be interested in that staff report for it to come back and or to actually have a dialog with decision makers, both at HSA and the county level or any other agency that currently has a contract with L.A. County that would be a certified provider that would be able to provide us both types of meals within the C two funding. There's different strata of meals that we could qualify for. And so I'd like to see that outlined as well. And I'm happy to provide any background and guidance from my time when I was on the the budget side of C one and see two for L.A. County, because I think that we actually have more discretion in this that we're probably utilizing so happy to serve or attend any meeting that I'm allowed to in my capacity as a councilperson or as a non council person resident if possible. Thank you. Councilmember Mangold. Would that be friendly that you're coming back with some kind of funding plan as well? I'm supporting the staff report and hoping to make suggestions if they would be taken as a friendly. I'm happy to have a. Sure we can do that. Great. Great. All right, Councilwoman Pryce. I think my questions have all been answered. I want to thank staff for actually bringing this forward. And as Councilwoman Gonzales said for the candor, I, too, did not know what a two from four was until about a year into the position where I finally asked someone why all of the city manager's emails with memos have a subject line that says TFF, what's a tiff? I did not understand for a long time what it meant. So I get that and I appreciate you bringing it forward. I'm sure that wasn't the first of the items that you realized were sitting in a pile, and. I thought it was a cute way of saying the. F for a while. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you very much and was looking at some of the data here reminds me of a luncheon that I attended just this past weekend. I was honored by a group called Women in Action Reaching Out, and they have been in existence for about four years. They provide about 1500 meals per month to seniors and child care centers throughout North Long Beach, mostly in the eighth District. And they operate out of the Carmen Alito's housing development where they feed the seniors there. They Carmelita those that are a district, expose seniors twice a week. And so I would just make a recommendation, Mary, to possibly connect with them to see if there's a way that they may be able to to assist with some of these other senior meals. I'm looking at what's going on here, 41 meals per day at Highland Park, 51 meals a day. And McBride, you know, they're doing at least 60 meals at at Expo. I know. And probably more than that at Little Seniors. So it would be just a matter of understanding their capacity. But they're doing some wonderful work. Great. Thank you. So there's a motion by Councilwoman Gonzalez, seconded by Councilman Ranga, to bring it back, continue, study and bring it back April 18th with the feedback, the additional friendly amendment from Councilwoman Mungo's. Any public comment on this? Karen resides part Pacific, Oregon. I'm one of the recipients of the smell program. I participated in both the Eldorado Park program and currently since the park officers got flooded at the Fourth Street Senior Center, where Partners of Parks has been relocated to. This program is a vital program for seniors. And Lena is right that when the bus route changed, that that impacted the attendance for Cesar Chavez, not just for the lunch program, but for all the programs, senior programs to go to Cesar Chavez. If I'm going to go from my building, it takes two busses and it takes me about 40 minutes. And it's not that far. So what's more important about the lunch program that that hasn't been stated is that it's voluntary. The seniors do contribute donations. And seniors that have more money tend to put money in the box. So that's recovered as part of the cost. I think it's important that, you know, that it's not a total giveaway. And the seniors, what's more important than the food, which helps a lot of seniors make it. Through the month and having a hot meal. That's why I go oftentimes. That's the only hot meal I get during the day is the social interaction that you create with the people that you sit with. And there's quite a social hierarchy and who sits where in these tables? And there's a lot of strong relationships that get built out of it. So it's a vital program. It's really sad that there's not a program on the West Side because that's where the largest concentration of senior buildings are. Thank you. So saying no further public comment, members, please cast your vote on the TFF.

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, approving a Mill Levy, and making appropriations for the 2020 Fiscal Year and approving an Amended Work Plan adopting an Amended Budget, and making appropriations for the 2019 Fiscal Year. Approves the 2020 Work Plan and Budget for the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1106

12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero five has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Resolution 11 zero six on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 19, dash 1106 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council resolution 11 zero six is now open. May we have the staff report? Once again. Good morning. Good evening. Board members Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance and before you tonight to get the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2020 Annual Work Plan and Budget and End to End 2019 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of downtown, includes residential and commercial assessed properties around Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally that is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 on the north side to 29th Street on the South Side, and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad Line and into the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line. The guide supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino Denver Guide by Ordinance Number 309 Series 2015 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The ordinance also created a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the Advisory Board should, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the District as authorized agent of the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the 2020 budget before you. Tonight, the budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $917,214 and overall in overall revenues of $1,159,213 of these revenues, the district will generate approximately $916,213 through the levy of four mils on real property for general operating purposes. And it will generate approximately $175,000 from the imposition of the capital charge assessed on a linear foot basis on properties adjacent to two Brighton Boulevard for repayment of debt used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. City staff has reviewed the 2020 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you. Thank you for that. And since this is our last one, I'll just say thank you for all of your hard work on all of this. We appreciate it. All right. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Tracy while. Good evening, counsel. My name is Tracy. While I live at 3611 Chestnut Place and I am the president of the right. Art district and representing the rhino. Jade. And I'm here for questions. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Law Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive actually come in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and a universal African people's organization. My question was going to be, is this in regards to this promenade that you are planning on putting here in what is now known as Rhino, but as native know as the east side of Denver? Is this pertaining to that and exactly how much of the budget is going toward this Cherry Creek that you are basically putting in a once abandoned area? And are you going to continue to put money toward sweeping people along the Platte River, which are adjacent to where this is, is that if he could please answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the board? Right. Seeing none. The public hearing for council resolution 11 zero six is now closed. Comments from members of the. Seeing none, Madam Secretary, recall. Black. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Haines. I. Cashman. Connect. Ortega. Sandoval, i. Sawyer. Hey. Torres. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting announced the results. 12. Hours. 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero six has been adopted. Council is now reconvened and Council will resume its regular session. Council can it will you please put Council Bill 1008 on the floor?

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending the Master Fees and Charges Schedule for specified City services for Citywide fees and charges for the City of Long Beach. (A-5)

LongBeachCC_09042018_18-0750

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item is one. I believe we're up at 1.5. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the master fees and charges schedule. I have to speak on this. There's a motion and a second. Councilman, I wanted to make a few comments on this on this item. I'd like to make a motion to correct a clerical error to the master fees and charges schedule, to a friendly amendment to make a motion and correct a clerical error made to the master fee in charge of schedule to maintain the toin 15 day line fee at the current rate of $70, not raising it to the typo 78. Mayor, if I may. Also, there was one other two other corrections there on Exhibit A, there was missing fees regarding illegal cultivation and an incomplete application fee. Those were described in contained in Exhibit B, and those have been reposted and noticed. So it has been updated. And there was also an additional fee for the over parking vehicle, oversize vehicle. And again, that has been corrected and updated. Thank you. I think there was another question from Councilman Pierce on this item. Is that right? Yes. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question. I know that later on in the budget we're looking at code inspection and knowing that that's a discussion that would need to come back with the master fee schedule. Could you remind us of the how that might come back so that we don't have to vote on that today , but that we can revisit that at a later time. With Mr. Motocross either. I know he's been working on this. No, I have my motion from earlier tonight. If that helps, I can read it. Sure. But it was released to enforce it. It has prepared it. Yep, yep, yep. I'm looking for what letter it was. Give me 1/2. Although I think these are also there are two separate things, and I think we're going to talk about the budget appropriation. I think what Councilman Parrish is talking about is as it relates to the conversation about staff beginning to work on. Right. Just that are our kind of the way we do. Looking at the. So Tom, do you want to speak, Mr. Modica, on what the process is and how we're going to address that? The requests in the budget. How we make changes to the schedule moving forward outside of the budget cycle as it relates to PRM. So as we understand the motion in related to period, it's one of the Mayor's recommendations to take a look at the power of fee structure. So if you approve the mayor's recommendations tonight, we will be also taking any input from tonight, but looking at a different way to assess those fees. We have a number of different ways that we can do a sliding scale. We're understand the idea is to increase the time that we are able to inspect buildings. We're currently on a 5 to 6 year cycle depending and that could be lowered to a four year cycle or something else. So we would bring back, do some outreach and come back with a recommendation and do that midyear with a fee increase and then adding positions. So right now, as it stands, if we pass the budget, we don't need to do anything additional. We'll wait for staff to bring something back. Correct. And then we would have to go through the normal process to advertise the fee and put that in the general circulation newspaper. Great. Thank you. I'm sorry. It also be my understanding that all of that is going to come back to the Council for a full discussion. Of course you would. Before we could hire anybody, you would have to approve that on the fees. So we would do a report and then there would be an official action in front of you before we move forward. Thank you very much. Katherine Mongeau is a part of our. Fiscal policies, though it would go to the DRC before coming to the council. Question I think. I don't recall that specific policy, but that's certainly something you could ask us to do. Yes. Then I'd ask that it come to B or C for review and a full discussion. I feel very strongly in the committee process. We would need to make that. You can make that part of the motion. When you get to the mayor's recommendations, you could send it there. Understood. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your vote. I had a question that. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes, I'm sorry, because I don't know if people are lined up for the what are we not doing request to speak unless it's on the item in front of us and then we'll call when we get to the budget. So, Councilman Gonzales, on this item. Yes, thank you. Just really quick question for the street repaired vehicles. I noticed the change from 45 to $55. Is that because we have a lot of issues in certain areas? And I'm wondering is and I've seen other cities that have a much higher rate and I don't know that that's the only answer. But is this. I don't know if there's any other opportunity to increase that rate because it's just it seems like it's a major issue and in many areas. Gets more where can you clarify which rate? We're we're talking about these. Street repair of vehicle. That street repairs on vehicles in neighborhoods. It's a page three of 11 Exhibit C. Multiple department charges, parking citations. It's about halfway down. Street repair. Vehicle that says $45. Current fee requested fee, $55. Yeah. So we can certainly look at that. I don't know at the top of my head if that's cost recovery or if that's a fine that we can levy and go higher, we certainly could look at that and. Bring that one. Let me get some more information back on that in a different form. That would be wonderful. We would do that. Great. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez was added on that basis for Andrew. Yes, thank you. I want to go on record, as you know. And with respect to the Parks and Recreation Committee has taken a second look at the fee for community centers. You know, it has come to my attention that the security fees is being, you know, assessed for all facilities which have reservations, even if they are not gang events. A policy change never came to the council. And Pakistan has not been able to, you know, produce a documentation as to when the policy becomes the norm. I do not believe that the security is needed for a booking, for a repairs at my community centers. Thank you. Thank you so much. There's a motion and a second on this, I think no additional comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. 1.6 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to approve the NY 19 one year Capital Improvement Program. Motion and a second for the best capital improvement program we've had. Councilman Mongo. So I think at this point it would make sense to take a break in the in the presentation for the Bossi modification, because within the Bossi recommendation, there are some minor cap changes within the Tidelands funds. So if it so pleases the chair, I'd like to request that we now move on to the 1.12 and then return to 1.6 after. Okay. So you mean we're going to move on to. You want to go through all the B.S. recommendations right now? Absolutely. Before we continue the. Next three, have some modifications. And so those will be read as amended. I think that's fine. Sure. Why don't we go and do this, actually? So we've gone through we've got 1.1 to 1.5. Correct. So let's put those aside. Those are done. So we're now as a part of the budget hearing, not necessarily the next item, but comes from mango. Shares of BSE will go through the BSE, her, her, her language that she's kind of going to be entering to the record as far as the changes to the recommendations of the B or C as well as, I think some additional changes. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Could I get the motion on the vote cast to be. Thank you. And then and so that would be a a second by a committee member. Okay, great. Okay. Slightly modified Budget Oversight Committee recommendations as follows. A motion to provide following direction to city staff that do not have fiscal impact. Explorer pilot at McBride Teen Center for Workforce Programing that prepares our youth for the workforce and explores the possibility of transferring teen centers from PRM to workforce in fiscal year 20. Instruct Parks and Rec to implement posting park reservations from active net or other systems, starting with field reservations then community rental space by January one with other reservations to be scheduled in a roll out. Move on media and responsibilities from Parks and Recreation and Marine to the Public Works Department, including in preparation of structural transfer of budget and positions effective on or before January 2019. Instruct the City Manager to work with development services to implement a comprehensive tracking system for code enforcement violators and violations with special attention to proactive rental housing inspections to better understand the effectiveness of the program. Motion to Expand the purpose of the 200,001 time funds for Youth. And at this time, I'd like to request a friendly amendment to supplement it with 100,000 contingent appropriation for senior programing so moved by our Austin are so friendly by Councilmember Austin in the city manager's proposed budget for youth and children support to include senior programs. The use of these funds to be proposed and managed by parks, to be proposed by Parks and Recreation and Marine and managed accordingly with their recommendation. Receiving input on selection of the citywide programing by the Commission on Youth and Families and the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. For each respective fund to be forwarded for approval by the PSC by January 2019, recommend the Water Commission to work with the Public Works Department on finding creative solutions to reduce water usage in the city medians and explore collaborations with the Metropolitan Water District mission for the Airport Department to continue to work towards establishing a plane landing viewing area for fiscal year 19. Direct the Chief of Police to find resources to grow the Reserve Police Officer program with special attention on the recruitment of retirees. Motion to redistribute the to an excuse me. I'm sorry that wasn't in your original motion from the EEOC. So is that an amendment to your original to the motion as it was. Originally in section H of subsection F, but since it had no fiscal impact and section F now has a fiscal impact, I moved it up, if that's okay. I'm not seen where you. Where you have that. Sorry. It was the second to the last motion capital letter F with sub letter D. F.D. says resources to Grow Reserve Officer Program. Correct. Copies of these? No. Yes. The modified version from B or C, the first version before the amendments. Motion to redistribute the 215 special advertising and promotion fund. One time funding currently budgeted for one Beat Street's event two fund to smaller quarter activations that consider prior activations and successes opportunities for collaboration of multiple districts and interests from the businesses in those areas to be supplemented with Metro Grant funding if available. Motion four Library to find one time savings and Fiscal Year 19 to continue current Sunday library hours of operation through the end of calendar year 18 with and recommend that staff review the potential seven day library model with stakeholders and present options and alternatives to the City Council during this time period and report back to the Council on both branch and main library options. Now we're going on to the second set of motions. And later, the projected fiscal year shortfall and the fiscal policies proposed by the BRC. Have staff bring back a list of positions that were general fund enhancements recommended for structural funding within the last five years that staff structurally funded them with the General Fund for Review by the Bossie Motion to expand the use of Tidelands budgeted overtime currently allocated to Tidelands South Division Patrol overtime to include all Tidelands areas at the discretion of the Chief of Police and increase the appropriation by 25,000 in the title and Operating Fund for Police Overtime. Motion to Reverse and restore the police department's downgrade of the sergeant to police officer and fund this restoration by reallocating the 25 of general fund budgeted. Budgeted savings from the overtime motion. See motion to support Mayor Garcia's proposed budget recommendations with the following adjustments. First of all, add in what we just said, including bring back any staff recommendations for fee schedule changes to the body, including the results of the Parks and Rec and the development services changes as requested by Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilmember Pearce a moment ago. Use of the 315 of the general fund one time savings from health care cost savings and supplement with 315 of the projected fiscal year 18 year end close to fund the mayor's general fund recommendations proportionately, which means fully because it now is restored to the 630 of the total fy19 p one times carve out at least 10,000 for native language signage in communities with the greatest number of non-English-speaking residents with the highest priority given to Spanish and Cambodian dialects within the FBI, 19 LRP one time funds a comprehensive study and evaluation of the LAPD program shall be conducted with results reported back to the City Council before determining FY 20 priorities. Use the remaining health care cost savings of 315 for capital infrastructure or existing city programing with the programmatic portion not to exceed 20% per district to be divided equally between the council districts for district priorities. Any exception to the policy must go to the City Council for Approval Program 185,000 of year end and create a fiscal year 19 contingent appropriation in the following order. 215 to eliminate the tree stump removal backlog citywide 70,000 for Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan 50,000 of one time funding to be used to support efforts around affordable housing and homelessness. Excuse me again, that wasn't in your original recommendation. It was voted on at the B or C, correct? I said modified. I'm sorry, but I think what you were going to read was the motion as recommended out of the block to the council. And then if you want to change it or modify it, I can do. You can. Do. So I have I can follow you to see that this is what was discussed, debated and voted on at the B or C, and. I think I was. So I originally cited any of these changes, and I think we need to follow the process. No problem. I asked if I had to read it and I thought I did not. And I thought we were reading what was voted on at the B or C. And let me make clarifications to that. Make sure everyone that has the information in front of them. I believe that everyone should have the original B or C recommendations that were passed by the committee in front of them. So I think that I think I think I think the the idea was, is that everyone has those in front of them. And Councilman Mongo was reading the changes as she went through this. And so I was going to originally comment on each change, but I thought that you asked me not to. I apologize for misunderstood. That I had asked. In order for the Council to fully understand and debate the proposed changes for the B or C, they need to know what was discussed and voted on and what was approved by the B or C, and then it's up to the body to make any changes, and you can certainly make recommendations. But at this time, what came out of the vote is what is before the council. And then, as you did, I think on the first one that was seconded by Councilmember Austin, you could add delete change. But this is very confusing. Well, I misunderstood the comment that I should save my comments till the end. So they highlighted them in pink to again annotate those at the end. But I am completely happy starting over. Whatever you recommend, sir. So let's let me. Mr. City Attorney. Let me do it. Let me let me let me do this. So I think, first of all, everyone on the body has the original recommendations presented by the council, and I'm going to be in front of them. So I think that those have been passed out and the body does have does have those. And so. That's correct. But the public. Doesn't get that. So I get that. And so so everybody has those. And so we're going to go ahead and do is we'll go back and do read the original B or C recommendations just as the council has in front of them, will read those into the record. And then after that we'll go back and make the change. But I think there's just a misunderstanding. So I think we're all trying to do the same thing. So that's fine. That makes sense. And let me also see. Okay, that's good. Let's go back. Let's going to we're going to read the original B or C recommendations into the record. Would you like me to read them in their entirety, or would you like me to pause where I think in the future we might add? Okay. Okay. I revise to the following motion to provide the following direction to city staff that do not have fiscal impact. Explore a pilot program at McBride Teen Center for Workforce Programing that prepares our youth for the workforce and explores the possibilities of transferring teen centers from Parks and Rec to workforce leadership in 2019. Instruct Parks and Recreation to implement posting park reservations, starting with field reservations, then community rental space by January one with all reservations to follow. Move all media and responsibilities from Parks and Rec and Marine to the Public Works Department, including an appropriate, appropriate structural transfer of budget and positions effective on or before January 2019. Instruct the City Manager to work with development services to implement a comprehensive tracking system for code enforcement violations with special attention to proactive rental housing inspection to better understand the effectiveness of the program. Motion to Expand the purpose of the 200,001 time funds in the city manager's proposed budget for youth and children support to include senior programs . The use of this fund is to be proposed and managed by Parks, Recreation and Marine and Workforce, receiving input on selected selection of the citywide programing by the Commission on Youth and Families and the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission to be forwarded for approval by the Boise Budget by January 2019. Recommend the Water Commission to work with Public Works Department on finding creative solutions to reduce water usage in the city medians and explore collaborations with the MWD motion for the Airport Department to continue to work towards establishing a plane viewing landing of plane landing viewing area in fiscal 19 Motion to redistribute the 2/15 as AP funds currently budgeted for one beach streets event to fund two smaller quarter activations that consider prior activation successes, opportunities for collaboration of multiple districts and interest from the businesses in those areas to be supplemented with Metro grant funding as available motioned for the library to find one time savings in fiscal year 19 to continue current Sunday library hours of operation through the end of the 2018 calendar year and recommend that staff review the potential seven day library model with stakeholders and present options and alternatives to City Council during this time period and report back to council on both branch and main library options. Any questions before I go to the next main motion? Councilmember we have a quick question on item A in the in the one about workforce says at 20, I believe it was read into the record 19. Can you clarify is that 19 or 20? It was intended to explore a pilot program in 19 for consideration of potential transfers in 20. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. See. No further questions. I'll move on. Motion to expand the use of title and budgeted overtime currently allocated to Title and South Division Patrol overtime to include all tidelands areas at the discretion of the police chief and increase appropriation by 25,000 in the Tidelands Operating Fund for police overtime. She's. Motion to reverse and restore the police department. The city manager's recommendation for a police department downgrade of a sergeant to a police officer, and from this restoration by reallocating the 25 of general fund budgeted overtime to the sergeant. This is slightly out of order. But sticking with Tidelands because we were out of order at the prior council meeting. Motion to Modify City Manager's Proposed Fiscal Year 19 Tidelands Capital Projects to prioritize community serving projects for this round of Tidelands funding decreased the Alamitos Bay parking improvements by 250,000 and defer a million in the Convention Center arena and critical improvements to a later funding cycle. Reallocate these funds to the following projects. 850,000 for the Alamitos Beach concession stand, bringing the total for 19 projected allocation to 1.3 million. 1.35 million, I'm sorry, another 50,000 to begin the PD six waterfront visioning process, 250,000 for the Granada Beach Concession Stand and playground project. That's the end of Thailand's. Motion to support the Mayor's proposed budget recommendations with the following adjustments use of 350,000 and General Fund one time savings from health care. Cost savings to fund the Mayor's General Fund recommendations proportionately of the total fy19 LPI one time funds carve out at least 10,000 for native language signage in communities with the greatest number of non-English speaking residents with the highest priority given to Spanish and Cambodian dialects within the Fy19 LPI one time funds. A comprehensive study and evaluation of the LA program shall be conducted with results reported back to the City Council before determining the LEP 2520 priorities. These remaining health care savings cost of 315 for capital infrastructure or existing city programing with the programmatic portion not to exceed 20% per district to be divided equally by the City Council districts for district priorities. An exception to the policy must go to the City Council for approval. Motion for the staff to report back to the BMC with recommendations on year end priorities when 518 year end savings are determined after Fy18 fiscal year end close, that can include the possible funding of the following items Parks and Rec Strategic Plan seven D Library Model Elimination of Tree Stump Removal Backlog Resources to grow the Reserve Police Officer Program 50,000 of one time funding to be used to support efforts around affordable housing and homelessness, remaining the remaining 50% of the mayor's proposals and funding needs for library hours. With a discussion point that we stated that at a prior meeting. I would also make the motion to adopt the City Council's financial policies with amendments as recommended by the BOC on August 14th, 2018. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman Mongo. So let me make a suggestion of how we move forward. So everyone has the BFC recommendations as approved out of the committee. They've been they've been read into the record. What I'd like to do is let's go continue to go through the items and as an item comes up that has a that has that there is a recommended change from the BSE chairwoman. Then we will do those as we go. So they're read separately through each individual item, and I think that'll help us stay organized. So let's move on to the next item, which is 1.6. Or we can read that Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider third-party appeals (APL17-020 and APL17-021) from Bea Bea Jiménez, David White, Karin McGinley, Tino Haramis, Kazumi Hiromoto, Tetsu Hashimoto, and Warren Blesofsky (representing Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development); Adopt resolution finding that the 320 Alamitos Project is consistent with the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report and subject to the Downtown Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and making certain findings and determinations related thereto; and Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Site Plan Review (SPR17-001) and Lot Merger (LM17-002) for the construction of a seven-story, 77-unit residential development at 320 Alamitos Avenue in the Downtown Planned Development District (PD-30). (District 2)

LongBeachCC_11142017_17-0933

Well, thank you and thank you to all that were involved in our presentations today. We're now moving on to the rest of the agenda on the city council. We have a long agenda, so we're going to start with like we always do our hearings. So we have one hearing tonight, and that is a hearing on 320 Alamitos. And so I'm going to begin the hearing and just in just a minute. Okay. I can please have the city clerk please introduce the hearing. Hearing item one is a development is from development services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, concluded the public hearing and considered third party appeals from Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development, a resolution finding that the 320 Elevators project is consistent with the Downtown Plan Program, Environmental Impact Report and subject to the Downtown Plan Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and uphold the Planning Commission's decisions to approve a site plan, review and lot merger for the construction of a seven story 77 unit residential development at 320 Alamitos Avenue in the Downtown Planet Development District, District two. Thank you. And before we move on, I was just asked just because there's a lot of folks here that are not here for the hearing. And so just from from a timing perspective, the hearing is going to come up, which we just started, and then we will go right into the items for the evening. Those that are here for the Innovation Center item that's at the top of the agenda. We're going to go right into both the issues on equal employment and language access and the recreational pot issue, which I think we're most people are here for. So those will all be taking at the start of the regular items. And so we'll try to get through the hearing as expeditiously as possible and then we'll get to the other items as well. So thank you for the reading of the of the hearing item. If I could turn this over now to Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will hear a staff report from Kari Tai, our current planning officer. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. This is an appeal. Of the Planning Commission's approval of this project as a site plan review for a 77 unit residential development at 320 Alamitos Avenue in the downtown of the Downtown Area Plan Development District 30. The project is located within the city's downtown plan. It's on the east side of Alamitos Avenue. There's an aerial on the screen. The project site. Serves as a private surface parking lot. You see this on the larger side here. And then there's a smaller parcel that currently has the billboard on it. Sometimes it has a medical center billboard, and right now I think it has Honda on it. And then those so those two parcels comprise the project site. Surrounding properties include an auto repair facility, a four story residential. Building. To the east there. And auto I'm sorry, auto repair and small scale commercial to the north. So that's across fourth street. Across the street from the project site on Alamitos is a professional office building and then to. The south is a commercial building that has a that has their surface parking lot right on the corner. And this is going to follow with some photographs. So this is the. Surface parking lot. It's currently leased. To, I guess, monthly subscribers through. An Internet site. And then also. This is the. Photograph of the site that has the billboard on it. So about the project. The proposed project is a seven. Storey residential building. It would contain 77 dwelling units based on the downtown plan parking requirement. 97 parking spaces are required and 108 are being provided. I think the slide says 105. However, since the appeal was logged and since this presentation was prepared, there has been a refinement to the plan where three additional stalls are actually located on the on the. On the, in the garage. And therefore, please note that correction the unit mix includes four lofts, 29 studios, a 31 bedroom unit and 14 two bedroom units. And basically the configuration of the building is that the parking and then the ground floor uses take up the first two levels and then floors three through seven are the residential units. There are tenant tenant amenities included as part of this building, including a roof roof entertainment area, basically a roof deck and a community room, as well as private open space in the form of various balconies, patios and terraces. And that is a combination of common open space as well as private balconies for the units. So this is a site plan that's on the screen. Note that it is oriented with the north to your left, and so Alamitos is shown at the bottom. There are two site access points for vehicle for vehicles. One is from Third Street, the other is from Alamitos Avenue. Due to the there's due to the linear nature of the building that the two access points really. Facilitate the circulation and usability of. The garage. One thing I'd like to point out while we have the site plan on, is that the. Building is. Really oriented toward the Alamitos frontage. There's a this is the seven story portion, and the portion on Third Street is a slightly lower at six stories. And there is a significant rear setback. That is a. Courtyard on the top of the second level. And so the really the building. Units all set toward the. Front and the courtyard. Is what is directly adjacent to that existing four story. But multifamily residential. Building. So to talk a little more. About the building itself, the architecture of the building is a clean, modern esthetic with pedestrian oriented ground floor spaces, and that is intended to continue to establish a connection between pedestrians on the sidewalk and passers by on Alamitos. A to the actual actual building. The building exterior materials feature wood stained laminate panels, a gray metal panels and smooth stucco framing elements. There's a substantial amount of glazing to afford, a lot of openness to the building as well. And I did talk about the building massing. And this this particular rendering shows that the building is up toward Alamitos. But in the plans that were included in your packet, there are different renderings and there is a point of view that shows the courtyard as well. The building also incorporates. A number of sustainable green building features, including efficient mechanical and lighting systems. The actual exterior materials and window systems are also included to better insulate and better for the building to meet the green building standards. Cool paving and also drought tolerant landscaping per the Downtown Plan program are mitigation measures which this project is also subject to. The project must exceed. 20% increased efficiency over the current building code standards. And so that does include having solar ready for the roof and also any other energy efficient measures that power the building. Lastly, a shade and shadow study was. Prepared and included with your plans. All built proposed buildings that are 75 feet and over in the downtown plan require a shade and shadow study as part of the follow up environmental review for the Downtown Plan projects. This project is actually under that 75 feet threshold. However, the Shade and shadow study was done nonetheless to show whether there would be shadow impacts on the adjacent building. And one of the features of this building was. That was to orient the massing toward Alamitos to minimize any shadowing effects on that adjacent apartment building. In terms of downtown plan consistency. The project complies with all of the downtown plan development standards and by development standards that means height, floor area ratio, open space parking, etc. This this includes actually meeting and exceeding the required parking by one space. There is also the added benefit of having the billboard on the corner removed, as the Council is aware. There has been an effort throughout the city as a whole to eliminate non-conforming billboards and ones that are not in compliance with the city's current billboard ordinance. And that would be one of the benefits of this project as well. With regard to environmental review, the downtown plan included the program Environmental Impact Report that analyzed the impacts of development of development within the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan EIA programs are. New about what development intensity and development density would be anticipated, but did not know what the actual form or configuration of the actual development projects would be. And therefore, every project is subject to some level of follow up environmental review. That environment environmental compliance checklist was prepared. And found that the project does not have any new significant impacts that were not analyzed by the downtown plan either. And therefore the project does not. Warrant further environmental review. With regard to the Planning Commission's initial action on August 17th, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project. There was a public hearing and the majority of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Within the ten day appeal period. Two separate parties have filed appeals and I should note that the two parties consist of. One of them consists of multiple people who the names are listed on the screen, but I will not read them. And the and the appeals contended that the project conflicts with the downtown plan and that the project introduces environmental impacts that were not identified based on the environmental compliance checklist and the analysis of the program, EMR, as well as the compliance with the development standards. The staff finds that the grounds for the appeal are not warranted. Based on the project's consistency with both the. Downtown Plan, Development Standards and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The project was found to be in compliance, and therefore a staff recommends that the planning the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve this project. And that concludes my presentation and we are available for any questions. Thank you very much for the presentation from staff. And so we do have comments first from the applicant. So Mr. Mes, do we have are we doing 10 minutes for the applicant or are you doing 15? Okay. So we'll do our we'll do 10 minutes less as a request for more time. We will do 10 minutes for the applicant, which will go first, then we'll be then the appellant. I believe there are the two separate appellants. Is that correct? Mr. Mayes There's two sets of appellants, but one of the appellant groups listed a number of people. I think there's six altogether. I don't know if they're all here or not, if they're or if they are appointing a representative to speak for them. Okay. And so what we'll do is we'll do we're going to do one the applicant then one of the appellants will go. We'll go. Then the second group, which is a group of appellants, hopefully they have assigned someone to speak for that, for that group of appellants. And if that's something different, please let the clerk know and we'll try to fix that if that's not the case currently. So we're doing the applicant ten minute, 10 minutes applicant 10 minutes, the appellant another 10 minutes of the second appellant Then the applicant gets a rebuttal of about 3 minutes. Three or 4 minutes, is that correct? That's great. Okay, so why don't we begin unless there's any objection to that from those that are and that are the appellants. We'll move forward with that process. And the applicant, please, can come forward. Three. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for all the council members that's present over here. My name is Justine Lagarde and I'm the. Owner of the Arrow, the given. I'm sorry we didn't take an oath for first, so let me make sure we do an oath for everyone that's going to be speaking. So, Madam Clerk, can you do the oath for everyone that is going if we are one of the speakers tonight or if you're going to comment, please stand and raise your right hand and take the oath from the clerk. You in 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. Why don't you go and begin again? Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you all the council members. My name is Justine Lark's body and me. I'm the. Proud owner of the. 320. Kilometers vacant. Land. And I'm very, very proud to present the whole project. We think it's one of the great project. That is going to be making the Long Beach. You know, I know all those areas and everywhere else. It's got to be something that people will be looking forward to. Look at it, look at the project. I'm going to give it to Michael Bond and he can explain the project and. I'll be still available over here to. Michael Bond. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Michael Bond. I'm a senior principal with Studio 111. We're an architecture, urban design and landscape office. Just a side note, we just found out this week that we are not only LEED Platinum as an office, but we are also now, well, gold, the first architectural office on the West Coast. And we just won an award for office, which gets us to 20 awards. Ten of them proudly, I can say, are in Long Beach. But with that, this is the plan that shows in the black rectangle. Our site you can see two circles. One is a five minute walk, the other one is a ten minute walk. And what we what we've learned is that and academics have said that a five or ten minute walk is something if it's a good environment that people can go to. So within a ten minute walk, we can get to the blue line. We also had done some research on Watch Walk Score, which if you're familiar with, is a third party that analyzes the site and determines the walkability bike ability and transit ability of somebody living there and how they can move around without a car to create or to fulfill their daily errands. And on this particular site, the walkability is 94, which is actually a walkers paradise. From a bike mobility perspective, it is an 87, which is it means it has excellent bicycle infrastructure. And from a transit perspective, it is a 77 which is still determined as very high. So with that, we wanted to look at show this diagram here and on the ground floor, as the city had mentioned, we do have a very active ground floor and located in orange here. There's a fitness center at the corner. We have a lobby, we have leasing, we have a bike, kitchen. And then at the other side, as you get closer to Fourth Street along Alamitos, we do have lofts for lofts that are on the ground floor to create a very active edge, which cars just cannot provide when you're a pedestrian in the downtown. Also, we have a rooftop amenity located up here with great views of the ocean and the East Village as well as Alameda Speech. We have open space on the roof with great ocean views for all the residents. We also have another deck on this side and then, as was mentioned earlier, a podium down below. If you take all the square footage of those spaces, we actually are close to double the amount of open space that's required for this project. We are not asking for any variances in terms of parking. We are required 97. We are providing 11 more stalls for a total of 108. Another way to look at it is if you provided one parking stall per bedroom, we would still have an extra 17 parking stalls for guests or spillover within the development itself. This is a view looking north on Alamitos, a third street. You can see the ground floor is very glassy, very open, very inviting for people walking along the street. And then we did step the building closer to third down a floor. You can see a little bit of the amenity room up above. But it does step down and step back from the adjacent residential area. And then this is a view looking south on Alamitos. We did pull the metal in the front building as a material to relate in an abstract way to the Villa Riviera metal roof. And then you see the balconies and how they are faceted and they actually relate to the circular tower, which is not really a truly circular building. It's actually faceted if you look at it closer. And that's known as International Tower. So we wanted to play off those facets and take advantage of the views down Alamitos towards the ocean as well as northward. There is a lot of wood material to bring warmth to a very contemporary building and to make it more attractive for the community. This is the courtyard that was mentioned. On the left side is the taller portion of the building. It's four storeys high. We have a 35 foot wide courtyard and then a ten foot gap between our building and the adjacent building. So from the new residents living on the left side to the existing residence, there is a distance along most of the site of 45 feet. And then walking along Alameda southward, you can see the live work units on the left side or I should say loft units. And then as you walk further down, they're activated by the other uses, like the bike kitchen and the leasing office and lobby. And then finally we have a section here that's cut east west. So on the left side, you see Alamitos. And as was mentioned by Kerry, the highest portions of the building are on Alamitos, so that the math does not minimizes the shading on adjacent buildings. You can see it steps down one floor towards the eastern side. And then there is a significant, as I mentioned earlier, 45 feet from this wall to this wall. That creates an open space between the two buildings. And with that, this concludes our presentation. We think this, as I mentioned earlier, it conforms with the downtown plan. Our city, our region, our state desperately needs more housing. And this is going to be one project that could provide some assistance in that issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, we have our two groups of appellants. Our first first appellant, Mr. Borowski, is here. And we're going to go ahead and allow or we do want the other appellant group to go first. Okay. Okay. Sure. Then we will have our other appellant request, which is a variety of folks, and we'll set the clock again for 10 minutes. Whenever they begin, we'll we'll start. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And members of the City Council. Yes, it's me. I'm here representing our our H-2A, which is lost on fourth. And we are adjacent to the building, but we're across the street on Alamitos. We have some comments. We we prepared a PowerPoint for you guys to show us art, show you our perspective on this particular project. But before we do, I'd like to thank Councilwoman Gonzalez and peers who have spent time with us to sit down and listen to our concerns. And with that information, we've been able to prepare this PowerPoint. Thank you. My name is Bebe Jimenez. I'm on the board for the Locks on Forth Association. I'm here representing the appellants Tino HARAMIS, Karen McGinley, Tetsuya Hashimoto and Kazumi Harimoto first item. Let's go ahead and begin who we are. Who are we? We're long term neighborhood stakeholders. We're homeowners. We've been in this neighborhood, in our building since the beginning of redevelopment. Our building was built by redevelopment. We're residents who chose a friendly neighborhood close to the downtown core, but with an easier pace, a little bit slower. We're supporters of compatible development. We support projects that respect our neighborhood. We're not NIMBYs. One of the appellants is a real estate broker. I've worked on both the public and private side of residential development throughout my career, and we support projects that follow the rules. I'm drawing your attention now to the downtown plans. Our opposition to this project really is rooted in the downtown plan. We see that as a good based document that allows for reasonable development that sensitive to our neighborhood. The downtown plan says that good design usually results from projects that were conceived in their total and respond sensitively to their immediate context. The following standards and guidelines underscore design principles intended to produce good buildings, great streets, and memorable places. Standards per the downtown plan standards identify requirements. Guidelines should be addressed with all development projects. Alternatives will be permitted only if the intent of the design guideline is met again. Standards equal requirements are issued relative to 320. Alamitos specifically relates to standard number two new buildings should respect the scale of adjacent structures and respond to their elements in an appropriate manner. And number three, new buildings should be bold and innovative and promote a forward looking identity for downtown Long Beach. Architectural design standards or design guidelines are also included. The applicant proposes a mid-rise design. We actually think a low rise building is more appropriate for this location. But even presuming a mid rise design, the guidelines indicate that the massing and design of mid-rise buildings should be sensitive to the adjacent scales and carefully address the transition to lower height structures that may exist or may be anticipated on the same block. The project fails to meet standard number two new buildings to respect the scale of adjacent structures. Seven storeys is out of scale and inappropriate for this neighborhood. The adjacent buildings are all low rise. Building buildings, no mid-rise buildings, no seven storeys. Most buildings, again, are one and two stories in height. The project fails to meet architectural guideline that I met, the architectural guideline that I mentioned before, that the massing and design of mid-rise buildings should be sensitive to adjacent scales and carefully address the transition to lower height structures. The proposed project is significantly taller, therefore insensitive to the scale of the adjacent buildings. The transitions that it would create would be jarring and abrupt, as there are no seven story buildings or any buildings near that height adjacent to the proposed project site. Again, this is our neighborhood. The project site is identified in red. This I'm going to go through quickly some slides of the surrounding streets so you can see for yourselves what the adjacent building heights are. This is a northbound view of Alamitos in third Street. You can see a two story motel to the left and three and four story condos at the Seaside Villas immediately adjacent to the project site. This is a misleading and false context represented by the renderings included in the plan package from the developer. The building to the far left where the arrow is pointed does not exist. The South bound view of Alamitos in Third Street. Again, one story apartments, one story auto repair, two story apartments, one story auto, and a two story motel. Again across the street. 38 Alamitos. One story. Two story, one story. Another misleading rendering that's included in the plan package, these two buildings to the far left corner. They don't exist. They appear to give us some dimension and height to the surrounding context, but they don't do not exist. Again, here we are at Alamitos and Fourth Street, giving you some more perspective. Again, two storey apartments to the left. One story, smog shop living room is just off the screen. You can't see it, but it's a one storey bar. I'm sure some of you may have visited it from time to time. To the right is two storey condos. Here's another misleading, misleading rendering showing distorted scale. This is also from the project plans. The Villa Riviera and the international towers are not this large when you view them from this location. Here's the actual photo of that location and look at how far those two buildings are in the background. Once again, we're looking here northbound view of Alamitos and fourth, two storey condos, one storey retail, two storey apartments and retail, one and two story motorcycle and auto, no. Seven stories. Once again, viewing towards Alamitos off a fourth. One story. One story. One story. No, seven stories. Here we go. West Bound View of Fourth Street. Alamitos. Two Story. 2.5 stories. One Story. 320 Alamitos fails to meet the standards, also that the new buildings should be bold and innovative and promote a forward looking Long Beach identity or identity for downtown knowledge. The design is not bold. It's not innovative. Many similar projects look like this in Long Beach. Everybody is doing it now, including Studio 111. It's now becoming a cookie cutter approach. And unfortunately, we have a lot of these now in downtown Long Beach. Here we go. This architect in particular likes to use a lot of heavy horizontal lines, giving the building, has a lot of heavy massing, giving it a very block like appearance. You'll see this repeated over and over. This is another project downtown fourth and land in heavy horizontal lines, heavy massing. Here we are, 1235 Long Beach Boulevard. Heavy horizontal lines. Heavy massing. Another same example at 245 West Broadway. And again, glass at the bottom. The glass lobby seems to be a trend. And here's one from Glendale Arts Colony. I found this one online also by Studio 111. Look at that. And now here's the Long Beach version of the Glendale Arts Project. Well, shall we look at that one more time? Look at that. Wow. Look at the paneling up there at the right. We just get all the paneling in this version. Right. Okay. So I'm going to try to hurry hurry this up. The site plan review findings, we found some inconsistencies and errors. Errors. Their exhibit C says the design wouldn't remove any significant trees, but it also says that the Billboard parcel contains two mature eucalyptus trees. I'm not sure who decides what's significant, but they're significant to us if you can see them here. These are the two largest trees, trees on Forest Street, probably in the East Village. For us, they're neighborhood markers. They provide character, they soften the corner and they identify this place as our home. Also, we talked about shadows study. The shadow study that is in the staff report or in the plans is not adequate. Also, one thing to note, your resolution says that the building is 75.5 feet in height, the resolution you're being asked to approve. But the Sigma document says at 74.5 feet, as does the staff report. I'm not sure which is which, but this is too bad that we're here trying to play guessing games because one automatically triggers the requirement for a Shade Street study. There was a shadow or shade study that was included in plans. It's not complete and it doesn't meet the requirements. It doesn't provide calculations. It's unclear who, if anyone, verified those calculations or verified the shade study is accurate. We consider ourself to be a resident, a sensitive youth staff, and their own secret document says it's unclear what a sensitive use is. We say we're a sensitive use. This photo was taken from a window in our condo complex seven in the morning, October 4th. A seven story building will block our morning sun and put us in the shade. Our building, we consider ourselves sensitive to light sensitive uses because we have large windows, extensive glazing skylights, clear story windows, and it's all designed to minimize the electrical usage. We rely on it a lot to light up our homes without using electricity. In addition, there are other flaws in the secret analysis that was included with the Planning Commission staff report. The analysis indicates that the project would not conflict with any any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. Thank you so much. And so I know the time that the time is up on this hour. It is the last thing you want to say to conclude. And then we'll turn over to the second appellant. Sure. Well, I would encourage you to go through and review the rest of the PowerPoint if they're able to send it to you electronically. The project is flawed. It doesn't follow the standards. The developer's going to tell you he spent a year developing the project and trying to come up with a good design. During that year, he never spoke to us. If he was smart, he would have spent that year trying to make a project that fits the standards. That follows the standards. It's a tough site, I get it. But there standards in place. You can go 80 feet. Yes. But if you meet the standards and I think everyone should keep in mind that there's a lot of folks who are concerned about the land use element. And part of their concern is that when things get approved, that the rules that get put in place sometimes oftentimes are not followed. We're asking for you tonight to do is to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the project and show everyone show all of us that the rules will be followed. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. And make it clear, Mr. Brewer, cruise control. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Warren Lisowski. I represent Lombard, Citizens for Fair Development. Our mission statement is to preserve and protect the architectural, historical, environmental and community resources of the city of Long Beach, and to guarantee that development in the city is carried out in a manner that reflects the principles of equity, social justice, responsible management of the public's resources. I would like to thank the other appellant for just doing an amazing job of showing how this project does not conform to the downtown plan under Sequa. And I'd like to continue to contextualize what her comments were about the land use element. I think this is the largest uprising of public dismay in the city, probably since the 1991 riots. We had these meetings that the city held after demands at the Planning Commission's study session when the Planning Commission did not want to recommend the land use element and staff insisted it was going to be presented to the Council anyways . Part of this anger that surrounding the Louis and this project is the way that the city uses a program, air program each year under secure were not intended to be the end of environmental review for a project. They were meant to be part of a hearing that happened so that further environmental review can be done. And the way that these program ers are used by the city is to cease to do further environmental input. Like the previous appellant was saying, if the developer would have simply came and talked to them, they could have made some changes to the development. And you'll see that throughout this entire process on this development, there there's been a large amount of community input and there's been absolutely no changes in the project. So what is the community input doing and what effect does it have? Basically none. When this when this project came before the planning commission, there was at least 30 to 40 members of the community. And most of them, the vast majority of them, spoke against the project and complained about parking ratios. Also, if you go ahead and look at the exhibit that was included with the staff report, there's about 40 letters from the public of which 39 of them are against the project due to the lack of parking and only one in support from the downtown business district. There's a problem with the staff's instructions to both this body and the Planning Commission. The staff seems to think that the Planning Commission and the City Council don't have a choice or say on anything and very often tell the Planning Commission in response to questions. You have to approve this. You don't have the right to to disapprove this. And in fact, if we look at the Planning Commission's website, it says that the Planning Commission is does numerous requests from developers for administrative use permit, standard variances, etc., etc.. So these are requests from the applicants. These are not demands that the Planning Commission has to rubber stamp. And in fact, we don't know why. Commissioner Van Horwich The Chairperson abruptly quit in the middle of her term. We don't know why, but she did say at the Planning Commission study session, when the Planning Commission chose not to recommend the L'ue maps to the City Council, she said, I'm paraphrasing, are we meant to just rubber stamp this? Do we get a say on anything? That was one of her last meetings. So I think the Planning Commission themselves is sensing some of the frustration that's going on with the instructions being give to them, be given to them specifically as it relates to this project. When this project came before, Planning Commission Commissioner Richard Lewis recused himself from the vote. I believe that was due to the fact that he is the principal developer. But if we look at the city ethics guide, it says that if there's a conflict, a conflict of interest on page nine could be if you are an officer, director, partner, employee or a trustee or manager of a company with business before you, department or board. Well, he clearly recused himself for a reason. But when you look at page 13. I'm sorry, Page. Page 12 when it says, What are the remedies to a conflict? I'm sorry? Page ten, what are the remedies? Abstain from the vote. And also, number two, you must publicly disclose the interest in the subject of potential conflict. It's my recollection that Commissioner Lewis did not give the public or the rest of the commission the reason or his interest in the developer during that recusal. I think that's problematic when when a commissioner recuses himself. I believe it has a chilling effect on the rest of the commission. How are you supposed to vote against the projects that your fellow commissioners have an economic interest in? Also on page eight of the city's guide to two Conflicts of Interest Ethics Guide, it says The state law prohibits you from being financially interested in any way in a city contract. If your duties call on you to participate in any way or any stage in the approval of the contract. Now, I'm not an attorney, but maybe the Mr. Mayor, the city council might want to ask the city attorney, does this development deal and the conditions of development constitute a contract between Mr. Lewis as a developer and the city of Long Beach? So I think it's problematic. I think Commissioner Lewis should decide does he want to be a developer or does he want to be a planning commissioner? That's only fair to the people of Long Beach. The specifics of this project, I've given you all a copy of a letter that we've written. It goes over the specific reasons under Sequoia Y, the Y in air or further environmental studies are needed on this. And I just wanted to say that, you know, we're here to speak for for the for the people that don't have a voice. 3 minutes in this chambers is really not enough time to express the needs that the community has. If you look through the letters in the attachments that staff has given you, one woman has a story of, you know, being assaulted because she had to park so far away from her place, from her house, coming home late at night. And these stories are just really heart wrenching. So, you know, where do we go from here? We don't want to litigate this. That's that's not our intention. We just want some community involvement and sequel is there for community involvement. And so when the city continues to use program ERs to avoid community involvement, other sequel, that's when we have a problem. That's when appeals happen. So we ask this body to send this back to the Planning Commission. And, you know, why is this so important? It's just one development. You know, democracy. If you look at Washington, it's broken right now. I mean, we've got our the people's attorney up there lying in front of Congress. And so why is this important? It's important because for the residents of Long Beach, we depend on this body to be our local functioning democracy. We depend on you to be a progressive decision making body that represents the people of Long Beach. And so when you see such a vast outpouring of dismay over the lack of parking and the outsized scale of this building, simply following the guidelines under Sequoia could have given community input and could have made this project more agreeable to everyone involved. So I think in closing, we'd just like to give, I think Studio 111 could get one more award and it's the architectural firm that's, you know, least considerate of what the needs of downtown Long Beach residents are. Thank you. Thank you. So we have an opportunity for if the applicant wants to give any sort of additional rebuttal closing comments. I think we said 3 minutes, Mr. Mays, is that correct? Okay. Good evening. My name is John Mendis. I am the construction manager for the project. I'm part of this project. I think it's a beautiful project and I recognize the concerns that were here regarding parking in the community. And I think we knew coming in that this was going to be a challenging parking site and project because the adjacency to a residential area and it's the border of really where the urban part of the city meets the residential part of the city. That being said, it is. That being said, it's Alamitos Boulevard. It's an urban street. And we feel the scale is in proportion to what that large wide street carries. The adjacent building is in scale to residential, to low mid-rise, to a taller building. And we're comfortable with that and we believe it's a very attractive, good looking project. That being said, I want to address several of the comments that were addressed that I felt were need to be addressed directly. First of all. I'm the construction manager for the project. I was hired by Mr. Luck's body, Dr. Luke's body. And our job is to shepherd it through the entitlement process. I am the owner of Share of Ice 100%. Richard Lewis has no financial interest in this project. And I will just say that that statement that was made was untrue. I have a financial disclosure with the city as I am also commissioner, and you can confirm that. Secondly, I'm proud of the work that Studio 111 has done in this city. And I think there are great financial I'm sorry, business partner to the city. I think they've done wonderful work there and extremely committed to this city and they've done great work. And I think we need to support that. I think this is a super design and I. I urge you supported this project tonight, and I thank you for your time. Thank you. With that, we are going to go ahead and close the hearing and do public comment, of course. And then and then we will the council. So if you if you're commenting, please come forward now. Well, obviously, we have a long night ahead of us. So please just give us your your opinion and we'll move on to the next person and we will conclude the hearing at that point. So please say your name and begin. And Prophet and I live at 140 Linden Avenue. I've lived in Long Beach since 1975, and I was very proud of the Planning Commission's decision that they didn't want to approve this, but they were told by staff that they had to. It's an ugly project. It has nothing to do with the neighborhood. It's not the right thing. I know that you want us to walk everywhere, to bike everywhere, but we have no retail, no viable retail downtown, and we're not going to get it with little pockets of. Businesses on ground floors. At the same meeting where this planning commission did not want to approve this project. They asked that the parking situation be addressed again because let's face it, it's not working. The downtown plan is not working for the people who own property, the people who rent property and the people who do business downtown. It is not working. And I know you all want to fidget and not listen to me, but I'm really not happy about that. I've got a lot of notes here, but they're not working out. You have to wonder why Long Beach Development Services didn't want to look at parking options. It's a big call because they want to have this program air where nobody is involved in anything in the city where they do everything and they cater to the developers. That is not right for those of us who have equity and we're building too many apartments and not enough condos. You're not going to get people with equity in this city. And that's what we need. People who will come here and stay here, not come and be here for two years until their lease is up and then leave so that the apartment can charge more money. There are lots of questions about this place. But the. Bulk of the matter is it's not good for the neighborhood. You have a clear opportunity here. You can side with the people of Long Beach who don't want this project's height, its density, and its lack of viable parking options shoved down our throats. Or you can do your callous disregard for the citizens of Long Beach and show that you really don't give a hoot about any of us. What will it be? Thank you. Next up next, speaker. Good advice. Mr. dan, I just want to make sure that everyone that's speaking is in the line. So I'm going to close the speaker's list. And so the gentleman at the end there will be the last will be the last speaker. Speaking lists is closed. Speaker's list is close. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jim Dan. I live in the Fillmore, a historic district. A couple of things. I promised Kathleen that I would stay on point because there are a lot of items that were mentioned earlier that really upset me from my standpoint here. The key here with the developer and also the people involved is integrity. I have worked with Michael Bond in the senior project in the Willmore Historic District. It was tough because it was an abandoned apartment that got transferred over. There's some pushback. He came in. He was extremely respectful. Every project that he's done is had the utmost integrity. I think a lot of people in this city, this is not Iowa by the sea anymore. They're out of touch on the what the youth is bringing to the city people these days. I'm probably the last person among a lot of people here that could actually could afford to buy their own home. People these days are not buying homes. They're not going to the strip malls. They're not buying expensive cars. It's a different there's riding bikes. They're walking. They're skateboarding. They're spending money on designer drinks. It's great. I wish I could do it. Now, getting back on point. Jordan Davis has worked with us on several community projects. Again, integrity. Sorry, doctor. I don't remember your last name, but your. I applaud you for hiring these two gentlemen and having them associated with your project. Again, integrity. I please. I support this project 100%. It changes difficult. It is the beginning of change for downtown. And again you have to the highest rated people that I can think of that I would want to build my project in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor and Council. My name is Kathleen Irvine and I am a downtown resident. And I have to say that my favorite part of this project is getting rid. Of the horrible billboard. My father was born in Long Beach. I spent most of my childhood here, and I'm happy to see so many wonderful changes happening. There was a very dark period in in Long Beach as history and the newness and the vibrancy of our new downtown is wonderful. I was part of the downtown plan meetings, so I approved it. Despite being a preservationist, I approve of all the things that are going on. I love this project. Michael Bond and J.R. Van Dike do great work. Just because you don't care for that particular look does not mean it's a bad thing. I do not think it. Is correct. To use that as a hammer to stop a project just because you personally do not like the color gray or glass or whatever it is. That is not enough of a reason. And to say claim that a building that is across a large street is adjacent is really not correct. If you look at the dictionary, you would never see adjacent. Define that way. So I appreciate their concerns, but quite frankly, I'm thrilled with this project and I really want you guys to support it and move it forward quickly to get rid of that billboard. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Counsel lived in the second district for over two decades and the East Village. Has character. That's why people move into the second district. This architectural rendering is a cookie cutter, and it makes me wonder if it's prefab material. And then the other thing, why is it. Only 20% efficiency if their lead. To winning 2020 awards for their architecture and green LEED and all that? Why isn't it. More than 20% efficiency? Thirdly, again, you guys are greenlighting all of these new constructions. With no parking permitted for the neighborhood that's been there before. All this. Continual development. Started rushing in. It's not fair. And listening to what was just said what the second appellant with regards to the commission. My goodness you've got you've got commissioners playing both sides of the fence. That's egregious and unethical. And for you all, if you are rubber stamped us and the community is in such an uproar. What do we have you all representing us for? If if that's the case, we've got five, five council seats up for reelection. And it's time, way past time. We're going into the next new year and you got five seats up for reelection and we're continually have to battle. I also want to know what percentage of this is affordable housing, any of it? Is all these new constructions going to be luxury buildings? And the majority of the people that are going to inhabit these apartment buildings are not from Long Beach. So how are you benefiting the 60% of people that are here already if you're not offering any percentage of it as affordable housing mandated by the city council through your charter, all you're doing. Is just luxury, luxury. Luxury all over the place and the integrity of the second street, the second the East Village is shut. Because that's not what me being on the Arts Council Planning Commission the council was supposed to represent in that village area. That's why people move into the village. So I don't approve this. The the the. Seven storey plan, the architecture does not meet the integrity of what the neighborhood looks like. And it's going to impact our parking in addition to the other. New constructions that's going on. And you all have yet to address that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joe Cross and I am an owner of the Loft, one of the units at the Lafayette condominium. I am also a 15 year employee of the related companies, which is a mega developer with dense urban planning skills. I am in favor of this project for a couple of reasons. One, market rate housing is definitely needed in the downtown area. Okay. Secondly, is socioeconomics. I believe the area median income must come up as well. That will help the city drive the quality retail that we sorely needed in the second district. And as well, your goal of bringing more employment to this great city. I think without the housing likely going first, you may not hit those other two goals. But thirdly, and most importantly, I believe in the multifamily concept that it's your sustainability that's built into your downtown plan, the sustainable plan and the city of Delia's plan as well. It clearly states in your plan you are going to get Southern California off of the reliance of the automobile. And without a dense urban plan, you're likely not to hit that. And I truly do support that. I would like to take it one step further, though. As you look towards development in the inner core, with the height restrictions of 250 feet, that you do urban planning that is able to hit a green space development that is not down here to you can easily insert 20% inclusionary housing which is highly successful in the New York City model. And because these projects are built to scale, you can hit parking ratios 2 to 1 that will pencil out to a developer that just takes a little more for planning and getting over a couple of hurdles to where you're currently at. But truly, I do support the project. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And I know the gentleman. The end was the last speaker, so I think we added somebody. That's okay, but I'll be the last speaker. No more. No more speakers. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Members of the city council. My name is Toliver Morris and I'm representing downtown Long Beach Alliance. I'm the former chair and board member for downtown Long Beach Alliance. I wanted to put into the record a multitude of letters that we received from people of downtown and all over the place residents, business owners, property owners who are in support of this project. This is exactly the type of project we need in our downtown. We need lots of these kinds of projects. I'm in the commercial real estate business and bring retail one of the spear heads for retail in downtown. All the retailers who are coming to downtown are counting on these types of projects. The projects that have delivered thus far, the current and the Edison filled up to over 90% in record time, way ahead of schedule. They're doing great. We need more and more of this kind of project. This meets the downtown plan. It also meets with the LBA strategic plan and we are in support of it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Tino HARAMIS. I live across the street from the project and I moved to downtown in 12 years ago. Brand new into the building from sold a house in Belmont Heights in that area. We never had issues like this. All of a sudden. I love our area because it's a diverse area. It's also in our building. We've got some affordable units that have to the people have to live there for 15 years. It shows stability. I feel that it's really and we had also the the city manager the manager of this company come over and talk to us because Janine brought him over and he there seem to be a lot of things he was saying that do not fit into our neighborhood. The first thing he said was the owner bought the lot at a reasonable price, but nothing below a seven building with an underground parking doesn't pencil. Then they couldn't figure out another way to make it more accessible or nicer for the neighborhood. It's called a village. It would bring down the clock. I would move out. If they build, I'll move out. You'll you'll lose one more neighbor. Because I'm not willing to live in a neighborhood with a big, ugly building in the front that does not fit in the. Village at all. The other thing is that those wonderful trees somebody was talking about the billboard. Well, the billboard. I don't even notice it because I notice the trees. It's fantastic. So so maybe they shouldn't you should not combine those lots because those trees are wonderful and we don't have enough green space. We also have to think about the ethical part. We look at the plan. We know it's out of scale. We know they didn't follow the plan. But besides that, what. About making something that also lets people with lower incomes. Be able to live in those apartments? I'm just a man before me. I was just talking about the fact that we want to create more business and make more money. No, we don't necessarily only need money. We need quality of life. We need a community. And you know, we voted for you, Mayor Garcia, because you're innovative, you're young, and you probably understand how wonderful it is to live downtown because of diversity, because we also and it's beautiful to live in a neighborhood. I'm Greek in Belmont Heights. People look at me funny because I was playing Greek music here. I can play any music I want. Nobody looks at me funny. We are very diverse. It's fantastic and I want this diversity. I wanted to stay. Do you think in this building we're going to be as diverse as we have been or they're going to be pretty much pretty wealthy high earners coming in, bring in maybe some money, staying for two years and leaving again. So I like consistency. I love the walkability of our neighborhood. This just doesn't fit. And as the gentleman was saying, I bet you he can find a way to pencil it in and make a lot of money as well. And we can have a nice neighborhood. I would love to see something wonderful in front of our building, but not a seven story. I pay $100 a year, a little under $100 a year for electricity because I have the light. I don't need to use much electricity. I save so much electricity. Now I'm sure my bill is going to go up greatly. So all these things do matter. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. Thank you. I'm Karen McGinley. I'm office on fourth and. I want to thank Bibi for presenting our case so well and also Lina for your assistance. And Miss Pearce, I'll just make a few bullet points. I'm a real estate professional. I've been in Long Beach for 30 years. I moved into the loft on fourth in 2005 with my husband. We've been there 12 years and it is an absolutely spectacular community. As Tino just said, some key issues that I object to as as not only as a real. Estate person, but as a citizen of the redevelopment. Area, downtown Long Beach, no affordable housing element. I think that just cries in the face of what you people say you're going to do, both as a professional and also as a citizen. I also object to the seven stories. The natural light is certainly an issue and the high density impact of traffic is just extraordinary. Already on the Alamitos and forth, and I'm not being rude to the gentleman with regard to traffic. He was kind enough to spend time with us last night, but the road diet isn't working and this isn't going to help, okay? It's going to make it a lot worse. So basically I'm asking to revisit the alum in this project, decrease the number of stories, consider decreasing the number of units, therefore parking and density at an affordable housing. And then you can. Follow the guidelines that you set up. When we started redeveloping downtown Long Beach in the early 2000s. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Debbie Tobias. I live at 100 Atlantic Avenue and I am president of TAPS, a citizens parking group. We oppose the project because it doesn't have enough parking. The city has refused for years to make sure those parking requirements are adequate. Stopping the damage has become an urgent matter. Please get the options for immediate action. Action before approving these buildings. Planning staff is. Following the directives of a previous city council when it comes to the support of the downtown's lowered parking requirements, downtown city councilman Robert Garcia and Switzerland pushed for adoption of the downtown plan, which included the low parking requirements. Council members outside of downtown should realize that these issues are likely to come your way. The the Midtown plan was also was already passed last year. That lowered parking requirements without local data or professional evaluation. During the hearing, the. Planning Commission was told that there is plenty of parking in the area. A commissioner disagreed with that statement after driving. The area at 3:30. P.m.. Planning staff also refuses to include parking guidelines in the alleyway, saying parking will be addressed later in zoning. If you think you can deal with it, then consider how little success we've had fixing this. The downtown plans parking requirements for the new. Buildings were not. Based on data or professional evaluation. Back in 2013, planning staff could not provide anything like that to support one space per unit regulation. For years, seniors planning staff has refused to listen to us the public property managers and owners, business owners, owners, our experienced parking consultant and our lawyers. The only reason there's a parking study coming is because of multiple lawsuits. The California Natural Resources Agency told us that the only way to enforce secret is through litigation. That type of lawsuit requires a great deal of money and time. So those at City Hall who want to continue with the inadequate parking requirements know that they only need to continue saying no. The California Natural Resources Agency also told us that while parking is no longer a secret impact, inadequate parking causes, increased traffic, air pollution and safety issues for pedestrians. Because of the increase in cars circling to find parking in the area. The city can study these impacts to protect our area, or the city can continue to do what they think they can get away with. The choice is yours. This can be fixed, or you can continue with the policies that were pushed into law by a small number of people. Please make sure these new buildings have enough parking for their own use. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Sharon Brown. I'm here reading something for Becky Fisher. She had to leave. She's at 418, Benito. And basically she says there have been numerous studies done indicating that air pollution contributes to Alzheimer's and dementia and people driving around looking for a parking place contributes to the pollution. Last week, Janine Pearce met with local residents to discuss the 320 Alamitos Building. The meeting raised more questions to me than it answered. There are lots of promises made to meet with people before tonight's meeting to provide proof for claims made by staff at planning and council meetings, etc. But to my knowledge, none of this came through . Someone questioned the height of the building saying it's supposed to be in line with the surrounding buildings. Well, it's now she's tells says six stories that's apparent, seven storeys above ground to the four stories above ground next to it. That issue was not addressed. No one could confirm if there's still losing all the parking in front of the building on both sides of Alamitos as originally planned. Nor could they confirm where the claimed 28 new parking places were supposed to be. So no new understanding or clarification to any of our concerns, just promises that did not come to fruition. So on one hand, you have people relating facts that the issues caused harm to the environment and subsequently people, and on the other hand, people just outright denying facts because they don't want to believe. It or. Because it doesn't fit their agenda. The agenda seems to be money, money for business, money for people in power, money for developers. But what about the constituents? If you don't take care of us, who does? The Planning Commission tried. They didn't want to approve the 320 Alamitos, but staff told them they had to. If the Planning Commission can't say no to staff, then why do we have them? If council can't say no to staff, why do we have them? It seems that staff is naming the city, running the city, and they aren't elected. They're hired. So basically we have no representatives and as such, no voice. And thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is. Johanna. Cunningham, the executive director for the Apartment Association. California Southern Cities. I come before you this evening to express my support for the project at 320 Alamitos Avenue. The 77 unit project is a welcome and much needed addition to the downtown area and provides the development of much needed units within the downtown area. Acknowledging the need for housing supply, this project supports that end goal for both tenants and our hometown businesses. Supply is the issue and it is encouraging to see so many residential projects in the process. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you in support. Of the 320. Alamitos Avenue Project, and I hope you'll support the project and future development as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Lynnette Firenze. And to approve a site plan review, positive findings must be made. Finding requires compatibility and design, character and scale with neighborhood structure in the community. The proposed building is 75 feet and seven stories surrounding buildings are 1 to 4 storeys in height. The proposed building is up to six stories taller than nearby buildings. How is this compatible with the surrounding buildings? It is not. The findings don't address the scale, the building approval. The project will result in a loss of privacy, light air and a reduction in property values to the surrounding condominium owners. Most of El Camino speech is 2 to 3 stories. The new U.S. maps released this weekend show Alamitos Beach went from 7 to 4 stories. This height is more appropriate for the neighborhood. The downtown plan has five guiding principles. Number five is working with and for the community. Dozens and dozens of residents have spoken opposition to this project at Planning Commission. Please listen to your community. The same issue is going to come up frequently in the future has the has many 5 to 6 storey heights allowed. Which are adjacent to single family homes. Protect your community. Deny the appeal, and have the developer redesign. To be compatible with the community. Thank you. Thank you. And a loudspeaker, please. Oh, thank you. My name is Neal Baker. I live at 940 East Third Street Towers, two condos, which are less than a block from where the proposed development would be in the second district. Thank you to last on fourth for your great presentation. That was very eye opening and I hope the City Council will take that into consideration. I lived in the area for 15 years now as owner of town home, also served on the board of our building for 13 years and I've seen parking go from bad to worse. I've seen what's happened with development. I think it's a beautiful project that you have there. I think a smaller project would be much better for the area. I think having the trees there, I think having a little open space is very great there. I think not being able to see the sunrise is is really impactful for neighbors. And I think this is going to be I don't want us to be guinea pigs for. What is a larger scale development in a historically smaller, low rise development area? We are a residential area. We're Alamitos Beach or on the east side of Alamitos, where this project is supposed to be. And I just asked that the council take that in consideration. Also, I imagine that people who are going to come and rent in this building are going to be paying at least 1500 dollars a month. I don't think this is going to be low income. And I see that the neighborhood changing and going from more diverse to less diverse. So I don't think that's something that a progressive city like Long Beach wants to do. So I urge the council to vote against this project. Thank you. Well, thank you. That concludes public comment. And so we will now conclude the hearing and go back to the council. And so I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Pearce. Okay. I want to. First state. How much I appreciate those of you that are here today engaged in this process. I know that it's been probably the most debated project that's happened in my district since I've been in office, and it is also the smallest of the projects. And so it's been a really hard time for me because it is a project that's in my neighborhood on the other side of Alamitos, on the east side of the district. That feels very different from being inside the downtown plan. And so this is not a project or a vote. That is an easy process for me. And I think you guys have seen me publicly kind of grapple with a couple of things. So I want to give a little bit of context for some folks and just set how my mind has been going and then ask a couple of questions of staff. I think that, one, when I went through all of the letters, the emails I've received in support and opposed, I had to really figure out what's the majority. And I do want to say I want to thank the community members and yon for joining the District one meeting, which while I would have loved to have invited you, I didn't. You just happened to be there. We were at that meeting and we had a meeting last Wednesday and a couple of one on ones as well. And so we've gone through, in my mind, trying to find out how we make this project fit within the downtown plan and how we mitigate the impacts for residents. So within the downtown plan, I think the argument that I have heard from from staff is contradictory, but with some of the the valley, the views from some community members, but it is the roles were set. And when we look at the things in the areas where we have some arguments around if it conflicts with the downtown plan, one of the questions I have is around the height of the building, and that is one thing that I consistently have said is probably our biggest challenge. So I do want to ask development services, if you could talk a little bit about the downtown plan on the areas that we went over previous today around straddling different height densities. Yes. Councilwoman Pierce, I'm happy to answer that question for you. The the building that's before you tonight is at a height of 74.5 feet in height at seven stories. And the downtown plan, the sub area where this building is located allows a height of up to 80 feet. So the context for that is that the building is located on the east side of Alamitos. And if you look at the boundaries of the specific plan, the specific plan does not divide or bifurcate the downtown plan by use using the street as the easterly border. It captures both sides of the street so that there some context to the development. And you will note that the boundary of the specific plan goes several lots almost to a full block east of Alamitos. So everything within that sub area would be allowed or would be permitted to go up to a maximum height of 80 feet . And that's the context for the height. Did you want me to get into the scale a little more? If you could get into the scale around some of the other buildings that are there? The appellants presented some photos. I know to the east of that project is some condos that it kind of steps to. So that's correct. Directly east of the project, we spent a lot of time looking at the context between the proposed building as well as the especially as it relates to the building just to the east and as the developer indicated in their presentation, but staff tried to cover as well. That was of a particular concern to us. And the design of the building is very context oriented, meaning that most of the height of the building or the heights, the highest components of the building, the seven stories are all oriented to the west of the site along Alamitos. The the designers specifically did attempt to step the building back at the side of the property on the east side adjacent to those the four story units. So at that side, the of the project is four stories on top of the the the podium again in an attempt to minimize the impact of the height of the building on that adjacent property as well. If you look at the top, the other feature of the project to address that the issues of privacy was also that you'll notice on that easterly property line there's a row of trees again to provide some screening and some privacy between the project and the adjacent four story building. So the species of that tree are fairly high, so they will grow fairly tall and would provide, again, some privacy on the site. Great. Thank you, Linda, for that. I know there's a couple more questions that Councilmember Gonzalez is going to ask before we get to those questions. I also want to give some context, because when I went through District two residents concerns, every single one of them had to do with parking. And so I absolutely feel that pain. I lived on walnut with no parking. I understand the impacts of that. I want to give a little bit of context. So I'm going to ask Public Works to come up and give a little bit of overview. We cannot in my minds, while the downtown plan said it's 1.25. And actually, Linda, while you're still there, the downtown plans at 1.25, I did tell tops that I would get back to them in understanding where that 1.25 came from, what was there previously. And so, Linda, if you could share a little bit of that for us. Sure. Happy to do that. In terms of the parking standard, the current standard is one unit per space for each I'm sorry, one space for each unit. In addition, the guest parking is .25 or one space for every four units. So that generally comes out to 1.25 spaces per unit. That is a slight increase from the standard that was in place just prior to that. The prior standard was a 1.5, so it got reduced by one half of the space for a unit in the downtown plan. I would just like to note that historically over the years, the parking requirements for the downtown have varied fairly significantly. They were back in the the sixties, they were as low as a 0.5 for the downtown area. They increased to 1.25, they went up to 1.5. And so they've slowly increased over the years until the downtown plan where we have a slight decrease. So it's been a lot of fluctuation in the parking standards downtown. But with the introduction of the blue line, that was an appropriate basis with having very high quality transit in the downtown. That was another basis for the city too, to justify reducing the parking standard for the downtown plan. So it's my understand when we look at cities like Long Beach that have reduced parking, we're. Diamonds for their downtown. It's because we have other modes of transportation, and in fact, it's because we want to have a walkable, safe city. That's exactly. Right. And I know that that is a tough value statement for some folks that live in the parking impacted area because it's really challenging to drive around for 40 minutes looking for parking. So I just want to recognize that. Going to ask public works to go ahead. If you could answer these few questions for me, give an overview of Alamitos and where the parking is. I know we've added back the parking on Alamitos in front of the project. So if you could talk about that and if you could talk about where we are at with the parking study from the lawsuit from from Taps, I'd appreciate that. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. So as part of the Alamitos corridor, we've recently studied that corridor for a road diet, as part of that road diet between Ocean and Seventh Street, which was approved by council last week. We would add 23 parking stalls in the AM peak period. By removing the peak our parking restrictions, we would also lose five additional stalls all day. So that's the summary on Alamitos Avenue itself. Other parking in the vicinity of the corridor, we are looking at adding over 100 new parking stalls on first and second streets between Alamitos and Cherry. This would be accomplished by converting the angle parking to something closer to 90 degree parking, and this would be accomplished as part of a paving project to take place next year. The parking study you mentioned is one that is being led concurrently by public works and development services. With that, we're studying parking in downtown and Alamitos Beach. The consultant on board has begun their data collection and nearly completed that. They've started community outreach and look to have some initial data early next year or initial results early next year. Great. Thank you. And I ask for that context because I think it's important to understand that while we we are not in a place where we're asking developers to provide parking for other residents and that this is a challenge location because there's a lot there. And I want to recognize the history of that lot. When the doctor purchased that lot, it previously was not open to the public to rent out those spaces, and it was one of the very first things that he did, and it's been that way for about two years. Is that correct? About four years. And so we have a community asset that was available to us by a developer that didn't have to do that. What we've learned through the process of this, though, is that that process of getting permits hasn't necessarily been our run in the best way. And so as we are looking, I know Councilmember Gonzalez and I are out there every week talking to other locations to try to open up their lots. What we've learned is that there's probably about 20 people that actually use the lot every night. And one of the challenges is the way that we generate those permits. And so I'm working with public works to make sure that we try as we open up lots at Mula, the church right there on third, the Thai food restaurant and St Anthony's in the first district that we're trying to partner in a way where the city can say we want to invest in infrastructure for your lot and we want to help manage doing a parking permit online like we do for the senior center so that every month or every quarter people can get a parking permit, which is not been existent in current lots. And so one of the things that we've learned is that we can manage our parking much better and that's even without getting the results back from the parking study. And so I know that this these do not relate directly to this project being approved. But when I look through and see 99% of the letters are about parking, I need you guys to have that context that we're working really hard to open up those lots and that building more parking isn't an option until we actually use the space that we have. I also want to highlight that we have the Vision Zero plan and that this project coming in is going to help us reach that vision a little bit quicker because we are going to be installing more crosswalks and lighting and safety measures in the area. And so that's something that I want to thank the developers for. They've kind of gone above and beyond the downtown plan and a number of areas outside of issues of height. Let me see before I continue to ramble on. I don't want to take up everybody's time. I just want to give that context. The other question I have, I do want to highlight that the developers have a have met with me and have agreed that any additional parking that is not required within the downtown plan will be accessible to the community. And so that could be done through a permit process that could be done through an open process, and that they are looking at the lifts and trying to figure out if they can add those lifts inside the garage. When you guys talk about affordable housing, I think it's also important to mention that John and several other developers are coming to the table. All the talk about where the appropriate affordable housing is and what the right funding is. This was a private project that was not a city project. But I think that they have a good vision about where we can go. So I'm going to leave my comments there. I want to hear from my colleague and then I will close up at the very end. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I would also like to thank everybody who's been a part of this. I know I had two meetings myself, both with Councilmember Pearce and myself in the first District and then last night with more of my residents. So I appreciate every single one of the residents and everyone who's been involved. I know, unlike maybe other projects, our residents are very well versed. As Bebe mentioned, they come from real estate backgrounds, they come from development backgrounds. So they absolutely have the wherewithal and the knowledge. And so I definitely respect and appreciate that. And I took a lot of notes last night, and as I told them, you know, I dusted off the downtown plan to refresh my memory. And if any councilmember understands downtown, it's definitely me. And the one that lives in downtown raised my kids there. I understand the parking impacts firsthand, and I've been here for about ten years, you know, not just working in the city for almost a decade, but living here. So it's really important for me that all of this was taken into consideration. So with that said, I have a couple of questions in relation to the shade analysis that was brought up. Can you give me a little bit more information about the study and what that entails, please? Yes. Councilwoman Gonzalez, the shadow study. It's included in the plans. It is the search on page 35 and it goes to page 43. It did find that the project will cast a shadow. On adjacent uses, particularly the residential use to the east and commercial uses to the north. And that's particularly during afternoon and evening hours. The without understanding, the developers worked on designing the project sort of around those impacts and that's how they got to push the massing to the Alamitos frontage and pushed the massing towards the north end of the project and kind of scale it down on the south and east sides, which are adjacent to the residential uses. Okay, great. And so it looks like around midmorning, that will be a little bit at maybe at its height, but then afterwards it could be a little bit better. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And then light sensitive uses. I understand in these sequent analysis it just refers to Long Beach Unified School District. Can you clarify that as well? Yes. One of the speakers mentioned or just ask the definition of sensitive uses and suggested that a residential use would be a sensitive use. That is a very specifically defined term in the California Environmental Quality Act or sequel. A In the they're referred to as a sensitive receptor. And a sensitive receptor is a use where the occupants of that facility over a long term may have potential particular sensitivities. And typical sensitive receptors are places that have either young children or elderly or infirm individuals. So it would be a hospital is a risk sensitive receptor a day care facility where you have young kids throughout the day. A senior citizen facility is also a sensitive receptor, but generally a commercial use or a standard residential use. They are not considered sensitive receptors. Okay. And that would be the only that's clearly defined as that. Just so I'm getting that clear. That? That is correct. So when we analyze a project per that standard, it would have to be one of those uses. Otherwise, there's no basis to evaluate it as a sensitive receptor. Great. Thank you. And in relation to the design, so I'll have to be really honest, when I looked at the design at first, you know, you look at it and you went downtown, we want to see bold, we want to see innovative. And so I now looking at the presentation and talking to the developers, I do see that innovation and that boldness in that. And it's absolutely subjective. But I can understand where residents feel as though, you know, this looks like other developments. So I have a couple questions relative to that. So seven stories, 77 units, were pre-sales and were they an option at all and maybe including some sort of walkway to break up the massing at all? About that. The I don't think that the the proposed project includes poor sales. I think we look for for per sales. We look for natural breaks in the design of the project to include per sales. But there are some openings in the project, but they're not technically per sales and those openings. Let me just pull up the plant briefly. Okay. And I guess to help that, I'll just kind of piggyback off of that. Is was there another iteration of this design prior to what we're seeing now? Yes, we the very first initial design of this project was not acceptable to staff because it did not have the level of articulation. It did not have the the the quality of materials that we ultimately arrived at. But when we expressed those concerns to the developer, they were willing to to work with us and provide some additional fenestration to the building and to change some of the colors and some of the materials on the building to lighten it up and to make it more compatible with the surrounding development in the area. And ultimately, the site plan review committee determined that the project was was compatible and that it did address the the design concerns that staff had originally expressed with the initial project architecture. Okay. So we have changed somewhat from the original, of course, and there is this new iteration now that is in the Planning Commission's eyes. And in your eyes acceptable? That is. Correct. Okay, great. And last question is about the raised terrorist garden on roof, which I think is that a requirement? It's not a. Requirement per se, but there is a common outdoor open space requirement and the terrace fulfills part of that open space obligation in terms of square footage. Okay, great. And that would be considered. With the downtown planet, it's called a green roof or an eco roof deck. That is correct. Okay, great. So it's not required. And. All right. And I asked about that. So and the angled balcony, I know we've talked about that as well, but I think that's also another option here that I believe wasn't included in the first iteration. Is that correct? So there was a lot of work done on the facades between iterations and one of the features that was, I guess, enhanced in this this rendition is, I believe, deeper balcony projections and deeper bay window projections. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions I will say. And I want to thank staff. I also want to thank Eric as well last night for being there to talk about the Alamitos Road Diet. And again, I know that this is similar to Councilmember Pearce. This is never an easy, you know, decision for us. We have to really think very hard about what we're doing and the plans we're putting in place, because this is plans not just for tomorrow. It's for many years in advance. And a lot of us expect to be here far beyond, you know, a few years, whether you rent or own doesn't matter. And I will say, although, again, it's not relative to the the project per se. But, you know, both she and I have worked rigorously on parking. Absolutely. And yes, they're going to be creating parking lots or parking spaces that are a little over what they need to on site. But just in the adjacent area, I counted between her work and my work alone, almost 500 parking spaces. And I'll go over that 80 spaces that will be working with St Anthony's on over 50 spaces in District two, which would be the lot which I think is health care partners. There's going to be another 41 spaces at the Seventh Day Adventist, 70 spaces that I created in the East Village on the western side of the East Village in the First District and 18 spaces, which is the net result from Alamitos Road Diet. So that leaves us with about 470 spaces and I'm sorry, there's 250 at Mola that I know Councilmember Pearce is working on as well. And when I first took office, that's the very first thing I did was a parking study to look at what we can do in the downtown area specifically for parking before any of this development came out. So there's been a lot of work put into that. So I want to assure you that that absolutely is being done separate to that. And a lot of people talked about affordable housing. And as I mentioned last night, the first district is actually home to the most affordable housing in all of the city. We have over 1700 units, 300 more that are coming on. So over 2000 units that will be created by the end of the year, actually end of next year. And so a lot of affordable housing being done and created. So do we need more affordable housing? Absolutely we do. But we absolutely want to see them in various places in the city. So overall, in addition to that, there's about ten bus transit lines in the area and over 36,000 square feet of green space added, which has become minor park in that area alone and other areas of downtown increase over 30% in their property values over within the last 6 to 7 years. And that's specific to the Willmore area development happening. Lots going on and yet still seeing property values increase with all of that. So I would just like to end with saying that although this is of course a really difficult decision, like I said, for many people, change is never an exciting thing. I will tell you that the city is absolutely moving in a good direction and I think supporting this project would be a good direction. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I yes, thank you. I know I jumped straight into some questions earlier. I did want to highlight two more things before making a motion. I had my staff kind of look at what was required in the downtown plan and what was not required in the downtown plan. And we have a 106 parking stalls. 97 was required. We've got 23 bicycle parking spaces, 20 was required, required. We have over almost 9000 square feet of common space when only 4000 was required. As you guys mentioned, there's a community room that's almost 800 square feet and only 500 was required, 1700 square feet of private open space where 13 was required. I think that one of the conversations that I've had in my neighborhood, particularly with the North Alamitos Neighborhood Association, is the the lack of access to community space and community rooms to be available for meeting. I think one of the challenges with this location is also that it is going to be the highest story in the area. And so making accessible the rooftop community space for residents, neighborhood associations and bids is something that the developers of offset owners have also said that they're open to doing. Again, I'll I'll highlight that this was, you know, a process and a project that I think does fit the neighborhood. Looking at the massing of it. When I think about the current being on Ocean and Alamitos and the change up to where Mola is and all the work that's been done, I really do believe that the design of this project fits with that transition. And so I just wanted to make sure I, I said that. So I would like to ask my colleagues to support us tonight. And I'm going to ask. The City Attorney, I'd like to make two amendments to the special conditions of approval in making amendment number or condition of approval 79 that the property owner will make any additional parking spots outside of the downtown plan requirements available to the public by working with the city to manage permits. I would like the second condition of approval to be that the property owner will make the rooftop accessible, the rooftop community room accessible to community neighborhood associations and business improvement districts when available. And these are both agreements that I've already communicated and been working with the project on. And so I want to thank them for agreeing to those. So with that, I asked for my colleagues to support us. Thank you. Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve the project and the Navy appeals members record casting votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and and moving forward. And next, we're going to be we're going to be moving up the language access item before recreational pot just because of the folks that are here. Next up is Ishinomaki Center, then language access, then recreational pot. So, Madam Clerk, can you please read item 25?

A proclamation endorsing IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan A proclamation endorsing IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

DenverCityCouncil_03032014_14-0178

We do have two proclamations this evening, and I have the good fortune to read Proclamation 178 endorsing imagined 2020 Denver's Cultural Plan. It is sponsored by myself, Councilman Layman and Councilman Monteiro. In principle. I mean, principally. Whereas great cities have great arts, culture and create creativity. And. Whereas, arts, culture and creativity contribute greatly to Denver's economy and its residents quality of life. And. WHEREAS, The City's commitment to the arts is seen through the 25th anniversary of its public art program, its distinctive neighborhood art district's world class venues, museums and cultural programs. Support for creative businesses. And. WHEREAS, Denver arts and venues along with the officer office of Mayor Michael Hancock, the Office of Economic Development and many other community partners all work to engage residents and visitors in the development of a culture. A Plan to be for Denver by Denver. And. Whereas, Denver arts and venues worked with the community to craft a shared vision of Denver's cultural future and will work with community partners and engage residents to achieve this vision. And. Whereas, implementation of the plan will build on Denver's strong foundation of arts culture and created creativity to advance creative sector business, improve access to arts education for children and adults, and increase the availability of arts and culture in Denver's neighborhoods. And. Whereas, Denver City Council recognizes that endorsement of this plan is a step toward its implementation, and that support for the continued development of arts, culture and creativity in Denver is an investment in the city that will pay dividends for generations to come. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby endorses. Imagine 2020 Denver's Cultural Plan prepared by Denver Arts and venues that the Clerk of Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Kent Rice, Executive Director of Arts and Venues. It is my pleasure to move that the proclamation be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. I'll ask for comments from Council Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam President. Just the opening of this. Meeting shows you how. Wonderful the arts are in any single setting at all. And just gives you a little bit. Of hope. For this. This plan is for Denver's future. So, again, thank you guys very much. You were terrific. And having a. Plan, we spent, um, I. Was on the committee to work on the plan, and we spent months and months and months doing it. You can look at it if you go to Denver gov dot dot org and go to cultural planner. Imagine 2020. Okay. Denver gov dawg. Imagine 2020. And it's just. A wonderful first step. To a wonderful vision for Denver's future. So I'd like to thank everybody who has written that plan. I'd like to. Thank our two. Venues who have worked really hard so far to get this done. And I just can't wait to see what the next step is. So thank you all very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. I would also like to add my congratulations to the hard work of the your team and to all the people that were involved. I understand that you got input from 5000 people and combined that to for a vision for a cultural plan for Denver that I think is going to be very meaningful for the livability of this city. It already is very livable. You're just going to make it so and I'm so pleased to bring this proclamation forward and so happy with the plan that you all are outlining for us. Oh, Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to ask that my name be added to the proclamation, and I want to extend my appreciation to arts and venues for the extensive outreach, not only gathering input, but also sharing information with folks about the findings from that input. You all have done just an outstanding job in reaching out to the community to let them know what this is all about. And this is just yet another example of helping to educate the community about that. So thanks for your work. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Madam President. I'm really excited after attending today's luncheon to be able to learn more about the plan. So congratulations and great speech today, Ken Rice. But I, I, I join in the celebration because for us in Council District nine, we live and breathe cultural arts through programs like the Urban Art Fund Arts more accessible at the neighborhood level. And art in every neighborhood is a priority for all of us. And I'd like to see every neighbor. Could enjoy the magnificence of arts and all that it does for our city. Even in River North, where we have the Rhino Arts District there, the growing opportunities to nurture and develop art in a lot of our spaces. I also want to acknowledge the other art districts in my council district Santa Fe Arts River, North Navajo Street, and the others that are pockets that I may or may not know of. And if I didn't see it, I'm sure I'm going to find out tomorrow. But I just want to tell you that for me, I know Denver is a huge sports town, and I like that, too. But I also know that Denver is a huge cultural arts community, and that is that's the root for all of us. And so thank you very much for doing this. And now you have a plan and now you have to get to work. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilwoman Robb. Sorry, but I cannot let this proclamation go by without making some comments. And what I was thinking about as I listen to this and just thinking about arts and culture in Denver, Denver is I believe I read, if I'm remembering my history correctly, that some of the biggest advocates for Civic Center Park was a group called the Women's Art League way back around the turn of the century. And then, I believe a mayor or maybe it was Mayor Webb or Mayor Paine is started the Mayor's Commission on Arts and Culture. And then we made that more of a separate department under Hickenlooper. And then when we really went to arts and venues, change came a little with a little bit of difficulty like are we going to lose the arts somewhere and be only about venues? And that certainly has not happened. I think it really provided sort of the catalyst for moving this along. And speaking of another catalyst, I'm so excited about the work being done on the McNichols Building, the old Carnegie Library in Civic Center Park, just to circle around to where my comments started, because I think we will have both a really strong Office of Arts venues in a really identifiable, identifiable place where that sits and is located along with all the other wonderful institutions that our neighborhood. But that can be sort of a hub for us. So congratulations to all of you, and thank you for your hard work. Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Madam President. I, too, would like to add my name to the record as a supporter of this proclamation. And one thing I just want to mention really briefly is that arts are great for business, right? And anyone who, you know, who doubts that, just take a look at Austin or New York or Las Vegas and , you know, some of the wonderful performing arts and music and other types of things that those cities have. And every year we get to boast more and more opportunities for both our citizens and folks that are visiting to check out the many wonderful things that are going on in the city from our incredible visual arts programs to our great theater programs and our burgeoning local music scene, which our council secretary is helping to highlight on a show called the Denver Laugh Sessions that we premiere right on this channel, Channel eight. So I think every year we get more and more on the map as being, you know, a great cultural city and. It's great for our local economy, too. So I'm happy to support this and just look. Forward to all the great work that's going to come out of the plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Mr. Secretary, it looks like it's time for roll call. All right, Madam President. I guess I wrote I. But I. Herndon. I can each name in five. Lopez. Montero. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. All right. Shepard. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Zero names. Okay. Well. Why, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Very appreciative eyes, no nays. The proclamation is adopted. Now we have another special performance. I would like to invite the poet Jose Guerrero to the podium. Jose Carneiro has been featured on the HBO special Brave New Voices in 2010 and was a guest poet at ten X in 2011. Now a student at the University of Denver. Jose got his start in spoken word right here in town at Café Kaltura. Jose will be performing a poem for us tonight. And you are on a cool. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It's such an honor. And so I'm just going to go in and read my poem. I hope you guys enjoy. As an educator, I often find myself arguing for the importance of art in our classrooms. I go on and on about its potential to empower our youth and its ability to transform traumatic life experiences into beautiful pieces of art. For those who remain skeptical. I challenge you to take it up with the big blue bear. Yeah, that's right. And as you stand there looking right into the big blue bears, but you will smile and you will realize that that small moment of joy could be the most important lesson we could ever teach our kids. For me, this love was started when I was in the streets walking through the west side of Denver. I saw some of the most powerful paintings written on the walls. The graffiti is vibrant colors reflected how most of us felt inside. Something about seeing names on the wall gave us the feeling of ownership we never obtained through mortgage contracts. Many of my friends would stay up all night searching for the perfect spot a wall that was worthy of their masterpiece. They felt like little kids aligning alphabetical magnets onto the city's fridge. They wrote short poems on bricks because their schools failed to provide them paper. Their artwork never lasted very long before that short time. They turned our alleys into art galleries and trash cans into anthologies. They are the seeds that birthed the roses that now grow in the Santa Fe art district. Yet they were never cited in the government documents. I have witnessed art nourish a community in ways that politicians could never imagine. Like the time that mural was spray painted across the street from the middle school. The mural was a desperate cry. Cease fire. I watched members of opposing gangs come together using the colors of the rags to spray paint the words barrio unity, a treaty attempting to end gay brown on brown violence. And there hasn't been a drive by on that corner since I have listened to spoken word artists and hip hop artists communicate and mobilize the people in the language that academia has deemed worthless. The same words that donors used to describe our services, like helping a kid get through a rough day isn't worth the investment because happiness isn't an accurate measurement of success. But you tell that to the little girl who feels unbreakable when she hip hop on the dance floor. You tell that to the gay boy who just came out to his parents and a poem. You tell that to the musicians who use this to bounce the sounds of the parents arguing off their instruments. Our youth are our future. Let us give them the tools they need to paint themselves a better world. Thank you. I want. Second arrow. Thank you for sharing your words with us. They are very empowering and compelling. And thank you again to the Denver Jazz Club. Can you believe the sound that came out of that? That group, they are great and they travel all over the United States to entertain us. So let's give a young another round of applause for all these young performers because they make Denver an artist. And now I would like to invite to the podium our acclaimed Mr. Kent Rice. No, the band was not named after Kent Reiss. It was named in front of him, he told me, though. Welcome, Kent and Ginger White. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for this proclamation. Thank you to our entertainers. That poem was moving. It was amazing. Anyway, we're very grateful to accept this proclamation and a great debt of gratitude to Ginger, why she did so much of the heavy lifting for this great ginger. Did you want to say a few words? Oh, I just wanted to say thank you both. I thank you all so much. We had a chance to brief you all individually, and it was a pleasure to walk through the plan with you. We're so proud of it. We're so proud of what we're delivering to the city of Denver on behalf of the city of Denver, because it really was a community wide plan. And I stand on the shoulder of some great teammates behind me who made this all possible. So thank you all for your for your help and helping us implement it as well. The one of the phrases that came up from our 5000 people who provided input and it's the thing on which our clothes was we are Denver Oh, that's great. Congratulations. That's really great. We look forward to folding of the plan. Well, we do have another proclamation, and I'll call on Councilman Brooks to recap. Proclamation number 176.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving Resolution No. WD-1382, 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; declaring the urgency thereof; and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 A.M. on January 1, 2018 read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12052017_17-1108

Vice mayor. But that motion carries. To the next one, the next to the next ordinance, which is I'm 44. I know it requires two votes. I believe communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance approving resolution number WD dash 1382 establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer services, declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect on January 1st, 2018. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Thank you, sir. The first vote is to determine the urgency. So please, is there any public comment on the urgency? Please cast your votes. Motion carries. The second part of the ordinance is setting the rates. Is there any public comment on setting the rates? See? None. Get the motions and please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you guys. For the audiences, those are the two audiences on the agenda. We will go back up now to the agenda and do items 37 and 3837. Thank you.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Long Beach Transit Agency to explore partnerships, costs, feasibility, and options to update and modernize ad-bearing bus shelters and return to City Council with recommendations within 90 days.

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0388

Thank you. Item 17 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilwoman Mongo and Council Member Oranga recommendation to request the city manager to work with the Long Beach Transit Agency to explore partnerships, costs, feasibility and options to update and modernize at varying bus shelters and return to City Council with recommendations within 90 days. Councilmember Richardson. This, again, is a straight forward request. You know, we we when we travel to other cities, we like to take take a look at what they're doing this this innovative or interesting or what we can learn. And and, you know, I was just sort of blown away by the ad shelters in Washington, D.C. at the last Fed ledge trip. So we did a little bit of research and had some conversations, initial conversations with Long Beach Transit about what can we do to take another look at our our bus shelter, our ad shelters and their condition? The public's expressed the need to improve these shelters. I know that we do it. There are you know, we have contracts with CBS and or upfront to advertise and all that. But what we want to do right now is perhaps explore, maybe have a joint committee with Long Beach, Long Beach Transit to explore opportunities to maybe integrate some technology or better signage or something that really improves this program that we have. We just tonight discussed, you know, removal of blighted billboards, and that was a focus. And we were able to partner with the industry to achieve that goal. And this is something that I'd like to explore here tonight, to partner with the industry, to explore the goal of improving these ad shelters to perhaps, you know, their ideas of having wi fi stations at ad shelters. There are ideas of perhaps doing digital digital displays at shelters. And so those are some of the things that I want. I want the city to go ahead, partner with Long Beach Transit to explore. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I think this is a great program and I look forward to hearing what they come back with. And Mr. City managers and staff report on this. No, we'd be happy to comply with the request, though. Q Councilman Gonzales. I just want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward, because we've talked about this numerous occasions and how they need to be maintained, just a basic level. But then we can go a bit further and make it a little bit more creative. But, you know, some of them there's one on Anaheim in Long Beach Boulevard that, you know, is just in in I think it's the most utilized in all the city are pretty well utilized. And it'd be nice to have an extra element of shade. I mean, I know we have some easement issues with the property owner, but some shade or I've even seen like where you've had bookcases. I mean, we can get really creative here and I think it's an opportunity to do that. So thank you. Councilman Price. So, yes, on that note, I wanted to also include the possibility of having art or local art at these shelters, because we often get requests from people to do that. So the scope can be broader than just advertisements that be great. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Councilmember Richardson, thank you for bringing this forward. I wanted to just add a word of caution to staff. I think staff is aware of this. I don't see I see our public works director here as well. So the city of Los Angeles expanded its bus stop improvement program with bus shelters and contracted with CBS Taco, which I think is a fine company. And recently it was stated in the paper that many of those agreements fell apart because the city fell short in approving the permits and doing things in a timely manner. But in addition to that, I also want us to know that we may have priorities as a council and a city to have amenities at certain bus stops that we believe are high volume, perhaps depressed, economically depressed areas, but they don't necessarily align with advertiser's goals. So that might not be the best location for advertisers. And so there is a inherent there can be an inherent conflict between advertiser goals, bus shelter, company goals, city goals, councilmember goals. And so I'd like to hear. How you hope to balance out or ensure that where we think. The bus stops near the greatest treatment, as well as limited transit based on volume of activity. How how would you try to ensure that that is what CVS would do? Well, a lot of what you're talking about would not be CVS. It would be actually Long Beach Transit. So how they could work to enhance their build their areas in other areas of the city, whether they, you know, back in the day, they did a lot of art, as you're aware of. They haven't done some art for a while. So we could talk to Mr. McDonald about that and then also get his ideas about about what we're doing with our ad programs as well. Right. So when we look at partnerships as transit agencies, oftentimes we give the opportunity to advertise to companies so that they pay for the infrastructure. So unless you're telling us that Long Beach transit is going to pay for the infrastructure. That this transit does, the infrastructure for the non ad bearing busses. For the non end. And then we help through the advertising company make sure that the ad bearing bus shelters are clean and safe and all that. So those are the things that we're going to pay a lot of attention to, given what Councilman Richardson said, and we'll sit down with them, Mr. McDonald, next week to see where this takes us. And that's great. My word of caution from my own professional work is the ones that are ad bearing. We have to be forthright and be sure that there is an equity because what will happen is you'll have bus treatments that are better in places that have greater impressions for advertising. And we want to make sure that locations such as the one that the councilman mentioned are addressed. And I know lobbies transit well. We are very different from other cities. I know this. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. I think you're right. There is a balance. But we have at varying shelters today, and it looked terrible. And frankly, wherever they are, we need to do something better. Even if it's a static it even if it's what they have today, the standard has to improve. We just have to I mean, this conversation needs to happen fairly, but, you know, it's going to take some time, I imagine. So I think we start on it sooner than later. So when this contract comes up again, we have a plan or maybe we even in that contract early and have a strategy. But but I tend to agree with your words of caution. I think this will be complex, but we should try it. Thank you. Thank you. And is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 17? See Nunn members cast your vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Something. I apologize. Yes, that's okay. We're just talking here about add bearing. Is that correct? That's it. So would it be possible to add a friendly amendment for all bus shelters. That we were going to talk about all bus shelters with Mr. McDonnell, because specifically the one that you had mentioned is not an ad barring location of. It's certainly very, very busy. We talked a lot with transit before to enhance that station. They probably need to do some type of a eminent domain, take on the business to provide more seating or shelter and things. We've had lots of conversation there at that because that's a key bus station there. So we will talk to lobby students about all of our bus our bus shelters on this. But again, primarily, we'll look at the ad bearing ones as well. Okay, great. And I will say, you know, working with transit, it was great forth. And we were able to work with the Arts Council years ago to get a really nice art piece there. So there's other opportunities available. So thank you. And there are examples of that in the East Village, too, at the bus stop there. So they do do great work. Thank you for that clarification. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Item 18.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32983 with Central Parking System, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, for providing parking operations and management services, to increase the contract amount by $450,000, for the period ending March 31, 2017. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04042017_17-0155

Motion carries. Kane A last concern item that was pulled tonight was 60. Item 16 is a report from Public Works recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amendment to contract with Central Park System for providing parking operations and management services to increase the contract amount by $450,000. City Councilman Gonzales. Yes, thank you. I remember pulling this item about a month ago and had questions. And I want to thank Craig Beck for depicting all of the the information that will are all of the details as to what this contract will cover. However, I did have one question relative to the security, because I know City Place has been in an issue historically with security. So can you tell me a little bit about what that will cover and entail? Exactly. Craig. Certainly Councilmember Gonzales, members of the council, the item that you have before you is really focused on the operating side of our parking lots, not so much the CHP elements, which we we do have a number of those coming forward. But we felt it was prudent to make a reinvestment in many of our facilities, especially the city place garage in the downtown. And we've added a number of security personnel and security hours over the course of 24 seven operation in City Place alone, we've added over 160 hours of security time. Plus under this agreement with central parking who are now ESP plus they put in somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 additional security cameras in that garage, which are now monitored by the security officers. So we've really tried to step up that experience. There's also increased maintenance, power washing. We've increased the frequency of power washing in those garages where we have a number of other items that we're going to be addressing moving forward. But those are some of the ones under this particular request. Great. Thank you, Craig. I just wanted to make sure we clarify that and I appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion on the second. See no public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion case consent count and the consent calendar and all the pulled out ins have been approved. We're going to go ahead and do a couple of items out of order.

Recommendation to declare an interim ordinance adopted as an urgency measure establishing a temporary one hundred and eighty (180) day limitation on the issuance of any permit, entitlement, license, approval, operation, or activity relating to adult use non-medical commercial cannabis activity in the City; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-17-0030) (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12192017_17-1165

This motion carries. 21, please. Item 21 is communication from the City Attorney. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Concluding the ordinance relating to the temporary limitations on the issuance of any permit, entitlement license, approval operations, or any activity related to a don't use non medical, recreational. And commercial commercial. Cannabis activity in the city. Red adapted as red and laid over to next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Thank you. As you mentioned in a second, so any public comment signal, please cast your vote. Mayor, we need two votes on this because it's been adopted as an urgency ordinance as well. First vote. Because Andrew's. Bush and Kerry. And then the second vote, please. Any public comment saying now please cast your votes. We need a mover in second? Yep. It's there. Councilman Austin Councilmember Mungo motion case.

Petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue.

SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CF 314278

Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments listed in agenda items 48 and 49. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The appointments are confirmed. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 53. Of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 50 Quirk File 314 27 Petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 21 Sarah April 2nd Addition to the city of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue, the committee recommends that the full council grant the petition as a condition to with the divided report with councilmembers Rasmussen Gordon back Sean Burgess in favor and Councilmember Liccardo opposed. Thank you. Our rules require that the majority position go first, councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. This petition is seeking the vacation of a daily in the Denny Triangle. It's the fourth vacation petition to enable Amazon to build out its campus. The three previous vacations were approved by the Council upon the condition that a variety of public benefits be provided and that Amazon pay all fees and of course pay for the full costs of the property that they would be acquiring. This alley runs north and south through the entire block is bordered on the north by Bell Street, on the south by Blanchard Street, and on the West by Seventh Avenue, in the East by Eighth Avenue. The vacation would allow for the development of two buildings on the site, a 23 storey tower where the street level read. Hell on the north and an eight storey office building with retail on the south portion of the block. The vacation allows more flexibility of floor plate configuration. Rotation of the towers for more light and air at the street level. And a greater ability to control solar heat exposure. Better circulation for the public, including pedestrians and bicyclists. A pedestrian through block connection. More efficient. Underground parking. Elimination of vehicle access across seventh Avenue, which is going to be a project to protect a bike lane. And Blanchard Street, which has a green street and then a reduction of vehicle access on Bell Street into the site, which is also a green street. A green street. There's been an extensive public review process since the petition was filed in February. The Seattle Design Commission held three meetings in March, May and June and finally recommended by an eight zero vote in June that the issues that had been of concern had been resolved. And also they approved the public benefit package. Pardon me. The Downtown Design Review Board on September eight considered the petition, and the petitioner received a40 vote of approval. The project has gone through a master use permit review by DPD and there have been community meetings, including with the Dennie Triangle, Neighborhood Association, Bell Town Community Council, Housing and Land Use Subcommittee and the South Lake Union Planning and Policy Committee. The City Council Transportation Committee has reviewed the petition twice, including a public hearing on November 24th and public comment at that meeting as well as on December eight during the Transportation Committee review. The committee learned the following that there had been extensive review by city departments, and that review was led and coordinated by the Seattle Department of Transportation. The Roadway Structures and Street Improvement Permitting section of our start recommended stated no concerns and recommended approval of the proposed vacation. The Parks Department stated it has no concerns given the proposed public benefits benefits that the city would gain. The utility's SPU stated it had no facilities in the alley and recommended the vacation be granted and City Light and CenturyLink said that they are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they have no objection. The Department of Planning and Development made two significant comments the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan approved by the City Council and key strategy number one I state said the city should simplify and create a means to expedite the early vacation process to encourage residential and commercial development. Again, this is a recommendation for this neighborhood. Secondly, DPD stated that the proposed alley vacations are intended intended to accommodate a high density commercial development, which is consistent with the zoning and the vision for the area in the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan and the Downtown Urban Center Plan. Our review and approval of vacations is based upon our vacation policies that have been adopted by the City Council by resolution over many years. Those policies were developed to provide clear guidance to the petitioners and to the city staff, and also to inform the public as to how we review and how we make decisions with regard to vacation petitions. They're also developed to ensure that all applicants are treated equally, consistently, objectively with fairness and predictability, to ensure that the public interest is served. We also identify and define within our resolutions what we mean by public interest. It includes protection of the public trust, taking into consideration the effect on circulation, access, utilities, light air, open space views, protection from land use, adverse land use impacts, and the provision of long term public benefits. The Department of Transportation revealed that the transportation issues, including pedestrian and bicycle impacts and determined that the vacation will not have an adverse transportation impact and will not impair the function of the adjacent streets. The department also determined that the typical functions of an alley that will be provided will be provided on site if the alley is vacated, including an internal loading dock, three vehicle access points, two driveways on eighth Avenue, one exit, only driveway onto Bell Street. The Design Commission also worked by the petitioner to ensure that the driveway openings are as narrow as possible, but there will be no vehicle access. As I said earlier, from Blanchard or Seventh Avenue to minimize the impact on the green streets of Bell and Blanchard and to eliminate vehicles crossing Seventh Avenue, which will be a separated cycle track constructed at the petitioner's expense. The parking proposed for the project is compliant with our land use code and accommodate slightly more cars and bikes in the vacation than without the vacation. Also, Amazon, in order to reduce the amount of traffic coming to and from the site, provides all employees with an ARC keycard and has an aggressive transportation demand management plan to encourage employees to walk, bike or take transit to their site. With regard to the utilities, as I said earlier, there are fewer utilities on this site than in other downtown sites. There are no SPU facilities, Seattle Public Utility Facilities. And again, City Light and CenturyLink are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they do not object with regard to light, air, open space and views. The block will have a total of 27,000 square feet of street level, open space, pedestrian amenities and a diagonal pedestrian through block connection. There will be significantly more open space for the public after the vacation than without their vacation and start fires. No issues here with regard to light, air office space and views in terms of the other standard that we apply protection from adverse land use impacts. The vacation review determines that if the post determines whether or not the post vacation development would be consistent with land use patterns in the area, and that view is guided by our city policies and codes that apply to the site. This block is zoned downtown mixed commercial that's called DMS 3340 slash to 90, Dash 400, and it allows for a maximum height of 340 feet for portions of the project containing nonresidential use. This block block 21 is in a different zone than block 20, which is just to the south and the council approve of vacation there. That block is the downtown office core to a dock to which allows nonresidential up to 400 feet. This block, block 21 is going to be a lower, more moderate scale site for office, retail and commercial use. This zone is to be a transition site between the more intensive Dakota area and the surrounding lower scale commercial mixed use or residential areas. This area is in one of the city's five urban centers, and our city staff have determined that the proposed amendment with the vacation is consistent with the zoning and our city policies as an urban center. Our policies provide that there should be a balance between what the public gives up and what the petition acquires through the vacation process. The benefits most benefit the general public and must be separate and above any other amenities provided to meet the code or the other requirements. The Council has approved Ali vacations earlier by Amazon on three other blocks 14, 19 and 20, and the public benefits provided in exchange for those vacations include the seventh Avenue Cycle track shared use street and has pedestrian facilities. West Lake Avenue Street Improvements. Blanchard's Street ten foot setback in has right away improvements artworks. Additional overhead weather protection, the purchase of a fourth streetcar. The public benefits proposed for this vacation art will complement and expand the benefits provided by the three previous vacations approved by the Council. The public benefits focus on the exterior of the block rather than inward focusing, and improvements to the neighborhood are set out in your materials. There's a very long list of those public benefits, and I won't repeat all those, but the public benefits will enhance the public experience, including pedestrians and bicyclists around the entire site. Following all of this review by our city departments, our Department of Transportation, which again has a lead for assembling the comments and review, found that the project is consistent with our adapted our adopted street vacation policies and that similar impacts between a vacation and a no vacation development alternative for the site would occur. The vacation alternative provides considerable flexibility to the developer and the use of the site both above and below grade, including allowing for a single garage for services and parking for the project. And finally, the flexibility on the site also allows for the provision of open space and other public benefits. Following the public hearing that we held the public comments and the reviews of the record. And over the course of two meetings, the committee determined that the vacation petition and the public benefit set aside city policies and in addition, are consistent with the previous benefits that have been required by the city from Amazon and which were previously approved by this Council. The Transportation Committee recommends approval upon the condition that the petitioner complies with the conditions that were set out in the November 3rd letter that November three, 2015 letter to the Transportation Committee from the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Lakota. Right. When you said majority prayer, I thought you were going to ask for the minority report. Yes. Sorry. Minority Report of one. Will be the last time we get something official. I guess my opposition to the legislation brought before us was based on the my concern that we are having more and more with refer to is privately owned public spaces in our downtown area. Generally these are conveyed through transfer development rights. In this instance, issue is through an employee vacation. But the objectives, this is the same 28,000 square feet of open space to allow the public to enjoy. The concerns were raised on how much access was denied to this area for expression of public speech and looking at what was in the agreement with the revocation. I notice that we did not have language that we had required in those privately owned public spaces that we acquire through a transfer development rights. So my position was that we could amend the agreement to include language that would be similar to the open conditions governing open space under TDRS, which is long established. It is not 2024 seven open space. There is actually time limits on it and it's in the behavior there as well as is regulated as it would be anywhere else with FEMA speech. So that was defeated in committee. I think this is an important issue not just necessary for this property, but for setting a standard that I believe we should be looking at for any open space that's being created primarily, I mean, particularly in a downtown area where the density is increasing. We now had, I think, 50,000 people living downtown. So I would move actually that in this instance we need a fuller discussion on how we can accomplish this and we might as well begin with this property. So I would like to move to we refer this to the Transportation Committee second. It's moved in, seconded that item 53 referred to the Transportation Committee. Is there any discussion? Sure. Councilmember Rasmussen. I think the point that Councilmember McCotter brought up is an important one. One thing that is important to know is that the concerns that he has with regard to public access and the rules and regulations that govern the part of the property that was granted as part of the public benefit package really is included in our property and use and development agreement. Last at our last City Council meeting, we approved a property and use and development agreement. We call it a powder for short that says virtually what councilmember wanted to require and this conceptual approval. And so we have delegated this responsibility of ensuring that the public has, in this case, the one in South Lake Union by Vulcan. It was blocked 93 that all of you approved states that the except as otherwise provided in this agreement public access shall be allowed 24 hours a day every day of the year to the following public benefit elements on the property. And then there is a list of the properties that qualified as the public benefit elements, and they have to be open and accessible and it has to be signed that they are open and accessible to the public. There is one option that the owner has or right that the owner has, and it says that the owner may adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding use of and access to such public benefit elements as are necessary to ensure the security of the users of their public benefit elements and the development. So that type of concern that is that we make sure that this space that has been granted as a public benefit, that it remain open to the public, is required in the Property Use and Development Agreement, which is adopted by ordinance by the City Council. It does grant the owner, though, to develop reasonable rules and regulations with regard to the safety of the users of the public space. The concern that I have with regard to councilmembers motion is that we're seeking to adopt a in this condition, a condition that we have adopted for transfer of development rights, and we haven't established this condition when we make these decisions with regard to the conceptual approval. So I do think that we should review all of our city vacation policies next year. Another issue that is came up last during the discussion, I think it was last year with regard to the Whole Foods sites related to employer employee relations or labor standards. And at that time, the Council agreed that that was not part of the criteria for determining whether or not it's in the public interest to vacate a site. And we agreed that we were going to review our policies that we've adopted carefully by resolution to ensure transparency and equity and openness, that we were going to review those this year, and it didn't happen. I think that we need to have a comprehensive review of those policies, make a determination if we want to include this kind of policy in the consideration or labor standards as well. And then any applicant moving forward would know exactly what the rules are. But I don't think that we should start enacting rules now that we haven't applied before. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember one Councilmember Rasmussen is correct that. That discussion. On what? Exactly constitutes a public benefit and the question of the evolution of that definition, which is necessary and it is something that I argued for when we were voting on the Whole Foods early vacation bill. It's true that that that real discussion didn't happen, which is precisely why I think this should be referred to the Transportation Committee so that the discussion can happen. This is not an alley vacation for just any company. This is Amazon. This is a behemoth. And I think this should be done extremely thoughtfully. And as far as public spaces are concerned. I don't think the question is about whether the public has a right to walk around there. The question is about whether or not, though, for example, the workers or the contract workers, workers that are contracted by Amazon for security or other purposes have the right to express their own issues as workers on the Amazon campus or not. And I think these are these issues, not just about that, but broadly on public benefit are important enough that they should be thought about, oh, you in a in a much more deliberate manner than just rushing this through. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. As we talk through making an alley vacation or a street vacation, what we're talking about doing is taking something that is existing in the public right away and transferring that to private ownership. And part of this process, of course, is about compensating us and making offsetting investments to make us whole. The the issue around free speech, I think is a really important one because folks have a pretty clear understanding of what their free speech rights are in a public right away and what they are allowed to do. They don't need to go look up a public use and development agreement to understand what's going on. And because we're taking that away and this process and trying to put back something similar but some access to Civic Plaza, I think it's really important that we get the specifics right. I personally as a councilmember, have been at a public plaza and been approached by private security guards saying, you know, you need to move your sign that can't be here while you're eating and things like that. It's probably true that that in some puta that they didn't have the right to do that. But even as a councilmember, I didn't have the capacity to go find that and confront them. And so I think this is an important enough decision that I support Councilmember Carter's move to refer this back to committee. Let's examine what we can do around First Amendment, including possible things around training or maybe public notice. So folks see clearly what they're allowed and not to do in these these kind of quasi public open spaces. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez. I want to echo sort of the the need to to be judicious as we move forward with this particular issue. As a civil rights lawyer, as somebody who has studied the Constitution, I think that these issues are quite complicated and don't want us to hastily pass some sort of provision around free speech or First Amendment as it relates to these street alley vacations. I'm hopeful that if we take a little bit of time and I'm not sure if Councilmember Walcott is amenable to setting a date certain on his motion to refer back to the Transportation Committee. But I do think it is this is a very critically important issue that requires us to be very deliberate and thoughtful around. And I hope that we give ourselves the opportunity to do that. Thank you. Any other comments to Councilmember Liccardo? To answer to answer Cotner Gonzalez's question, I would recommend to the first meeting of the Transportation Committee of next year. Any other comments? I'm a rapper. Yeah. I'm going to oppose the motion to refer back because of some of the reasons that my colleagues have cited. This is about due process and it's about fairness. This L.A. vacation has gone through an extensive review process exactly as city procedures and rules require. And it has met all of the conditions that the City of Seattle sets for this kind of L.A. vacation. And to introduce a new topic now, and I might add, a topic that is already covered in the regulations that will apply to this open space, I think is very inappropriate at the last minute. This came up a couple of years ago with another property in West Seattle, and some members of the council asked for a review of these things and whether or not our policy should be amended. And then they chose not to pursue that. However, we just, in our budget actions here last month allocated some funds. And I know that Councilmember O'Brien in his committee, beginning in January, is going to consider the issue of revisiting the Street and Ali vacation rules and regulations. I think that's very appropriate. But to say to an applicant who has for an extended period of time gone through the city process that we said that now we're going to stop that process and change the rules, I think is very unfair and strikes at the core of how we govern our city and how we do due process. So I think it's not appropriate to refer this matter back to committee. The motion before us is Councilmember Lookat is motion to refer this matter back to the transportation committee. Those in favor vote I right. Please raise your hands. Those opposed, vote no and raise your hands. The vote is 4 to 4 and the motion fails. So thank you. Council members. I think it's a very good discussion. It I do agree with Councilmember Burgess and I said this at the committee meeting, too. When we say because we don't like a business or are opposed to a certain business, we're going to change the rules for that business alone, for city policies and procedures and decisions. I think that's a very dangerous and slippery slope. What what entity, what person, what business is next if they're not popular with a particular council member? I think it's really dangerous and we should have fair and objective policies. That is why we adopted those by resolution to ensure that we're not singling out any one petitioner large or small bakery or a large corporation. And I oppose that kind of arbitrary decision making that I have heard here. What I would offer, though, is if council members are not comfortable with the Department of Transportation and our Department of Planning and Development setting the public access rules through the property and use and development agreement, we could consider the language that Councilmember Liccardo proposed at the committee meeting. It's very similar to what is included in the property use and development agreement. So I would I have copies of what he distributed to the committee. It was what the Divided report was based upon and I would move that you consider this so that we can move along. One of the concerns I have about holding this over to next year, so we're going to have three new council members. They have not been been the beneficiaries of the public hearing. They're going to have to start again. And I think that that is going to, again, undermine our whole process, object of objectivity and clarity about how we define the public interest. So if I would like to move this language to add to the clerk, file the conditional approval, and I would be happy to distribute it to all of you and I would be happy to read it into the record, too. Why don't you read it into the record? We all have it. It's part of the Divided report. This is the language proposed by Councilmember Liccardo. Free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without obstructing access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed while engaged and allowing activities in allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. So I think this addresses the points that were raised, including asking people to leave the site. And so I would move this amendment to the FERC file. And this would become one of the conditions that the council would impose on this alley vacation. Is there a second second? It's moved in second and that we had this language as a condition for the vacation. Is there any further discussion? Councilmember O'Brien. So just to for some clarity, is this do we need to suspend the rules to introduce an amendment to a bill that hasn't been provided this late in the game? This was part of the divided report that was presented to all of us. Sure, there was there wasn't an amendment prepared that I'm aware of. I said, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And so so. I'm going to ask the clerk to advise us on that issue. This amendment was not provided in advance, nor before the 12 new deadline for today. So it's a rule to a motion to suspend the rules as necessary. Okay. Thank you. I would move to suspend the rules so that this amendment can be considered. And the spirit of that is that we all knew this language. We knew the issue. It was presented to us in writing. And so I would move to suspend the rules. So it's moved in second and that we suspend the rules. Any comments or questions about that? Council Member O'Brien. Yeah, so I didn't realize that this amendment was going to be presented. I would I'm going to vote against suspending the rules. And the reason is I would actually like to look at the language in that amendment and make further amendments to it. But because we're talking about free speech and our policies, I'm not comfortable making those decisions on the spot up here and would prefer to have time to have legal review. Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules in order to consider this amendment. I'm sorry. Oh, council member. So on. Thank you. I just wanted to say for the record that I concur with Council member O'Brien's point about this free speech is too important. We can't just rush to this amendment. Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules to consider this amendment vote. I opposed vote. No. No. Okay. We're going to have to do that again. And those in favor, please vote I by raising your hand. Those opposed vote no. The motion is approved. We now have the amendment before us. Are there any further comments on the amendment? Councilmember Rasmus Thank. You. These this amendment will address the scenario that Councilmember O'Brien described. It's also consistent with the kind of requirements that are in the property and use and development agreement agreements that we have approved in the past. So I believe it addresses those concerns. However, again, I urge my colleagues in the forthcoming years to treat all people equally regardless of who the the petitioner is and who is before this council. And I that is, I think, critically important. I encourage you, if you want to adopt new policies related to vacation petitions, you do that in open public process and you do it through a public hearings and you adopt the use by resolution, not based upon case by case, depending upon whether you like that person, like that business or not. That is not, I think, due process by any stretch of stretch of the imagination. And I think that we have a very strong public benefit package. It will significantly improve the pedestrian experience in the Denny Triangle. It's consistent, as DPD said, with the visions and the plans for the Denny Triangle, not Amazon's plans, but the city's plans for the Denny Triangle. And so they are meeting all of our public benefit requirements. They're paying full market value for that property, and they're going to be contributing significantly to low income housing funds and other needs that we have in the city. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien. So I'm going to need a little parliamentary help here. So I would like to amend the amendment, and I don't know if we need to suspend the rules again. No. To do that. Okay. But hopefully your amendment is going to be easily understood. And. Well, what I would like to do is require that there is. Signage on the site so that the public can be aware of what their First Amendment rights are in this space. And again, because this amendment wasn't presented as an amendment before, I haven't had time to work this up so I can kind of just make things up on the fly. And so maybe I'll let some other folks comment. We'll all work on some language to scribble down here. If I may. I say I think that's a friendly amendment that's consistent with what we include, that kind of language on our property and and development agreements. And the agreement that all of us approved just on November 30th says that that a summary of the rules is posted invisible locations in the development. So if that we have that language and if you want to state more specifically about the ability of the public to to use the site, ensure that the public can pass through or use a public benefit regardless of whether such use by the public is associated with the development. There's really great language in the property use and development agreement that we passed. We could. Crafted from that, cobble it from that. But I agree with you on the notice to the public. I have already gone to developers when I've seen that these public sites are not well signed, that don't look like they are open and welcoming to the public and ask them to change the signage so that everyone knows that they have the right to go through that site and use it even if it's on private property. So our resident expert is here. Mr. Barnett, I'm wondering if I could ask you if the signage requirement is covered in the terms and in the puta and proper posting. And you're answering. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Can we ask her to come to the microphone? Could you step up to the microphone, please, and introduce yourself and tell the vast audience who you are? Yes. I'm Beverly Barnett with Seattle Department of Transportation and I will be administering this. We do require signage on all of the public spaces, and that would be one of the standard conditions. So whatever language the council imposes today, we would work out how to have that signed on. The public spaces related to the Amazon project. Thank you. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I think your concern is already addressed. And based on the testimony of Ms.. Barnett, do you still want to make your amendment? Yes, because I haven't a chance to review exactly what that signage is. I would like something that explicitly states that people would have the ability, the public has the ability to demonstrate protest, leaflet and other acts of expressions of their own First Amendment rights. I can look at this. One thing I'll just note Councilmember Rasmussen talked about fairly and treating everyone fairly, and I agree with treating folks fairly. We wouldn't be here if folks had allowed the full extra week from the Divided report last week. We would have had time to address this beforehand. And so I feel like we're making some exceptions for a specific person or entity as opposed to following our normal procedures when there's a divided report coming out of committee to allow us time to work on that. But if someone else wants to talk, I'll read what you just handed me. Councilman Rasmussen. We probably will have to cobble language from that, but I think it carries out your intent. The reason for moving this through now, consistent with council rules, is we're going into an hour long recess holidays and we're going to have a new council next year. That's very that's extraordinary that I think in this case warrants following this rule where we can bring it before the council at this time. President Burgess Council Member So on. I, I think that it's just simply not true and not honest to say that somehow it would be unfair to Amazon if we delayed this vote to re refer it to the transportation committee. I don't know, other than Amazon executives and major shareholders who are raking the profits in at the expense of so many workers and so many people all over, especially in this region. I don't know of anybody who thinks that somehow Amazon is as a corporation is the same as any other human being. These are the fact that this vote is being expedited without giving it the due two weeks for the debate. A report itself is an example of how big business changes the rules all the time. And the reason they're able to do that is because so many elected officials are in favor of corporate interests and are not looking out for workers. And I wanted to add to what Councilmember O'Brien had said. You know, last year I was at a demonstration of workers on the Amazon campus. These workers are security guards, security personnel who have been who are being denied their lawful, safe and sick time as required by Seattle's labor law. And when the workers asked to speak to someone in charge, the Amazon representative asked them to move away from the compound and on the sidewalk in the rain, and they were not allowed to talk to anybody inside the building. And he didn't, of course, know that there was an elected official with the workers at that time and wrote to make sure that we remember that the workers who are organizing there are demanding nothing more than that the employer follow that law. And I don't think that anybody who is being honest and who is truly concerned about the interests of workers would be under any illusion that the that the process, the political process at this moment is fair and objective towards workers. It is extremely biased towards corporations. And that is why when it's a question of free speech and the question of a, you know, a mega corporation like Amazon, we should not be rushing through. If we are trying to be responsible, we should be being thoughtful. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez. I just want to I just want to hail back to the comments I made in support of the motion to hold this over, to give us a little bit more time to work through the tricky nature of crafting some First Amendment protections. I think the fact that we're all scurrying up here trying to craft some language to get clarity around what we're talking about is a case in point as to why I think we needed to suspend this for a very short period of time to address what I think were reasonable concerns brought up around freedom of speech that were flagged by Councilmember Licata. You know, there are other questions that I have, for example, around, you know, what does it mean to unreasonably interfere with somebodies enjoyment of the space? I don't I don't know where that's defined. I don't know if that's defined in the PDA. I'd like to be able to sort of consider what that actually means. And so, again, this is just an example of of, I think, needing us to be thoughtful and judicious about how we move forward on this. I recognize that the public benefits piece around this is significant. I commend Amazon for the contributions that they have made in regards to that. But I think that this is a reasonable request. I've heard from Amazon that they are amenable to agreeing to and have agreed to freedom of speech requirements via the PDP. UDAS And I want to make sure that that we are again setting up a process where it's fair and collaborative in terms of defining exactly what the contours of those conditions would be. Thank you. The parliamentarian has informed me that our vote to suspend the rules did not achieve the two thirds required vote to suspend the rules. So this amendment will not be considered. I would move to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January four, excuse me, Monday, January 11. Is there a second? I thought people did want to hold it. Well, that motion failed for lack of a second. Is it. To reconsider? Want to advise you that it's very clear that if we continue voting on this, we're going to have a 4 to 4 split. So I think it would be best to. Is it out of order to reconsider Council Member Mercado's motion to read, to refer it to the Intelligence Committee? We could reconsider that. But there's a motion on the floor right now. I think it's. Go ahead, Councilman. Assuming your motion failed, I guess it could be perhaps made again. I was just trying to take I was taking pause to understand where we were when you explained that the motion to suspend the rules failed because of two. To requires a two thirds vote, and we did not have. That. I was wondering if we could revolt, that perhaps that vote would change and we can then suspend the rules. Is that a possibility? You don't want to go through that again. Oh, I like the we haven't spoke substantively on the issue yet because I was waiting for the right opening. I wanted to lay that out because I was hoping we could actually resolve this today. It was my preference that. That's my preference as well. But I think that's not likely. You know. So my motion to refer this to full council on January 11 fails for lack of a second. What is the wish of the body? I think I got. Council member Gordon. I was going to say that in reading the the section one B to page six makes it so perfectly clear that free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed. And according to Miss Barnett, thank you very much for coming. That will be posted prominently and while engaged and allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than by conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. I mean, that seems to me perfectly clear and it's certainly consistent and it seems to me that we should go ahead with this. And as a matter of fact, we did take it up twice at the Carers Protection Committee, had a public hearing and did vote upon it. There was a last minute proposal by Council member Le Carter which failed. It is a divided report and I think we should go ahead with it. Are you moving it? Should I ask that we move it? Abrahams, Assistant of Music, I believe. I call for the question. President Burgess. Thank you for the question has been called for. But colleagues clearly were divided on this issue and. So Bruce keeps one because I right. Councilmember Harrell Because we are divided and I assume that if we proceeded with a vote it fails. We sort of go back to revisiting it anyway. So I'd like to actually renew your motion to hold it till January 11th. Electorate renew that. Motion. I'll second that motion. Are there any comments on that motion? Council Member So what? I just had my hand up earlier. I wanted to go back to guns from a Ryan's point about reconsidering the amount of guns umbrella cut as motion to refer it to the transportation committee. And I believe for reconsidering calling it for reconsideration requires the losing side. So one of us who voted yes on it has to make the motion and I'm willing to make the motion. Well, there's a motion on the floor now. So if this fails, then you can go to that reconsideration. So the motion is to send this to to hold this and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. Any further comments? Councilman Earle. Thanks for your patience there. Councilman Burgess. I told you this morning we'd be in to the dinner hour. I just wanted to assure. Council members want that in making the motion. My thinking is we have almost four weeks to figure this out because we'll be around. We'll have. I think we will because we'll be here next week. And even we don't have to take vacation. We'll be around and we have the week of the fourth. But I think perhaps you're thinking it goes back to committee for more discussion. And I don't. That wasn't the intent of my motion to have. That was just to resolve these issues and get it to the full council. So. Again, I respond to that. Yes, members. Thank you, guys. Remember how. Yes. In terms of just time, you're right that there is that ordinarily, I think that would be a good amount of time. But I have two specific concerns. One is that just realistically speaking, I don't think the council will be deliberating on this because it's holiday season and this is the last one council. Everybody has other commitments, family commitments. I think this is an important issue. And I think that to do justice to it and not not not make a commitment that I don't think we're going to be able to keep. But more importantly, I think there's a difference between referring it to the committee as opposed to bringing it back to full council. The reason we're advocating to bring it back to committee is because we there are issues that need to be discussed and full council is not. The forum that facilitates that discussion. It has to happen at the committee level. So that's what I would say. Thank you. The motion before us is to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. All in favor. Vote I by raising your hand. I opposed. Vote no. The motion carries. This item is held until January 11. Please read item 51. It's.

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three Dollars ($15,763.00) in the form of a grant, for the Federal FY21 Title III: Expanding Access to COVID-19 Vaccines via Aging Networks, awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, passed through the MA Executive Office of Elder Affairs, to the administered by the Age Strong Commission. The grant will fund staff time to implement expanded vaccine access services to older adults.

BostonCC_09222021_2021-1003

Docket 1003 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and extend in the amount of $15,763 in the form of a grant for the federal FOIA. Title three Expanding Access to COVID 19 Vaccines. The aging networks awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services passed to the MAX Executive Office of Elder appears to be administered by the H. Strong Commission. The grant will fund staff time to implement expanded vaccine access services to older adults. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, chair of the Committee on Public Health. Chair Arroyo, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This grant funds for the vaccination efforts for our seniors and adults, older adults who are most vulnerable to COVID 19. For that reason, I would ask that we suspend and pass this docket today. Thank you. Counselor Ricardo Arroyo, chair of the Committee on Public Health, seeks suspension of the rules and passage of Docket 1003. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed, moving right along to reports of public officers and others. Madam Clerk, would you please read Docket 1004? Docket 1004 communication was received from the City Clerk of the agreement between the City of Boston and 140 Clarendon. L l Limited Partnership pursuant to Chapter 121 is Section six eight of the Massachusetts General Law.

A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code’s pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of approximately seven months. Approves a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code's pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of seven months. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-20-16.

DenverCityCouncil_08222016_16-0498

It has moved in second to the public hearing for council bill 498 is open. May we have the staff report? And that's going to come from our very own councilman, Casimir. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. The parking exemption for small developments officially known as the small zone, light vehicle parking exemption for parcels of 6250 square feet or less was was initiated in the Main Street Zone districts, primarily Mass one in 2006. The goal was to promote re-use of existing buildings and to stimulate small scale development on these smaller parcels that had access and parking challenges rather than encourage assemblages of multiple lots for large scale development. When the new zoning code was passed in 2010, the small parking exemption was extended to all mixed use zone districts, hoping again to stimulate small scale commercial or residential developments. In nine years, we've had one building built using that exemption. It's a three storey project comprised of ground floor commercial with nine dwelling units. There are currently ten projects in the pipeline in various stages of review. There are about 5300 small parcels in mixed use districts across the city. Some are already combined and have buildings on them. Several hundred are city or state owned. Denver's affordable housing crisis has changed the residential landscape. A new element has come into the inventory called micro housing. As a result, the small parking exemption now, as now written, leaves the door open for a development on small parcels that far exceeds the original intent to head off further damage to the community council president Brooks. At the prompting of a dedicated group of concerned neighbors, has proposed a seven month moratorium to give time to craft a more protective ordinance. During his absence from council, I was pleased to help move this through the process. If the moratorium passes, it is our intention to form a broad based stakeholders group to excuse me to exist in the work of crafting that more protective ordinance. I would like to pay tribute for a whole lot of advance work done by former District ten Councilwoman Jeannie Robb, who worked with a similar group of stakeholders and came up with a proposal that may or may not be the final outcome of a new group, but will definitely help get things rolling in the right direction. The councilwoman simply ran out of time before she was term limited out of office. So with that, Mr. President, let's hear from our speakers. Yeah, excellent job. And I'll just add to Councilman Cashman and just thank him. I was out for a month and Councilman Cashman picked up the ball on this important issue. So thank you so much. And now we're excited to hear from you, all the public. So we have 11 speakers for council. Well, for 98, I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm actually going to use this area for the speakers to sit. They may be able to squeeze on there, but if they can't, if you can find out, see, that'd be great. All right. We'll call Bob Hickman. Margie Valdez, Doug. Greg Craig. Vander Lynn. And David Engel can come on up. And Bob Hickman, you're up first and you have 6 minutes. Thank you. My name is Bob Hickman. I live at 1091 South Gilman Street in Denver. Good evening, council members. And good evening, Council President Brooks. It's very nice to see you. You. Allow me to read from our current zoning ordinance. Not to be too repetitious here, but section ten .4.5.1 A which deals with preexisting small zone lots. It says in all mixed use, commercial zone districts, buildings on zone lots which are equal to or smaller than 6250 square feet. An area on June 25th, 2010, shall be exempt from providing parking otherwise required by this division. One sentence. How could one sentence in the ordinance be of such concern? How could one sentence, with the simple goal of encouraging development of small lots while limiting negative impacts, become such a big deal? What has brought this moratorium to your attention tonight? It came to our attention when we became aware of four projects being developed, or two, depending on your point of view. 1570 and 1578 Humboldt two side by side, 50 foot wide zone lots across the street from the Humboldt Street Landmark District. 54 units in each building, a total of 108 with the restaurant five stories over 60 feet in height, and are a projection of 60% of the tenants owning an automobile. Zero parking spaces provided. 31st in stout two zone lots separated by an alley, three and a half stories 54 total units zero parking spaces provided. Located in a landmark district, neither neighborhood can absorb this kind of added on street parking demand. The street parking potato sack is full. There is no more room for more potatoes. And there are similar development efforts underway in Cherry Creek in South Pearl. We discovered there are over 4200 parcels in Denver of this size, and although the exact number of zone lots has not been identified, the vast majority are eligible for this parking exemption and are found in nearly all council districts creating a citywide problem. When the Humble Street Neighborhood Association and Curtis Park neighborhood neighbors directly impacted by this exemption realized the scale of the problem and the potential for excessive development of these lots. We undertook efforts for the moratorium being considered. Tonight, our group met with Council nine, Councilmember Albert Brooks. He listened and took action sponsoring this moratorium bill. Thank you all for your understanding of the impact of these kind of projects in your district. Councilman Cashman, thank you for assisting in Albert's absence. I always enjoy communicating with you. And ditto for this time. And I know Albert is grateful for what you did. Now we are likely to hear opinion this evening about how affordable housing may benefit from this prison exemption. You are likely to hear opinion about how this parking exemption furthers the cause to take Denver to a city with less and less car ownership . However, this moratorium is not about either of these very important issues Denver is facing. To me, these discussions are more suited to Denver's blueprint to efforts, and that is where a long term vision and solution can be created. The problem of affordable housing and getting people to use car cars less will certainly not be solved by continuing this exemption, nor will they not be solved by passing this moratorium bill. This moratorium is simply a brief time out, time to allow a diverse citizen and professional group to explore with community planning and development, text amendment language preventing what community planning and development has described as the unintended consequences and excessive development resulting from the present parking exemption. I strongly urge you to pass this moratorium bill so the task force can be established and get on with its work. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Margie Valdez. Good evening. Council President Brooks, I'm very glad to see you back. My name is Margie Valdez. I live at 2000 East 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, and I'm here in support of the moratorium. I am the chair of the Agency Zoning and Planning Committee, and the IMC, Zoning and Planning Planning Committee urges the Denver Community Planning and Development Department and the City Council to support a moratorium on applying Section ten .4.5.1 per in a the Denver Zoning Code to the issuance of zoning building permits for development of apartments on small lots 60 to 50 square feet or less unless adequate parking is provided. Such developments can put extreme parking pressures on surrounding neighbors and businesses. This is a motion that was passed by both the Sapp committee. The Zoning and Planning Committee went to our delegates and it was enthusiastically supported by the ANC delegates. I'm very proud to be presenting the motion tonight and thank both President Bush, Brooks and Councilman Cashman for their support in furthering this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Valdez. Doug Gregg. Good evening. Wish Council President a best to health. I just want to make three quick statements. Introduce yourself. First. Oh, Doug. Greg, Greg. I live at 1901, East 13th Avenue, apartment one H at the corner of 13th and High. Thank you. I'm proud. 40 year old resident of Capitol Hill. South Capitol Hill. And that's very point. We already are so overwhelmed with cars. We should be sitting here tonight talking about building parking spots. To take care of the crisis and to build a building with no parking spots is pure insanity. This is a theoretical question, and I don't expect any of you up there to answer your raise your hands. But some of you have children and one of you and two of you might even have grandchildren. And the American dream is still to have a car. And you go ask your children or grandchild if they don't want to have a car. And they are going to say, sure, sure they do. We might have a few enlightened, educated people that dream of the future of a car society. We're not we're not going to see it in our lifetimes. So we have to plan accordingly. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of Denver. Thank you. Yeah. If I had. Any time left, I'll give it yield like they do in Congress to. One of these. Fine people. Yeah. You can't do that. But I appreciate that thought. Craig Vandalia. Good evening. My name is Craig Vander and 1621 Humboldt Street. President Brooks, Councilman Cashman and the rest of the City Council. We thank you very much for taking up this moratorium Bill. And I speak in favor of it. Many of you probably watched the Olympics recently, and you know that in a lot of team sports, they're able to call a timeout at a very critical moment. You know, could be in the Super Bowl with 2 minutes left or in a volleyball match. I think it's very prudent and strategically wise on the part of the city council to take this moratorium bill, to take a time out and study this really important issue that has a significant impact on the entire city. So we applaud your efforts on this matter and appreciate your consideration of the moratorium. Thank you again. Thank you. Davydenko can. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, and thanks to all of you again. We've gone through this drill maybe four times in the last, whatever, 13 years of our. Neighborhood association and always are grateful to live in a city where we have a city council that's so accessible and so open to really hear the full and objective. Story of what we're experiencing. At the neighborhood level. My job. Here is to just give you a. Super quick review of the progress. We made in the course of not only meeting with each of you, but also meeting and winning support from a number. Of neighborhood organizations citywide. Curtis Park neighbors helped initiate the moratorium. On. The 2nd of May. They voted 10 to 1 to endorse the moratorium bill Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association working with them. By April 29th, we had had a vote of our executive committee and unanimously in support. Uptown Urban Design Forum. Dr. Branigan's. Outfit had a vote that was unanimous. In support, and they. Represented. At that meeting six neighborhood organizations in the hospital zone area, particularly surrounding it. And also the reps of the four largest institutions in the hospital zone. Kaiser St Joseph's, Presbyterian, St Luke's and Children's. Important was Al. Davis. The representative from Saint Joseph's noted how important the renewal of the 17th Avenue business strip has become to the hospitals. It's seen as an amenity for their patients, families and friends and clients coming in there, and it's already overloaded. Parking is already difficult to find and it's our blocks. We're in the next block south, not our block. Franklin Street, Lafayette is to come and Gilpin and East are already serving as the overflow for those areas. So there's simply no room for around the clock. Addition of dozens. Of new cars. The Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association at their main meeting voted the board voted unanimously in support of the moratorium. We'd like to thank Councilman Brooks, who helped us. Initiate the vote at the Inter Neighborhood. Cooperation that Ms.. Valdes just told you about. Capitol Hill. United Neighborhoods voted 9 to 5 at their June 1st meeting and support West Washington Park Neighborhood Association on their own brought this to their board without us even asking them and got a 13 to 0 support for the moratorium bill. As of. June 22nd, 11. Of the 13 of you indicated you would support. A well drafted. Moratorium ordinance from. Our individual meetings with you. Thank you so much for taking the time and the consideration for those. And we have we've gathered. Over. 225. Neighborhood. Signatures on a petition in support. Of the moratorium bill. Particularly the particular thanks goes to Mick Barnhart. Of Curtis Park. Neighbors to organize a beautiful groundswell of. Support that way. We have three houses in the immediate Humboldt Street area, Mr. York and the Denver. Post, July 26th. A lot of support there. All right. All right. I'm going to call the last four speakers up Kim Heights, Hillary Waters, Frank lack entry. And John Barajas, just this front row here, if you all could come up, Kim Heights will be first. John, if I. If I said your last name wrong, I apologize. Go ahead, Kim. Kim nighters and I'm at 1013 East 26th Avenue and I want to say thank you to you for supporting this and. Sponsoring the bill and also to Cashman for definitely, you know, being. Your right hand person on this and making it happen. So I want to also say thank you to all the council members. I had an opportunity to speak to the majority of you and received really positive feedback with regards to the moratorium. I also went out and spoke to a bunch of. The RINO's and also. Within the neighborhood. The are. As Dave said with regards to the RINO's was. A very positive feedback. And overwhelming support with regards to that. And then also with regards to our petition, we had many signatures with regards to people in the neighborhood supporting this right here. So anyways, Curtis Park has two properties that are less. Than 60 to 50 divided by. An alley, 54 units requesting no parking and a. Middle of a residential neighborhood that already has. It's a neighborhood that's over a hundred years old. Nobody has any. Garages. To park their cars. So it's definitely. An opportunity for the city to change the zoning. Code and to build right and to build smart when new construction is being proposed. Again, I hope you will support the moratorium. Thank you. Hillary Waters. As I said, I'm Hilary Waters and I live at 1630 Humboldt Street and I'm in support of the moratorium. And thank you for your support. Councilman Brooks and Councilman Cashman, fellow publisher. If as co-publisher of Life on Capitol Hill and Neighborhood Life for 21 years I observed in our papers covered. A lot of the changes, the ebb and flow of development that came into the neighborhoods of central Denver. What is currently happening, I believe, is a perfect storm that most of the general public and many in government failed to see coming. The adoption of a form based zoning code. The surge of popularity. Of Denver as the place to live. The trend of worshiping at the altar of density and the trend of micro-housing. All four of these items. The result. I believe, is neighborhoods that can instantly double in population density, neighbors that have no influence on what is constructed in their. Midst and the decrease of the quality of life. Developers are smart. They are exploiting the unintended consequence of small art development with the use of micro-housing and the city's worship of density. This trend will kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is the charm and beauty of Denver neighborhoods. Housing that is close, but not too close. Tree lawns. Tree canopies. A variety of architectural styles. Buildings that are in proportion with landscaping setbacks. Pleasing relationships to their neighboring buildings. What are we getting today? I believe is massive high density development in a monotonous. Prison like architectural style. Driven by developers exploiting every possible inch of their. Property, whether a row of townhomes, full city block. Apartments or migrant unit cram and jam projects. The designs are efficient. Boring, repetitive and ugly. It maximizes profit, minimizes expense, and is devoid of elegance and charm and style. I'm not anti-development, though. I really am not. But I am anti. Poor quality. Development and I believe this is the legacy of what's happening. In the current development trends. We are a city of Fisher and. Fisher and William. Lang and the bishops and many other talented. Architects of the last century. They produced elegant apartment buildings. Grand homes, small, charming bungalows, medium sized apartment buildings from the twenties and the thirties and forties. A city at that time encourage the building of something worthy, substantial, elegant and in proportion. And now I feel the city encourages development. Period. The build, build, build, get as much in as can cram as possible. If it fits the form, it gets approved, even if it overwhelms its neighbors and hurts the eyes. Looking for more visionary development encouragement. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Ms.. Waters. Please. Please call your pa so we can get through the last two. Frank like to. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you. My name is Frank Logan. Tory. I am a resident of City Park West. I live at the corner of 16th Avenue and Gaylord. And I'll. I'll make a left turn here, and I'm opposing this idea. How to say this is that, for example, I live in City Park. I chose to live in City Park West because of exactly the things that McWhorter said. Couldn't have said it better. It's a beautiful area. It Denver is beautiful. I am so lucky to live in Denver. I'm so lucky to live in City Park West in these neighborhoods. I would like it if other people were as lucky as I was as I am to be able to live in this neighborhood because I can walk to pretty much everything that I want or need except for perhaps the mountains. And so I can access things because of the way that the community was developed. Now. The community was developed quite a long time ago. I live in a house that was built over 100 years ago. And if if I want more people to be as lucky as I am, there needs to be more housing. The crisis that I feel that we're facing isn't one of parking. The crisis that I feel that we're facing is one of a lack of housing. We we've the council has talked about that a long time. Neighborhood associations have been talking about that for a long time. We need more affordable housing. And one of the ways that we can have affordable housing is by building more units. And while I do sympathize with the ugliness of some development projects, I also feel that that's also in the eye. One, it's in the eye of the beholder. And too, it's a luxury that I don't know we can afford right now. We need if if the stats are correct. In an article that I read today, 20 people are moving into Denver every day. So multiply that by 30 days in a month. That's 600 people that are moving into the city. Are we building 600 housing units in Denver each month? If we're not, then the prices continue to go up. And it makes it more difficult for people to live in the awesome neighborhood that I live in right now. And if we're making it more difficult for people to live in the neighborhood that I live in right now, that means they're going to be living further from the city core. They're going to be driving. They're going to need cars. They don't need cars. They can be car light and live in the city, work in the hospital district. You know, without the cars we get what we build for. If we build parking spaces, we get cars and we force people to be able to drive places or force them to purchase cars that they don't want, don't need or they can't afford. So I want you to sit when you're asking the question about do we have adequate parking? I want you to ask me to do we have adequate housing? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we we got a better spelling on your name now. Is it Joann? Burritos. Plus. Okay. I'll help you with that. Okay. Hi. Good evening, City Council. And good evening, fellow residents. My name is John Barrios. I didn't expect you to know that, but it's okay. You can call me Joe. That's fine. Sorry about that. No, no, no. No worries. So I'm a parker. I live in a two car household. I also live in Uptown on 19th and Logan and I work in Centennial and my partner works in Idaho Springs. So we don't really have a choice. We need our cards really badly. So you would think that I'm here to support the moratorium, but I'm not because. We have to make a tough choice in my household, similar to the choice that you guys have to make. Right. You're trying to represent the interests of everyone. And I'll tell you a little bit about what's going on in my house. We work really far away, but we're also expecting our first baby. And so seven months doesn't seem like a long time. But in six months, two big things are happening in our house. We're having a baby and our lease is up. And we really love our town. We were both elected members of the board. We've gotten really familiar with our neighbors. We love it there and we want to raise our baby there. But in six months, when our leases up, we're going to be priced out of a unit that we moved into two years ago. So now we have to choose. Do we support parking or we do we support the ability to live in our neighborhood in six months. And I can tell you that choice is really clear for us. I am unfortunately having one of those pregnancies where I'm like nauseous all day long. And when I come home from work at like 6 p.m. and I have to drive around the block four times just to get a spot. I hate the world. It makes me crazy. It drives me nuts. I hate it. But I need a place to live in six months. And I love my neighborhood. So seven months. Oh, it's no big deal. It's just a short time out and parking. Yes, we have a parking problem. Yes, we have a parking problem. But we have a housing problem. So think of the families that live in these neighborhoods. Think of, you know, my partner's wildland firefighter. I'm a civil servant. We don't have a lot of flexible income. The baby's going to eat up all of that extra housing income we were counting on when the lease was up. So just a different perspective. We hope we get to stay. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all our speakers. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Seeing no questions. I'm actually going to ask a question of Kyle Dalton. He's with community planning and development. Kyle, do you do you have the pending? 6250. Square lot. Parking exemption list. I do, yes. Great. I just wanted to I wanted you to just make sure you read that, because obviously in this bill, the pending applications who have gone through concept review are permitted to go through. But I just wanted you to read those in their locations. Sure. To the record. For the record, I'm Kyle Dalton, principal city planner at the Department of Community Planning and Development. So our records show, to the best of our knowledge, we have 11 projects that would meet the test in the bill as drafted in terms of having submitted a complete application for concept review. They are the two that have been mentioned a couple of times here at 16th and Humboldt. There are two located at 3148 Stout and 3121 Downing. Sure there's one at 1411 South Pearl, one at 1193, South Pennsylvania, there's one at 38, 15 Jason Street, there's one at 135. Adams Street, 2420 Welton Street. 3022 Zuni Street. And 660 Logan Street. Thank you. Councilwoman each. Thank you, Mr. President. And this question may be for you or for the staff, but can you we just I think it's always helpful to clarify expectations. So there's going to be a process. You're going to have diverse opinions. Is it your expectation that this group will work on consensus model to make recommendation or that they will debate things and may or may not all agree, but they will make their best, you know, input to you and to the city staff as and that the decision making will kind of lie after or outside the process. I just thought it'd be good to clarify, you know, whether and what the expectations are, because I think that this is an important time out. But I wanted to get a sense of, you know, what the input level is. So Kyle, I think from a process perspective, I think you should talk about it. But, but I want to mention this as far as the people who are going to the stakeholders who are going to be on their council, Councilman Cashman and myself will be looking at a diverse set of stakeholders from folks who are in the community, folks who are actually affected by this. We're going to be looking at architects. We're going to be looking at actual developers. We're gonna look at an affordable housing expert. We're going to be looking at a TOD manager. We're going to look at a lot of different experts at the table along with these community representatives. And then we're going to I think you said it best. We will look at a consensus model. But the way that CPD has outlined this process, I think we're going to start to form some contextual agreements around some of these different zone districts and what this kind of looks like. But Kyle wanted you to speak because you've you have run many of these and have suggested some an area for us to go in on this. So go ahead. Sure. Thanks. Given that so much work was done by Councilwoman Mara before she departed off the office last year, we have a lot of background work that's already been done in terms of looking at other cities, acquiring the data here in Denver, understanding the history. And Councilman Cashman did a good job of explaining a lot of what happened so we can hit the ground running. As soon as if this bill were to pass and sign into law, we could start right away with the sponsors to form that stakeholder committee and work over the next couple of months or so to hopefully, you know, help those folks get to consensus about a recommended change to the code, which we would then propose be included within the bundle, the text amendments that the department does about once a year, cleaning up and clarifying the code so that we might bring it through with you on that same adoption process and and get it done in the time afforded by the moratorium. Yeah, but I think that's a good expectation because I have heard from some folks saying, you know, will there be 20, 30 folks on the committee? And we probably wouldn't get a lot done with that many folks. And so we're looking at about 12 to 15 would a significant amount of folks from the community and making sure we have those experts as well who are coming in and more of a neutral position saying, hey, here is here's the expertize from the field. And so I think that's important for folks to realize. Thank you. I'm sorry. Real quick follow up, Mr. President. What happens if the group does not reach consensus? What's the what's the. Well, I mean, a council can meet in these questions. I'd tell you. I believe we will reach consensus. I think I'm in three or four of these issues right now currently and very tough issues that have reached consensus. But if we don't, we will have to come back here and extend the moratorium. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa. Mr.. Looking like a question for you. Right, Frank. So for the last six years, this exemption has been in place and in the area of your bid. It's been in place even longer. Why do you why do you think it hasn't solved the housing problem during this building boom? And shouldn't it be reconsidered to possibly better address the needs that you just identified? Can you repeat? I'm afraid that you're asking a question that's way out of my pay grade. But can you repeat it again? Right. So this this this exemption actually started on Colfax in the Main Street Zone District. So it's been in place even longer for your area that you represent is a bit longer than it's been citywide in the unintended consequences really extend citywide. But so during this extreme building boom that we've had over the last five years, we still have a dearth of affordable housing. So your statements were that this is somehow going to solve that problem when it hasn't over the last five years. Right. So what do you think? Why do you think that? And don't you think we should actually spend the time to try and figure out how we might address the needs on these small lots with some with moratorium and some reconsideration? Thank you. Yeah. First of all, clarify that, you know, I am speaking on behalf of me as a person and not as the Business Improvement District on Colfax. Second, I don't think that there is a real simple solution to the affordable housing issue. Otherwise it would have been solved. And you know, you all are going through that. And, you know, there's impact fees and those property fees that, you know, may be assessed to folks. And I think that's a piece of it. The perspective that I was bringing to it was more that just kind of like the simple supply and demand. And again, I don't mean that this isn't that this is the solution, but when and and I also don't mean to infer that the the one the development that's closest to me is at 16th and Humboldt, that's market rate. You know, there are some could say they're kind of expensive for the amount of square feet that you get, but it's adding 108 units into the supply. And so if parking is being required for that, then there's a cost to a parking spot. And that parking the cost of that parking spot is going to erase some level of housing, some some place where somebody can sleep. The more that the more that the number of parking spots are required, the more places that somebody can sleep are going to be diminished. So from for my perspective, the more that we are prioritizing parking over people, the more that we get into the situation where we have a shortage of housing and we should be doing what we can to increase housing supply within reason. Because if that was to go live at 16th and Humboldt, then that means that perhaps some of the old, you know, Victorian homes that have been converted into five units, five apartment units now that are commanding a thousand bucks a month that really aren't worth a thousand bucks a month. Maybe, though, the prices of those are going to go down by a couple of hundred bucks of months, and then that starts making it a little bit more affordable. So this is these are all the moving parts where I don't think that there is a silver bullet, clearly. Okay. Just out of curiosity, I in one of my ongoing frustrations is in areas of 2D. And this is relative to what you're just seeing. We have considerably massive zone districts, but there's no development requirement that you build the number of units to address the housing need can actually underbid. Do you feel that we should actually have a minimum requirement in certain residential zoned districts around at0d or mixed use? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for those of you on council who have these units being proposed within your district. Is there an average square footage size for the micro units that are part of the applications that are moving through the process? You know, I don't have. Maybe one of the community advocates has the actual size for the d d line. Whoever has that information, I we can. We can. The need to put. Some sort of make up. Nick Barnhart, 3117 South Street, the ones that are proposed in Curtis Park, or approximately 320 square feet. And are they just one bedroom? I think they're more like studio studios. Obviously. Okay. So that sort of gets it kind of a concern that we're not talking about family housing. When we are talking about these micro units, it's barely enough for one person, let alone a family, to live there. My next question is to Kyle, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Is KPD planning to handle this internally or is this something that is going to be contracted out where we will have a contract having to come before council for a different entity that will administer the process that was just talked about earlier to kind of move this forward. Sure. So so first of your previous question, I'll just note some of these projects don't even have a residential component or are five, six, seven units, so they're not all micro-housing projects, although some are. To your question to me, we will not be contracting this out. We'll be managing this together with like with the council sponsorship. So in some of these developments that were talked about earlier, whether it's the one on Humboldt or on Stout Street, you mentioned some of the addresses. So you're saying some of these will have commercial that will not have any parking requirements as well. So they're not all just residential, they're mixed use developments, correct? Some are only residential. Well, one is only commercial. It's an office building and the rest are mixed. Okay. So the fact that any of the buildings will have commercial uses, I think could further exacerbate some of the parking problems in the neighborhoods. Thank you for the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any more questions? Seeing none. Public hearing of Council Bill 498 is now close. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. I'll repeat that. Thank you, Mr. President. A very interesting discussion. You know, we're on we're on this cusp of a world with no parking. I think that cusp is a lot wider than some people do. You know, we were at the. A number of us were at the National League of Cities Conference in Nashville a couple of years ago. And there are folks they tend to be younger that they believe were were with driverless cars in widespread use in five years. And why do you need parking spaces? Because you don't need to own cars. I don't think we're there yet. I think we still need to make reasonable accommodation for automobiles. I think this moratorium is essential because this is a complex discussion and I don't want to encourage auto ownership, but I certainly don't want to encourage over 100 units on one block with no parking. That's what I'm trying to stop here. That's my personal view of things. You know, we can talk about reasonable, reasonable reductions and reasonable numbers to try to reach a middle ground. But to do nothing makes no sense to me. And can we get serious here? 320 square feet. For a residence now that's going on today and widespread use. But there's a lot of things that go on today that aren't going to be going on in five years. When when, when trends change and housing desires change and the economy changes. And I couldn't agree more with Councilwoman Ortega. And I know Brother Lopez talks about this all the time. We need housing for families in this city. There is a dire need not just for for many housing, but a dire need for two, three and four bedroom affordable units. And we need to solve that as well. So while we're talking about these this parking exemption, do we require since people there's no evidence that I've seen that people in Denver are giving up their cars ? I just haven't seen that. So do we. Somehow I don't even know if it's legal or possible. Require if you're going to take a parking exemption that you can only rent or sell to people who somehow prove they have no motor vehicles. I mean, there's got to be some sort of logic to what we're doing. I also want to commend my my good friend Hillary Waters for her comments on the architecture. As Hillary said, she published life on Capitol Hill for a couple of decades while publish the Washington Park paper. And Hillary has been a warrior for her community for a lot of years. And that that whole idea about what are we doing, what do we want Denver to look like? Do we really want it to look like these mini boxes that are going up? I just spent six days in Connecticut last week and I'm looking at architecture from the 1600s and 1700s. Now there's newer buildings and they don't look exactly like the older buildings, but they sure aren't building square boxes. They're making a real effort to establish character of their community. And I think we better get back to that real soon, or I think we're going to be making a whole lot of mistakes along the way. And I want to end my comments with a philosophical question that I keep answering, and I haven't heard a real discussion of it yet. And that is what do we want Denver to be do right now? Last I heard, we were at 700 or 682,000. We'll be at 700,000 people soon. We were like at 500,000, one decade, 500,000, another decade, 500,000, another decade. All of a sudden, we're at 682,000. So what's Denver's ultimate population? Is it 900,000 or is it 4 million? I mean, I know it takes a crystal ball, but I think that discussion is critical to discussions like we're having now, because if we decide it's 4 million, we better start mowing down our Victorians and build more of these boxes because we're not going to have enough room. But if we decide that character and architecture is important, and if we decide that there is limits to density, then I think it's a different discussion. And one last thing. I was involved in an Urban Land Institute process recently at the University of Denver, and it was around this new strategic plan. There was a gal from Indianapolis there, and I said to her, I said, Well, how's things going in Indianapolis? And she said, You know, as a very bright woman, she said, there's something very appealing about being a second tier city. You know, now that's a community discussion. Do we want to become. The zenith of all modern cities and cutting edge? Or is there a middle ground? Because if if we want to keep building, I hate to tell you, but there's counties all around us that have far more ground and they're going to build bigger than we are now. There are cities within an hour's drive. There's counties within an hour, an hour and a half that can start now with endless land, build a first rate, modern day transportation system to move their people around with subways and bridges and whatever else they decide they need. So we need to really understand or discuss as a city what it is we want to be. So that's getting a little bit off track, Mr. President. So I'll end there. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you for those off track comments. Councilman Cashman. We couldn't agree with the majority of them more. The. The the only clarification that I wanted to make was for my constituents in northwest Denver. When this bill first came, the draft ordinance came to my desk. It actually didn't include the lion's share of these parcels in northwest Denver because it was geared not towards the urban context, even though it was intended for all mixed use zoned districts. It did not mean not that urban. Yeah, the Yukon context. So I did make my comments to the groups that were supporting this in order to make sure that those parcels that are subject to this sort of overdevelopment in traditionally lower density neighborhoods did not get impacted and without sort of a better process. This is sort of a direct reflection of the fact that while this was originally drafted towards the Colfax corridor 32nd and Lowell, not the Colfax corridor, as much as some people may want it. So I just wanted to make it very clear to my constituents in District one that I did, in fact, do what I could to advocate that this get extended and meet the true intent that I believe was always part of the original drafting. And so I'm happy to support it because it does include the lion's share of these all these parcels in District one things. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, sir. We've had this discussion quite a bit about the small apartments. And even in Cherry Creek, we had a really strong discussion with a developer about one of the applications to be approved tonight. That apartment went up from 320 to 375 square feet, a huge jump. So. So it's pretty small. And parking was an issue and there was a good discussion about a compromise that could actually help parking as well as help the developer. So I think it's very important that we take this time out. And also all the discussion we've had, whether it's in any type of residential, a commercial zoning or even this small light zoning, it's all about transit. Where is transit? We got to people don't need cars if we have a good transit system. And I hear from from public works is still going to be five or six years away before we have our first transit implementation. So. So we we got a lot of time and there's nothing wrong with taking a time out to study this and think further and actually have a better feel for our transportation system as that planning goes forward. So I'll support this moratorium and I recommend my colleagues support it also. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to speak in support of this moratorium as well. Several years ago, the National League of Cities hosted a meeting in Seattle, and we had some some folks who went. We also had a follow up meeting later with the Denver Partnership and several members of city council, some of whom are no longer on this body. They've been term limited, but we had an opportunity to go see some of the micro units in Seattle that were being built by more than one developer. And. What they said to us before we went to tour the sites was that the people who lived there didn't have cars. But we actually got a chance to meet the residents that lived in a couple of the developments that we saw. One building was a five story building, had, I think, 36 units. They were on single family residential blocks and they didn't have any parking, very similar to what we're dealing with here today. And we learned that they do have cars. They were challenged to find a place to park. The neighbors who lived on the block really didn't want them parking on their block. And so it created a problem. And their city council was supposed to be dealing with that very topic during the time that we were there. And I understand they delayed it and still haven't found the right solution to addressing that problem. But they're struggling with the same issues that have begun to come up here with some of the projects that are having a large number of units on single family residential blocks. We worked really hard on the Blueprint Denver plan that identified where the city wanted to see growth happen, and it was on the commercial corridors and at the TOD sites and we're seeing that happen all over the city. And in fact, this body has been involved in many rezonings that has encouraged development and, you know, approved the high density that will be going in at a number of transit stops across the city. So that's where it was designed in Blueprint Denver to direct that development. But what we're seeing happen is. Neighborhoods that have been traditional single family neighborhoods where Blueprint said protect the stable neighborhoods and target the growth to these other areas to the edges of neighborhoods. But we're seeing the internal fabric of many of our neighborhoods changing drastically. And, you know, you may have one or two developers that in some areas like. Around the Tennyson Street corridor, for example, where some blocks have been completely changed and replaced with duplexes that take up the entire lot. And the older, you know, some in some cases, historic buildings are gone. So in that neighborhood, I've been to a number of meetings of the Berkeley Neighborhood Association. The biggest topic that comes up over and over is the issue of parking. I've had many calls from the Curtis Park neighborhood about this same very topic way before we even proposed this moratorium. So this is an issue that I think is important for us to take this time out, figure out what are the right solutions so that we can be able to create that balance. Micro units are not the answer for family housing. We know that. And what we learned when we did the trip to Seattle was. Some of those units were 200 square feet. And they were renting them for $700 a month. Now, I've heard that some of the units that we're talking about here are in the ballpark of $1,000 a month. So, you know, are they are they truly affordable? It they're at a price point that's not available in our market today. Right. Because our prices of housing have gone up drastically. But, you know, I think they are one part of the solution of housing needs in this city. They're not the answer to all of our housing needs. And I think there is a place for them to go. But we also have to create that balance, because we know the people in Denver still drive their cars. Even with the build out of our transit system, many people still drive their cars. And so we have to create that balance. And I think having this timeout to allow us to do that is going to be an important measure that will allow us to find those right solutions. So thank you. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I'm very supportive of this amendment, and I hope that we will move this forward tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues and the members of the public who worked to bring this forward and push on this these projects. What is being proposed to be built was never the intent of this ordinance. This is a loophole. This is a workaround in my mind, a way of cheating and finding a place to build something. That was not our intent. And many of us asserted that maybe this is a good thing for Denver and a way for us to deal with affordable housing and create more housing stock. Well, if this is good for Denver, then we should go in. Eyes wide open. We should go in intentionally saying we're going to carve out a parking moratorium for this. And that's not what we did. We didn't put this in place for this use and people found a way to use it in that manner. And on that alone, we should put a moratorium on and stop this until the point at which we decide that this is what we want for our city. Tonight, I drove my car here to city council for the first time. It's the first time in three weeks that my parking spot had a car in it, not a bike, or I didn't drive by the train. And with the growth that we are experiencing as a city, we cannot build enough parking or enough new lanes for everyone to be. And so we a single occupancy vehicle in their car. We need to create real options for mobility. We need to create infrastructure that gives all of our residents the freedom of choice when it comes to mobility so that they can choose to get around however they want. The only way that we will ever be able to accommodate this kind of growth. This is not the answer to that. Letting these projects go through on these lots to give you. A. Picture of this for people who might be watching or here for one of the other hearings and wondering what's going on here. I grew up on a 50 foot lot and we really packed it in as a family of seven, one of five kids, and we never had seven drivers in our household at the same time. And yet we were a parking menace on our block and right next door to us on the next lot over that wasn't even 50 feet was a single gentleman with a two car garage and a carport. So he didn't even need the parking in front of his house. And we were still all over that block. Seven people on a 50 foot lot. Some of the projects that we have talked about tonight, 54. And that's not members of the same family with some people who are little kids being carted around. That's 54 individual households. And right next door to it, another 54. Pearl Street is in the district that I represent, and it is one of those magical places that represents everything that whether we planned on it or it just happened, really went right in our city and created communities where people want to live in the city. People want to live in our urban core because it is walkable and it is bikeable. And you can get to the train and you have all these great small local businesses. What this parking exemption was created to promote and now it's all at risk. One of these projects is on that strip of Pearl Street, 17 units. 17 people on a place where we already are stretched for parking, where these small local businesses run the risk of being choked out, where residents can't find a place to park when they're getting home from wherever they're going or have any guests over at night who can park anywhere close to their house. And in a place where. Urban living is embrace. And we have huge urban infill opportunities at the former Gates site and the Broadway marketplace, where we have residents saying, yes, bring density on. Here's a place where we can build that missing housing stock. Here's a place by transit where that makes sense. And instead, what we're getting is 17 units. On Pearl Street with no requirement to build parking. Even if for a second I can see that the people living there are able to use the train or a bike or bicycle or car to go, to get to work, to get to the grocery store, to get to all of the troops that they make every day. 17 people, and none of them are going to keep a car so that they can go skiing because we don't have an option to get from the city to skiing. 17 people who are all new to Denver, 40 new people a day in metro Denver. None of them want a car so that they can go home for Thanksgiving dinner to spend it with their family. And they only hang out with other people who also don't have a car and don't ski and don't want to go home for Thanksgiving dinner because there will be no place for their guests to park either. I don't believe it. I don't buy it. And I think that what's at risk here, because this is one project on Pearl Street when there are entire blocks, the entirety of Pearl Street, that could be one after another. What's at risk? What we could lose here is far too great to even take a chance on. And I frankly think that it is irresponsible for those who are building these kind of projects when that exemption was never intended for this and is something that that puts so much at risk for so many to even be considering these projects. So I personally wish we could have tightened up the pipeline more aggressively and said, no, this is not what we intended here. And so you don't get to do it until we take a timeout. And I really hope that we will come out of this moratorium period with something that respects the fabric, fabric of our communities and gets this type of development under control. You know, if we're going to really look at this and there are really developers who say, yeah, I know these people aren't going to hit cars and they don't have friends who need cars and they don't want to go skiing. Then why don't they come to the table with when you rent here, you get an eco pass, you get a bicycle membership, you get a car to go membership. Oh, and by the way, we'll do residential parking permits on this street and ten blocks in any direction that my people won't be able to get. Because if you really believe in it, then that's the kind of proposal that we should see, a proposal that makes sure not promises what could be with this thing that we've never done but says no, you know what? It will not make any sense for someone. Someone will be unable to advocate my development and I'm still willing to put my capital on the line because I think I can rent it out. What's happening is we are all paying for that. That's been being sold to us. And I don't I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I hope that we'll pass this unanimously tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Greenwich. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I, too, plan to vote for this piece of legislation tonight and to thank the sponsors for their work on it and the department. But I think that, you know, we speak from the dais not just to explain our vote, but also to, I think, enhance and take dialogs to the next level. So I think it's important just to share some cautions or some counterpoints to some of the dialog that we've had up here tonight. I think that my colleague, Councilman Cashman in particular, is right in saying that our infrastructure and our our our land use might be a little bit ahead of our transportation choices and our mobility. Right. So that is a real observation. And it is true we don't have as much high frequency bus service as we need. For example, rail is great, but it's very expensive and difficult to implement. So our next generation is going to be higher frequency bus, more affordable fares, whatever the different options need to be. So. So that is a significant point and I think one that this council has recognized. And it's why we are not just debating these land use pieces, but talking a lot about the infrastructure spending to fund and expand the choices that Councilman Clark mentioned. But I do just want to, you know, clarify, I think what I think are a few misnomers. Though there are choices today. It's not that there are no choices. The busting is see that service to the mountains? It's running today. It's ahead of projection. You can actually take a bus to the mountains. So let's make sure that everyone knows that, right? Let's talk about it more. They're in the process of expanding the frequency of it. So there's more trips right up to the mountains and back. But you actually can take a bus to ski in Colorado. And we've had that service for less than a year. So it's not everyone knows about it yet. But but but I think we have a responsibility to educate that these choices are coming. And it's not that our land use discussions shouldn't be contemplating them and or even responding to them. I want to talk a little bit about this idea that, you know, that we can somehow, you know, kind of limit our share of the growth in that our neighbors, you know, around us will be able to absorb it all. You know, we have an urban growth boundary in the entire metro region. So there is a voluntary agreement that all of the counties in the metro area have made and said, you know what, we can't sprawl in every square inch of green space. Why can't we? Well, first of all, because just like folks talked about the golden goose, our golden goose is really open space and mountain views and all of that. And if we build in every available space in this region outside of Denver, then the thing that made many of us love living here is diminished, too. So we as a region have actually said no. The other reason we don't want to sprawl into every piece of open space is because it's expensive. We do modeling. I'm our representative on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and we model different development scenarios and the infrastructure cost to build those new roads that some folks were describing and to build the water. Water is a huge issue in this region. It's not there. And so our neighbors are having the same conversation we are now. They may not have a downtown Denver or a tech center with 20 storey high rises, but they're debating townhomes where they used to only have single family homes or they're debating three and five story where they only had one story commercial. They are having the same conversation about growing up and growing smarter that we are. So so I think that the idea that we can just kind of, you know, continue our trend of planning for the single car and that, you know, some of this growth will go elsewhere. I don't think that's a realistic scenario. There is a desire people have to live in this city and with the amenities that we have. And that's a credit to both the character as well as some of the investments. Right. It's both of those things. So so here's my my fear. Here's my caution, I guess, about this moratorium, which is that I will disclose I'm a returning member of council. So I had a chance to talk with Councilwoman Robb when she thought about writing an amendment, and she did have a very good compromise. The compromise included some projects not having any parking and then it included other projects with more units or different kinds of units having some parking, but maybe not the same amount that they would have in some other zone districts. It was a true compromise. It didn't have always parking 17 units next to a transit station might not need parking. There are other options. Travel, demand, management. I agree with Councilman Clark. This is the concept where you say to someone, if you want the privilege of building this way, then do a written plan on how you are going to get these alternative modes. I hope this group discusses that. But but I think that, you know, I wanted to just ask the questions I did of of the sponsor, because I think it's really important to say that this council reserves the right to broker a compromise if the community can't come, if someone joins this group with the perspective that we should never, ever build a building without parking. That to me is not paving a way towards compromise and might not be the right solution. I would not support that solution. So I am both asking the community who wants to be engaged in this dialog to be sincere about compromise and to ask my colleagues on this council to say, if that compromise can't come from the community, then it's important that we broker it here. Because I'm not okay saying, you know what, we should never build another building again in Denver without parking. That's not the right answer. We have places, we have strategies and we have opportunities where we can do this. They're not all in place in all the neighborhoods where the zone district exists. We haven't done a great in advertising them, making them of, you know, accessible and affordable. So we have more work to do. And that is why I'm strongly in favor of this tonight, but with some caution and some thoughtfulness about the fact that we will continue heading in this direction as our partners in the region, as are other regions like ours, it is an urbanizing nation. And so this is hard work and it requires an investment that we are going to have to be willing to make into that transportation infrastructure. So with that, I want to just say that I'm hopeful that the folks who enter into this really, truly are open to compromise in both directions, that there may be places and conditions where this is possible and there may be some. As we've heard, not every project we've talked only about residents tonight, but our planner told us many of these buildings are commercial or other uses. We need to be much broader in our thinking. We've gotten very stuck on one story here tonight, and it's important to hear the other stories when we go through this process. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. The beauty of going last is you really don't have much to ask because your colleagues are always so thoughtful and what they say. So I will certainly be brief. You know, the thing you always hear as an elected official is unintended consequences. And I, I, I understand how some colleagues are in support of this feel that. But I also share Councilwoman Kennedy is the unintended consequences of passing this bill, because I do think it's a little concerned because we do not want to say that we always want to have parking built with parking. I'm sorry. No parking bill. I always have parking bill. Excuse me. So I think it's important that we say that. And what gives me comfort in this is that this is seven months. But I will certainly question if seven months from now another extension comes forward, because then I will certainly ask that question, what are we really trying to do here? So I'm comfortable moving this forward. But we we need to be cautious about the message that we're sending. And I encourage those in this group and I have all the faith in the world, in the leadership team that's moving forward, is that we do come to a better a better agreement than what we currently have. Because I do think Councilman Clark was quite on point when he says that so too that I'm comfortable comfortable with and Mr. Drag, I want. To say I have a 15 month. Old son. I do not believe he will ever have a driver's license. I don't I do not believe that. And I think technology is moving so fast, the world that he will live in will be ridiculously different from the one that I grew up in. And so that's why I talk about being cautious, because I'm excited about the future and I think it will look very drastically different from what we have right now. But I am comfortable supporting this. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, we will be following your son's career. Okay, Councilman. Just to that to that point real quick, it's really interesting. This week was released that Uber next year will be in some cities releasing and testing driverless cars. So that is that's an interesting comment. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman heard him now. And your son's about 16 years old. He's going to know your ear off so bad that you're going to want him just to go get a driver's license. Haven't even raised my sisters telling them that they can't have a license. It's almost like denying them water air. That's going to be very hard, but it is something that we have to consider and listening to everybody tonight and I do support the moratorium moving forward. I do think we need to look at this not just in terms of regional and how we're growing as a region, but in different parts of the city where it's appropriate that you'd be able to place units without having to build parking until the redistricting. Now, now that I think about it. I don't have one parking meter in my district. It's different. Some areas are different. There's a lot of areas in my neck of the woods that I was born and raised in. There's plenty of parking. But there's not as much housing as we need. And so it is a balance. The West Line cuts right through Council District three. The light rail moving south goes through District three. It is something that we are constantly looking at and the more we add units, the more it becomes an issue. Here's the thing, though. We have to strike a balance with both of those features coexisting. I agree. It's never going to be a time where you're not going to see a vehicle in the street, not in our lifetime. And you said that eloquently. But I disagree with what Mario said. Because all is fine and dandy on a bike until you have a kid that's sick in the winter. Right. And if you're working class or or you're poor in this city, you're not going to call an Uber. You're going to jump in your car, beat up car, and. Cruise over to the hospital. Or to the pharmacy. That's just the reality of it. I think sometimes we become enamored with ourselves to the point that we forget that it's not just the creative class in the city, but it's also the maintainers of this city. It's the people who are building the buildings. Right. Picking your plate up. Serving you. Building your roads. That's what Denver's for as well to. Denver is their home as well, too. It's not just it's all it's an end situation and we have to build for that end situation. You don't build just for what's popular and trendy now. Bicycles have always been part of them. And I would challenge folks especially to think. When you look at connectivity, when you look at transportation in Denver, there are so many people who bike before it was popular because the only thing that they can afford, there are people who can't get licenses because of. Their status as status issues. Until you have immigration reform, until the clear up this backlog, they can't get behind a wheel. But they're on a bike and they're on it long before it's popular. You have day laborers cruising around central Denver on bikes. You have homeless individuals trying to get to work on bikes. But when we're looking at building affordability and there has to be some kind of compromise. So that's why I do support the moratorium. As we are building those two and three bedroom units that we need so badly and desperately in the city, I be considering at least one spot. I mean, we shouldn't always do it and push all the density in areas where we don't have power or we don't have enough spaces. Right. So I do look at it as a two way street. I think it's a future for for everybody. And Denver as a city for everybody. Especially for those who maintain it. We don't want them to leave because Denver dies when that happens. So I support this. I look forward to hearing the discussions, participating in it and and coming into these chambers to actually lift the moratorium. So thank you for your work. Thank you all for for being here tonight and your leadership. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, are there any other. Any other comments for members of council? I. I will close this out and make some some comments. One and I think this needs to be easily said more. The neighbors champion this. And in a time where I'm hearing that neighbors aren't being heard at a time that I'm hearing that there's so much division in our city. The humble and courteous park neighbors came, sat down and met with me and had language that they put together for a moratorium and that needs to be celebrated. And so a way to organize in a way to show that public engagement in this city works and it matters. So I really appreciate you all. Secondly, I think there's a lot of nervous folks around. You know, what is moratorium mean and and all of this language? I think I was very clear at the beginning, and I think Councilman Cashman and I talked about this as well, is that, you know, we had this marijuana conversation about pending applications. And one of the reasons that we did not want to touch the pending is people had made sizable investments already. Whether we agree with those investments or not to change the rules midstream, we felt like was unfair. So that was one of the reasons we did not include all of the pending. However, we believe going forward that this moratorium and this this time to bring in neighbors, to bring in experts and have thoughtful consideration about what we want the future of the city to look like is going to be incredibly impactful. And so we're excited to take this on. And I appreciate all of the folks who showed up here, even the people who did not talk. But you put money in a meter and sat in those hard wooden benches. Thank you for being here. And I hope that this gives you some encouragement that this is your government and this is about inclusivity in this city. I think this moratorium makes perfect sense. We're talking about a lot of things, but this is what it's saying. We're going to need someone to take a timeout. You know, I'm a sports guy taking a time out and bring in some of the best thinkers in the city to the table and saying, how do we do this ? Well. Hey, I want to also give it up to Councilwoman Robb. This is you know, it's fun to she she really was working on this on her last months of being on city council and this kind of left. But if you're watching this as part of your legacy and councilman cat councilman Catherine has just been great picking up the picking up this moratorium and working with neighbors. And so I really appreciate it. I want to say I am a when I first got elected city council, I actually sold my car for one year to really experience what it's like to be an urbanist in the city. And it was hard. It was very hard. I do have a car again, but I think this is a larger conversation about choices that we make in the city. And I do not want that to be lost on any of us. My neighbor is in we live two miles from downtown, 2.3 miles from downtown. And my neighbor has three cars. There's two people living in the house. That's not really an urbanist perspective of how to live. That's not really sustainable. And so there are some real choices that we as neighbors, as people, as constituents and people in this city have to think about how we are impacting the environment that we're living in. And so I'm excited to have that conversation as well. So obviously I will be supporting this and I'm excited to move forward and talk about the strides that we've made in seven months. So, Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Cashman I. Can eat. Lopez All right. New ORTEGA Black Eye. CLARK Hi. ESPINOSA Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore, I. Herndon Hi, Mr. President. I Madam Secretary calls results and closed voting and as the results 12 eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill. 498 passes. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 541 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be as amended on July 25th, 2016, be placed for final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second at the public hearing for 541 is open. May we have the overview accounts? A new share.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amend the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.54 relating to hotel worker safety precautions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10232018_18-0962

All right. Oh. Okay, now you guys are going to move on. I'm going to move up in I because in fact, I do have to leave in a few minutes because I'll move up to item 40 and can we please read that I didn't put. Yes. Now I'm going to go back because I have to leave. Can I move that up? Unless. Objection of the council. Yes, the chair can move the calendar. Okay. The projection. Okay. Please come up. Item number 40, she believes item. Item follows communication from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to hotel worker safety precautions. Read the first time and later What to do next. Regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Yes. We have a member first instance. Could I have a second, please? Fine. Okay. Yesterday. Any comments on this item? Public comment. I wanted to make a few changes to the proposed ordinance, if that's possible. Public can you want? Well, we'll let you go, that's for sure. That way they can comment on the proposed budget. For that purpose. Thank you. Very much. So there's just a few clarifying changes I would like to make, and I'm asking that through the process of inter delineation that we make the following changes on page one, subsection f. Hotel employer means a person who owns controls and or operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach and ask that everything after the word beach be deleted as not necessary. Under on page two. Item 5.54.030. Subsection A. I would ask that we add on the first section there, a hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present. Regardless of job classification and at no cost to the hotel employee, it is recognized that b I would like to add it is recognized that because of the varying size and physical layout of each hotel, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels. And then to resume the rest of the paragraph under sub b. I'd like to add, after the hotel, employer must allow guests room doors to be left open during cleaning. I'd like to add nothing herein shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest. Room door closed. During cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. Under item B sub two a I'd like to add. After the word behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Under Section 5.54.040. On page two of three, I'd like to remove the word immediately. The chapter shall be brought into full compliance with provisions of this chapter. And I'd like to add, not later than six months following the effective date of this chapter, to allow compliance by hotels of all sizes. Those were my only changes. Thank you. So with that, thank you. Vice Mayor. Yes. Councilwoman Margo. No comment. Okay, Count Councilwoman Gonzalez. Can we is there public comment that we. Can get when we go into that? Okay, fine. Could we have public comment on this item? You want to come and speak on it? Be. Good evening. My name is Gary Hetrick. I reside in the fourth district and I do have a few comments. I've actually got a letter on behalf of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community that I'd like to read into the record. I'm also on the steering committee of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community. Community, excuse me, Honorable Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, Long Beach, City Attorney Charles Park. And on. September 4th, our council members Pierce. Mungo Andrew Super. Now, Austin brought forward an item that directed the city attorney to draft a similar ordinance to measure WW, slated to be on the Long Beach November 2018 ballot. That includes a request for hotels to have safety panic buttons, but similarly ignores working conditions of workers by not limiting the square footage assigned to hotel workers . We believe this creates a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act. We have submitted a formal request to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practice Commission for further investigation and clarification regarding the Long Beach City Council. Item 8-0797 and its conflict of interests with the Long Beach Council item Agenda Item Resolution 8-0118. We believe that this undermines the efforts and hard work of major WW proponents 46,000 plus voters and residents of the city of Long Beach. We are clear that these efforts are put forth to confuse voters to the advantage of hoteliers and opposition to the measure. Additionally, it should be noted that these same five council members who were the same ones who opposed similar previous motions brought forward in the past year advocating for these safety measures. It was made clear to us that we could not count on our city council to protect Long Beach hotel workers due to this measure. WW As set forth on August 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 18 Dash 0118 for the placement of Measure WW on the November 2018 ballot measure. WW, if approved by the voters, would require a hotel in the city of Long Beach. Of 50 or more rooms to supply hotel employees who work in guest rooms without hotel employees. Present with an electronic contact contact device for summoning unseen assistants and reporting threatening conduct absent from tonight's proposed ordinance. However, our measure WW provisions that hotels and business lobbying groups disagree with most venomously. The proposed ordinance does not include a proposed excuse me a provision requiring hotels to post a notice in guest rooms, advising guests that hotel employees have panic buttons and are protected under the law. The proposed ordinance does not include protections against inhumane workloads or mandatory overtime. The proposed ordinance does not include robust enforcement and anti retaliation provisions that major WW does. Again, we believe this creates a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act with grave concern. The Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. Thank you. Thank you very much. The aim of public comment on this item. And we move back to the diocese. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you. So I still have the same concerns as I did last time relative to timing the process. I spoke with Charlie today about legal implications that we had talked about. And you'd met and I was on the in the understanding that when we had brought this when this was brought forward last time, that we would receive a two from four some sort of memo that would talk whether it was no legal implications or legal implications, that it would at least address that question prior to this coming back. So can you address that city attorney? After our conversation, I'm been able to watch the entire tape because it went on for quite a bit of time. But at some point, 7 hours and 42 minutes into the meeting, you had raised those questions. But the only report that was requested back at that time was the Economic Analysis Report. I believe we had asked about the Political Reform Act, and I had indicated I had just received the proposed ordinance on the Friday before and had not done any research on it. But I, I didn't know that there was a request for a two from four and I didn't see that in the in looking at that. And I asked Linda in my office to also look at the tape. If we missed that, I apologize. But we did not provide it to from four. We did do the legal research. We do not believe that this proposal before you this evening is any way illegal or that the council is prohibited from moving forward. If it wishes to do that tonight, it does not violate the Political Reform Act. We did receive one letter from the law firm Democrat and Stamper and Hillsborough. We had two different conference calls with them, with their research analysts, their general counsel, and their outside counsel on September 7th and on September 19th, where we discussed in detail their letter and why we did not believe that it supported the conclusion that the Council could not move forward with that. So we did our own research on this and we believe that it is if both measures, if this is adopted and WW is adopted by the voters, they can coexist. It does not conflict if one passes and the other doesn't. Obviously then the other one could go forward. So with that said, we believe that if council wishes to move forward with this ordinance this evening, they can do so. Okay. Thank you. So I would like to I'm still I have a lot of questions. And I think another major topic that was brought forward was outreach to the motels that I don't believe has been done. I've connected with a few motels in my district and they've not even heard of this ordinance whatsoever. And so with that said, I'd like to make a motion for a substitute motion for a received file of this and for us to get additional information back, whether that's the legal implications in a two from four and then maybe even I'd like to hear from my colleagues as to what they'd like to do in terms of the business outreach and then even a fiscal impact study on this, as we talked about. Thank you, Councilwoman Pearce. Mm hmm. Yes, I think I still have the same concerns. As we previously had. I think that I did outreach to my businesses as well and received an email today that said that there had been no outreach done. So I'm curious from city manager, you know, as we stated the first time this came up, we did four years of outreach with big hotels that are very different from hotels of 50 rooms or less. And I feel very uncomfortable with continuing to move forward with an ordinance not, you know, a study, but an ordinance today that would dictate something for those hotels. 50 rooms are lost. So can somebody clarify where we're at with that community process? I'm. I'm not sure that we were directed to do a committee process that the staff level for hotels under 50. We had about a 30 minute conversation about it last time. I don't recall. I mean, I support the substitute motion on the floor. I think my position stands the same as previously. You know, approving of this ordinance today. I'm not comfortable with the fact that there's an OPC, you know, request for investigation on this. I'm not comfortable with the fact that our vote has already been used to politicize something that's on WW, which is what we said would happen. There's already a mail piece that's out there that's paid for by the chamber that's trying to interfere with something. It is not appropriate for us to be voting on this before the election. I'm all for waiting and getting some more information and engaging with constituents and businesses. I think that that is the responsible thing as elected officials to do. So I support this substitute motion. Thank you very much, Councilman Richardson, please. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So so we had a long back and forth about the process and not what we landed on was that this will come back after we conduct the public outreach. And I believe it was Councilwoman Mango's motion. And I, I, I offered a friendly to say no outreach during the election period, simply so that, you know, simply so that we maintain the integrity of the election that was happening. And then Councilwoman Mongo accepted that friendly and then I went back and watched the earlier today and that's exactly what happened. So, Mr. City attorney what what how did how is this in front of us today? Council member and members of the Council. I do not recall the direction to do public outreach prior to bring this back. There was a discussion with the mayor myself on that. This may come back. They were asked within 30 days and my recollection was there was discussion and I think John Keisler was talking about the study, the economic impact of that study and how whether they would be studying hotels with only 50 rooms or more. And I believe he said in the tape that the study may have some hotels in it with less than 50 rooms. So some of that impact analysis may be applicable. May not? I, I don't recall, but I do not recall any direction from the council that prior to bringing this ordinance back, that some sort of outreach and report be presented to the city council. That to me, that wasn't clear in the motion and on the vote. Five oh to bring this back to city council. So there was a bit of comment or back and forth about how long it would take you to bring this back. I believe he said something like, you know, 6 to 8 weeks it would take to bring this back. Then we had a conversation about we had a conversation about outreach and a number of councilmembers expressed their concern about, hey, this is very different than WWE because it impacts a lot of smaller businesses. And in general, I don't think people would have a problem with, hey, if this is the direction the voters want to go or the council wants to go. Sure, implement it citywide. But we should have a conversation with small businesses. And a lot of questions were raised about just, frankly, the political nature of this, given that there's an election, you know, two weeks from now with Major WW And already I received over the weekend a mail piece stating that the city council already has an ordinance on panic buttons. So this is the timing of this is exactly what we talked about. Political. It's political. And if we really want to do it, this is a sin. Since a sincere effort, then what we should do is do what the motion what my understanding of the motion was, and we can talk about that offline again. But my understanding was we are going to do outreach to the small businesses and we were going to begin the outreach after the election has come and gone and so and so and so that would be my sub so that we go back to what the original Y understanding was and if that wasn't what was what the motion was, if I misunderstood, if I have a misunderstanding, then that's what I would offer to the full council today that no, I don't think that we should receive a file. I think there's a lot of merit to the proposal, but it should happen after we've conducted outreach and that outreach should be in after the election period. And when I and to be more specific outreach to and there are there are groups that represent these smaller motels I know because they engaged with us when we initially talked about cracking down on nuisance motels. And so there are groups of stakeholders that probably we know who they are because we're engaging on the conversation with the motels right now. So we should engage with those groups in small and maybe talk with the different council members about the smaller motels in their district about implementation plans. I think in general, in general, it may not take a very long time if we're already engaged in these people to say here's our rollout plan. But I think it should be I think we should do everything we can to be sincere about moving this forward without any appearance of this being politically motivated whatsoever. And I am not making any implications to any city attorney, anybody on the council. I just think in an election season, that's when people are going to people going too soon. So my substitute substitute motion here is that we pick this up with outreach after the election period, a period of outreach to the small businesses. And then we bring that back and allow that to inform the crafting of this ordinance and bring that back to city council after that process has been concluded. And so that's my substitution. Danny in 1/2. Okay, fine. Yes, Councilman, you may know. Vice mayor, many of the concerns that were raised during the first discussion of this really raised eyebrows, especially in the sense of that this was item was being fast tracked. It was presented as a supplemental item or a holiday. And then we discuss it on a Tuesday following the supplemental introduction of this item. There was a lot of discussion, as the city attorney pointed out, there was a seven hour discussion that went into well into the morning and a lot of things were probably missed. And I don't blame either the city manager or the city attorney for probably missing some of those points that were made by Councilmembers Gonzales and Pierce in regards to doing outreach and getting a24 from Memo to the Council regarding some other background and some other discussions that we had that evening. It was a long night. And certainly reviewing the the video, you know, 7 hours, 7 hours the same. It's a full day of employment. So it's it very easily I could see where we could miss that. Or a lot of the questions that I had then are still not answered. And this is incomplete staff work as I as as I see it. And it's not complete. It's still had to work to be done. I support the motion currently on the floor because we do need to wait and we do. This has been totally, completely politicized. Like we didn't want it to be in the first place. And yet here we are and there's probably some more hit pieces out there talking about the city. You know Mr. Good. Mean the the problem is is that when you put a part of an item on supplemental. It's it's supposed to be something that's going to be well looked at. It's going to be studied. It's going to be properly reviewed and presented. And this item was not. And so I my position stands and I will be supporting the substitute item. Thank you, Congressman Young Councilman Austin. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'll keep my comments brief. As I know we have been going back and forth and debating this particular issue for now, well over a year. And this council and many members of this council have come under serious criticism from various organizations for not moving quick enough on this. I don't necessarily see this as a politicized issue. I'm going to be very quick when I do see it. It has been politicized. But in terms of this ordinance, this ordinance, I think reflects the will of this entire council, and that is to provide greater protections to the women in the hotel industry. And whether or not what happens on a ballot in a couple of weeks, this issue will provide an assurance that greater protections will will happen for for women who work in hotels, for any employees who work in our hotels in the city of Long Beach. And so I don't think I want to support the substitute motions. And for that reason, I won't. But I do have a question for the the the maker here Councilmember Price you in one of your your amendments to your original motion you struck the word from 5.54040. Any hotel containing 50 or more guests were suites rooms operating under existing business license. On the effective date of this chapter shall immediately be brought into full compliance with the chapter. You changed that to six months. Can you explain why? Sure. I did that to be consistent with our desire to have outreach, similar to what we did with the Styrofoam ban to give smaller businesses or hotels the opportunity to win, get educated, and then figure out because the cost is going to have to be borne by the motel. So they'll have to figure out what the costs are going to be an address to the ordinance. So that was the point of it to roll out implementation for the motels. So it was actually to do the outreach that's being recommended. Yes, because we don't currently have an ordinance to outreach to them on. But once we do, we'll have they'll have six months to get into compliance with the requirement that they have panic buttons and they'll have to evaluate what the fiscal impact is going to be for their own business, depending on the number of employees they have , that it's a broader category than just housekeepers pursuant to the amendment. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. I was concerned about the shift from immediately to six months, but understanding the reasoning and then hearing comments from our colleagues, I think that makes good sense. Congresswoman Press? Yes. Could the city attorney read the changes again? I was trying to find the ordinance. You were making changes? There were a number of them. Yes, I can. The the first changes in 5.54.020 definitions and subsection F and the new language reads as follows Hotel employer. That means a person who owns controls and or operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach, period. The remainder of that definition is stricken. The next change is found at 5.54030. Subsection A After the first sentence, a new sentence is added that reads It is recognized that because of varying size and physical layout of each hotel comma, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels, period. The next change is added at 5.54030. Paragraph B, subsection one. A new sentence is added. Nothing here in shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. The next change is in that same section at paragraph two. Small a at the end of that sentence, they add the language for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Subsection 5.54040 Application to existing hotels. That first sentence strikes the word immediately and adds so that it reads I'm sorry. So that it reads any hotel containing 50 or more guest rooms or rooms operating under the existing business license on the effective date of this chapter shall be brought into compliance for compliance with the provisions of this chapter not later than six months following the effective date of this chapter. And that would conclude those reports. I would add that on that last change, if WW were to pass, as a number of people have said here, WW would take precedent over this ordinance. So anything that is in WW or is more restrictive as to the 50 or more hotels, that would be the applicable law as to the 50 or more hotels. Okay. Those I think those are my questions right now. All right. Thank you, counsel. Come to us and you through our council. Okay, Councilman. Okay, Mr. Attorney, going back to. So if we have a conflict that I believe one thing was voted on, but what was presented is something very different. What is what is the process to resolve that conflict? The you could do a motion at the evening of the meeting where the vote was five. Oh, you could have done a motion to reconsider that matter. No, I mean, that time has passed. If the process let me be more clear, if the process that I believe was voted on, if there's a conflict on how we interpret what happened, is there a path or a process to reconcile that? You could do a motion to rescind the previous action by the city council to reflect any changes the item and and or when you approve the minutes from that previous council meeting you could say that there's an error in the minutes or there was an error in the in the in the minutes as prepared. And you could do a motion to rescind the previous action by the city council and clarify it. Or you could clarify if you believe it was an error in the minutes of what was actually voted on. You could have that could be clarified at that time. And that we are here today. There's nothing you could you could put an item on the agenda to do to rescind the action taken on September 4th, or, as you've done in a subject, one of the substitute motions to receive and file this current item. And at that point, you're free to start again. You really haven't taken any action on the ordinance itself. Hmm. So really, there's no path beyond relitigating the conversation through re agenda, izing a motion to rescind that action. If we believe that what you have interpreted and what you've prepared is not consistent with the path that I thought the council voted on. So that's the only path to reconcile it? That's correct. It's a policy decision for the council that if what we brought before you and what you have before you this evening is not what you asked for, then you can vote to send us back, to change it, to receive and file it to do whatever it is you'd like to do that. Next question is there. So in crafting this ordinance, was this done internally or was this was this was a consultant hired on this? How was this crafted? This was done by one of the attorneys in my office. Okay. So it was crafted internally. Was any language in this ordinance lifted from the ordinances on the ballot? The answer to that is yes. We tried to, in the definitions and in the body of the language, to look at the proposed measure that is on the ballot, so that in the event that both of these passed, we could be consistent with our interpretation and and with the operation of it. Okay. Was has industry at all at any level of the industry? Have they been consulted on this? We have had conversations with, yes, hotel representatives. And as I mentioned earlier, individuals from Unite here and their law firm. So. So. And when did that outreach take place? As I indicated, we got a we received a letter from the law firm. The date of the letter is. September 12th. And on September we had a meeting with them on actually September 7th before their letter. And on September 19th after their letter. Okay. So September 12th and September 19th. And then this was crafted in those subsequent weeks, obviously to be be placed on the agenda. So this was had to be completed and then go through a review process and and then the noticing to go on the agenda. Right. That's correct. We because of the meeting was dark last week. It probably would have been ready for last week, but we weren't ready before that time. Okay. So this was drafted in about two weeks then. If we were we spoke with them about a month ago. This was drafted in two weeks. Yeah. The ordinance had been drafted and was being reviewed. Yes. Okay. So how long does it normally take to craft ordinances of its nature? That's impossible to answer. Tell me what the ordinance the marijuana ordinance took as years. Other ordinances take us a week. Yeah. I mean, this is like lightning speed. I mean, I've never seen an ordinance. And this. This ordinance is almost. Every council meeting. And this ordinance isn't that complicated. And it's four pages. Yeah, well, I don't know. I think, you know, we worked on a motel ordinance for human trafficking and conversions and all that, and it's been it's been well over a year, and I haven't seen an ordinance come back. It just it just seems to me that this came came it was developed fairly quickly. And I really wonder what the urgency was, because I didn't hear any motion, anything, any language in the motion that said expedite. Actually, there was conversation during the meeting between the mayor and there was an expectation that this would come back within 30 days. And I was saying I didn't know whether we could do it within 30 days. It's now 49 days after the request to prepare. So there was also conversation about waiting until we had outreach done after the election cycle. So how do we determine which comments we include and how we consider what we receive from the council and which comments we don't? The comments that were made, if they're not part of the motion, they remain comments and questions unless there is a direct request for that to be included or to be part of the motion. So while there was, as I think Councilmember Urunga mentioned, there was extended discussion on this item. I believe at the end of the day, the motion that passed five zero was to bring this back and there was no at least I wasn't aware and I wouldn't be doing the outreach study anyway, but I didn't hear that as part of the motion. And if I missed it, I apologize. But I certainly did not hear that. You have a copy of the motion. Is that available? Yes, it was a second substitute motion was made by Councilmember Mongeau, seconded by Councilmember Price to approve the recommendation as amended with a one year implementation period and remove recommendation for the motion carried by the following vote. Price. Supernormal Mungo Andrews and Austin. Yes. Absent Gonzales, Pierce, Suranga and Richardson. So there was so there was no no direction in that motion to expedite it and have it done in two weeks then. I just read the motion. Okay. Okay. Right. And then so in terms of in terms of the ordinance that's here and then what's going on the ballot in November in general, would you say that it's better or worse to have a little bit more time to see what the rules of the lay of the land or the law of the land is? If that if that happens in two weeks, we know with the law of the land. Is this the process you prefer to move forward? You know, in general is our city attorney is our elected city attorney. I would like for you to have a you know, a position on how you'd prefer our laws of our city to be created. And it just seems that this has been rushed a bit. And I just wonder if you didn't have direction from the council to expedite. Is this what you prefer to do? There's a lot of things probably I don't prefer to do, but this isn't this isn't this isn't political on my part. I was asked to prepare a motion. I an ordinance. I prepare the ordinance and brought it back if if there's the will of the council to adopt it. The timing of that is I'm not going to play games on the clock. If it's ready, I bring it back. If I could point out that one of the motions made that evening, but then there was a second substitute motion. The substitute motion was to spend 60 days doing outreach, feasibility study for hotels under 50 rooms and request city attorney to use language currently in WWE and apply it to hotels under 50 rooms. That motion was made by Pearce, Councilmember Pearce and seconded by Councilmember Urunga. That motion failed. The substitute substitute motion was what was passed. So there was no request for outreach in the substitute substitute. Okay. And so my next question. Councilwoman Price, is there a copy of all those editions? There were. I tried with my highlighter when he read them off to try to keep up, but they came out pretty quick. Is there a copy, though, somewhere? No. The amendment? Yeah. Is there. Is it written anywhere? I'd like to. Okay. So I'm going to say I'm sorry I missed I missed probably the first few. So unless you want to like. Maybe we go through them again. I'd like to actually. Share that always some additional time. Why not? Okay. All right. Well. Then you can tell us some stories. Anything. Let's do it. All right. Okay. So what was the first one? I think the question would be directed to the city of Fallujah. And what was the first one? The first I missed like the first three when you read them on. The first change that I have in. Is that under section 5.54020 definitions, paragraph F Hotel employer. The new language will read Hotel Employer means a person who owns controls and or operator of a hotel in the city of Long Beach, period. The remainder of that definition to be stricken. Why was it why? Why was it included and why was it stricken? Was the impetus for that? I have no idea. He'll have to ask the maker of the motion. Miss Price. I'm sorry. Councilman Richardson. You cannot ask me questions as if I am your witness in a case that's not pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order. It is, if you'd like to vote, if. The chair would like to allow it. Okay, so I'm going to ask you to. Vote against it if you don't understand it. Well, I'd have an opportunity to discuss it if the counts will be reasonable enough for us to have some time to actually deal with this. But we have to deal with it tonight. We're going to go through that grueling process of dealing with it tonight. All right. So so what it said was hotel employer means anyone who owns controls and operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach. But it struck out or a person who owns controls or operates any contract leased or sublet premises in connect to or operated injunction with the hotel's purpose or person, other than that hotel employee who provides services at that hotel. That seems like a lot of legal clarification. And what I don't want to do is strike it. If that somehow creates a loophole for people to somehow say that this doesn't apply to me as a hotel employer. So maybe, maybe, maybe one way to go about this is why was that extra language included? Mr. City Attorney. That language was included to include subcontractors, and it's similar, if not identical, to the language that is in W.W.. Okay. So that that's language that came from WWE. Okay. Could it be in a situation where there's that would create a conflict between WWE on this if both of them passed? No. Okay. All right. What was the next one? The next added a sentence and per in subsection 5.540300. Paragraph A. After the first sentence, the sentence that is added reads as follows. It is recognized that because of varying size and physical layout of each hotel comma, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels, period. So what will be the impact legally from adding that line? What does that what does that mean? I mean, some. So that doesn't need to be the same panic button, same device at each hotel. That's correct. That there would be some ability for the hotels to have whatever is appropriate for the different size and layout. So may have something more akin to a radio that wouldn't be applicable in other hotels. Right. Makes sense. So. Okay. That's good. What's the next one? The next one is in the same section, paragraph bb1 adds the sentence. Nothing here in show prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. Okay. And. And that seems like it makes sense to me. I just wonder if this was some of the if this was motivated by any of the input from the the outreach or I just wonder if it if this is like informed by a hotel employees experience or is it the hotel employers preference? I'm just curious. That's not something you can answer. That's correct. But my interpretation of that is it does provide some flexibility for the hotel employee. If this is a room where there's it's directly accessible to the outside and they felt safer keeping a close, this would allow them to do it. Okay. So and and what was the next. I believe I have the next one. Can you remind me what the next one was? Yes. The next one is in the same section, paragraph two. So A and that's since they're adding language at the end of that sentence to say for after or threatening behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Further clarifying how long they could be reassigned. Understood. Understood. Okay. And so and now a question for you about implementation. So this goes to a first reading than a second reading and then the process of improvement. What is your understanding on that process of implementation? Because you said in the last motion there was a year. Process. What does that actually look like? Well, I think there's two questions in there. The first is, is that if this were to pass this evening, you would have the first reading. The next reading would occur at your next regularly scheduled council meeting, which I believe is in two weeks. And then 31 days after the mayor signs it, the ordinance would go into effect at that time based upon the change in language in 5.5 for the hotels, 50 or more would be brought into compliance. They would have six months to come into compliance with the effective date of the chapter, and those hotel rooms with 50 or less rooms would have up to 12 months to come into compliance with this ordinance. Okay. All right. I understand that, but I'd like to amend my my motion to say that, like a like a two from four in addition to this, that outlines what that implementation looks like. And I'd like to understand if there is an opportunity to because we're going to be doing work with with nuisance motels in the city. Is there an opportunity to find some efficiencies in how we conduct outreach to the small to the small, you know, small operators? Because if we're telling them, hey, we have a vision for what a modern motel looks like in our city, it should be consistent with our safety standards. I consider this a safety standard as well as all of our nuisance abatement, anti-human trafficking standards, all those things we're already engaging on so well. So what would be the proper way to do that? Should we just include it in the motion to include a two from four? Or is there some additional work that needs to be done to make sure that those efforts are aligned in some way? Yes, I think you could request the city manager, whoever this will be assigned to for implementation of this ordinance, would then be charged with notification and letting these folks know that this new law has been passed by the Council and business license could do outreach and and discussions with them. And I think they already do so. And there's the task force that talks about the hotel issues that you mentioned. Who who would take the would which department would take the lead on this outreach. So if this is a change in operation of a business, this would likely be a notification from business licensing as to a change in status. Okay. Understood. And the last thing I'll say is it seems like the motion in front of us, it seems like the motion in front of us says that we vote on this tonight. And then in two weeks we have the second reading and then a month for the mayor to to sign it. And then the outreach would be would begin. And I'm sorry, correction. The motion that's before me right now is a substitute substitute on the floor. I understand. And then the substitute substitute would say essentially that that process would just be pushed back for two weeks. So they're relatively the same, with the exception of what I just added about outlining that process. So so frankly, they seem very similar to me. So they seem very similar to me. The motions now they've been explained. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please, Councilwoman Rice. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Richardson and I do it while you read me the the changes. I do appreciate some of the questions that were asked. And it reminded me of some of the other questions that I wanted to follow through on. It looks like by reading the ordinance that it does include subcontractor workers. Is that correct? City attorney does not at this time as amended. Okay. And I know I'm not putting you on trial, Councilmember Price, but I do want to ask if there's a reason for not including subcontracted workers, because we know that that is a very large percentage of employees in the hotel industry. I think I've made my amendments clear. Thank you. Okay. So I will just note that many hotels in our city use subcontracted workers for entire departments, sometimes housekeeping. And so while we could pass this and we could pat ourselves on the back and say we passed something, if a hotel has an entire department that has subcontracted housekeepers, like many of the hotels in the city, we are actually not doing what we will say we will do. This also does not include the retaliation part. Is that correct? City Attorney That is correct. Okay. So I will be brief in saying that we can arm our housekeepers with panic buttons, but if they use them and they get retaliated against, they are no use to them. One of the conversations that we have had many times is Why do women not speak out? Why do women not break their silence? Why do housekeepers not go to their bosses and is because they do not have protection from retaliation? And that is something we have seen in our hotels in the city. So, again, we can pass this ordinance tonight, but if there's not a protection for retaliation, we are not doing our housekeepers any good. I have two other questions, particularly around public records request. What's the city's policy on Paris? What's the timeline that we typically get those back? So each period is different. The statutory requirement is that we respond within ten days of whether or not there are documents to produce. We had the ability to ask for an extension to determine whether or not there are documents that are available to produce, and then the peer statute says you have a reasonable amount of time to produce those. So some things go very quickly. If it's an easily identified document, we find it, we tell them we have it, and we sometimes produce it all within those ten days. Some praise take us months and months and months, if not years, to produce over a year, probably not several years, but at least over 12 months sometimes. If not years, 12 months. Can you give me an example of a PR that would take 12 months if it's a PR about emails? We got asked for any and all documents one time related to litigation on anything dealing with PCBs that the city has ever done and any water and and any data we have back to the 1930. So that took over a year, I'm guessing. So something along those lines. So a letter came into my. To my attention that there was a PR done on September 7th in regards to this item with entities related to the Long Beach Area, Chamber of Commerce staff, affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Long Beach Police Department and Affiliates. California Hotel and Lodging Association. Its staff. Affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Long Beach Hospitality Alliance. Its top affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Any third party. Any members of a Long Beach City staff, including city manager's office, city attorney's office and city clerk's office. How long do you think it will take for us to get that PR back before the people that requested this? I don't really have an estimate on time. So we get about 3500 press requests a year, and so staff do as best as we can to respond to each one of those periods. Some are quick, some take longer. I don't have an estimate on that one. I'm not aware of that one. Okay. So I think that my points that I wanted to make tonight before this vote happened was that I do feel unlike some of my council colleagues that this is political and the fact that the timing is not being negotiated at all, the fact that we're not adding third parties that are in there is political. The fact that there is not a retaliation clause is political. And I would love to know if in between the last time this council item came forward and now if we've had any conversations with the lobbyist or businesses that represent hotels of 15, 50 rooms or more as a an opportunity for them to use this. So it's very you know, I had hoped that reason would have allowed us to have this conversation after the election so that we could all feel better and we can make that clear to our constituents. And it's just pretty disheartening that we can't come together as a council to do something as simple as wait two weeks. Thank you. Comes from New England. Thank you, Mayor. At the beginning of this item here, the councilmember from the third district made some amendments to this ordinance. In the past, when we talked about amendments to any ordinances that would basically restart the clock. That is not the case in this situation here. I'm sorry. I didn't. I'm sorry. In prior discussions with about ordinances, when we have an ordinance brought me before us either for our first or second reading and there were additions or changes made to that ordinance, it would basically trigger a restart or re discussion or new a new amendment coming in to the city council with these amended motions or changes to an ordinance. I don't hear that happening here. Is there a reason for that? Yes, Councilmember. And you are correct. When there is a substantive change that the public would not be aware of, then we would say that you have to start the clock over, start first, reading again. The item this evening and the changes, as I understand them, are in early delineations and changes to the language that exist so that the public is on notice of every said. There's no new sections being added. They're not changing the overall sections. They've changed some timing. But we believe these changes could be made this evening and you could have first reading this evening if the council so desires. Okay, so if today's a first reading, then they will come back to the city council at at a later date for a final adoption. Who would come back for second reading? I believe it's the 13th. The workload dark next week and dark on the Tuesday for the election, so that following Tuesday it would come back to the council for second reading. So if we still had some concerns on the 13th about this ordinance, as there is worry with the changes and the amendments that are there, can we still introduce other concerns that we might want to add or make other changes to the ordinance at that time? Yes, absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. The impact analysis, it is dated October 11th. And can we can someone walk through that? Because although it's it's discussing the hotel ordinance that is on the ballot, I think it's pertinent to this discussion overall because it it goes over the impact analysis economically for us here in Long Beach and then also goes through methodology. And so I'd like us to just sort of walk through that a bit and in our findings and all of that because it just came to us in a two from four version. Well, I will do my best. So we if you remember, the city council requested to do a impact analysis and that the scope of which was sort of spelled out here on the council floor. And we did our best to implement that through a group called Bay Economics. It's somebody we have used in the past, as we have looked particularly about any hotel incentives to be able to bring high scale hotels into our city. And so the city council asked for it to be done in about 30 days. That was at its August 7th meeting. We reported back at that 30 day mark about where we were and quickly engaged by it ended up taking us about. 60 days to do. That was for the methodology. It was really turned over to Bay. We gave them the scope of work. They interviewed a number of stakeholders from large hotels, small hotels, medium hotels. It was really focused. On the measure. It wasn't focused on this particular item, but rather on the initiative ordinance that was brought to us to both understand the the scope of it, the financial impact primarily to the city. In order to understand that financial impact, we needed to understand the impact of the various provisions on the hotels themselves. I concluded that some of the provisions would have very little impact or no impact, and it has financial conclusions which were very difficult to put into real dollars, especially in the short term, but did have some conclusions about the potential impact on hotels that have not yet decided to be constructed in Long Beach. They're under the entitlement phase but have not pulled the trigger to actually begin construction. It interviewed some of the, you know, samples, and there were confidential interviews of small, medium and large hotels, as well as the CVB, as well as Unite Here for to be able to get labor perspective. And finally, it looked at various other similar ordinances that were done in other cities to try to understand their experience of the implementation of the ordinance. And then that entirety of the report was presented to you and the public on October 11th via memo. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you going over that a little bit. Okay. So with that and this is my main issue with this is that we we don't even have obviously WWE on the ballot. We didn't even have an ordinance that came back and we did a study which I think is fine. We did that. It was very in-depth. It was a third party and now we have this motel ordinance in front of us with absolutely no study. No information, no economics. We don't know. No business outreach and different from the polystyrene. And I will make that distinction. We did do outreach with polystyrene. In fact, myself, I went with my office to every single business improvement district to talk about polystyrene. So there's a difference in that. In addition, and I want to ask our city attorney this question when when the when the polystyrene styrene ordinance came before us, I believe there were a few amendments that were to be made. I think that was on timing. And you had mentioned that it would start over the clock. So are you saying now the amendments made by council member. Price would not start the clock over. I. If I recall correctly. Seems very there seemed very stark to not do that. If I recall correctly. I don't know what changes you're referring to on the polystyrene, so I don't have that in front of me. These changes and why we don't think they start the clock is it's it gives the hotels more time rather than less time. So it is it from that perspective, they have additional time to do that so that it's more favorable to the. And we did that with polystyrene as well. And I believe that I'm not sure what we do with polystyrene. I don't have it for me. So it was a I believe at one and it was a we I think we had like a one year period and then we moved it to 18 months. And that started. You said that. We would have to start over the clock. Is that what I'm getting? I don't recall. I have to go back and look at the minutes from that meeting. Okay. So you're just saying now. So I just. So I'm clear. We're not starting over. She's going to go in first reading. Whatever happens tonight, they will move forward. That's correct. That this if the council approves this this evening, this would be first reading. Second reading would be November 13th. Additional changes could be made there that could start the clock over if additional changes are substantive and then depending on how the council decides to vote. Okay. I think everything else has been mentioned. The last thing I will just continue to to harp on is the just impact analysis. And I don't know if there's been any thought about that. Knowing that this is going to be a major impact, whatever happens. On the election with the election or even aside from that? Okay. I had one other just clarification, because we didn't take a two thirds vote to rearrange this agenda item. Correct. It doesn't require a two thirds vote to rearrange the agenda item. I thought it did because. This does not take the council and the chair can change the agenda unless and I mentioned this prior to the start of this, unless there is objection from the council hearing. None. He moved it forward. If there is objection and it's a motion in second and a simple majority can move this forward. Okay. Well, I didn't hear him call any. Point of order in that sense. Okay. Well, I think those are all of my questions. I think on the substitute substitute. I heard that. Thank you. Appreciate that. On the substitute substitute motion, I certainly will support that, given the additional amendments that Councilmember Richardson included. And we will go from there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I have nothing. I'm ready to vote. Let's call for the vote. So who vote? I ask to come comments before. Public comment has already been asked for. Yes, it's already been asked for. On the substantive surface to substance. This vote is on the substitute substitute motion to write requested to from for in the implementation to outreach to small businesses and bring back after the election. Point of order is it since this a different motion than the main motion? Does it require new public comment. Or does not question? Okay. All right. Don't try. That's right. We just spent 5 hours. On shaky. Vote. Motion. Motion feels. Good. But the next vote would be on the substitute motion to receive and file. Cosby, Bill Richardson. Motion fails for five. We are now on the main motion as amended by the Council member from the third District. QUESTION Cannot an amendment to this is there? Is that appropriate? Not at this time. We've friendly member. It's not. Appropriate. You could certainly ask for a friendly amendment and. They have the option saying yes or no. Right. That's correct. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that we still get the outline to the council, the two from form, what the implementation looks like and and ways that we can integrate both. The Nuisance Motel ordinance outreach efforts with this effort. I declined that at this time, but I look forward to having that come back as an agenda item on its own at a future meeting. All right. And we're voting on the name of. Of up voting on the main issue. It kills. Me when. A word. Really? Are you allowed to abstain? There should be a basis for the abstention. You know. Yeah. Took the point of order. Okay. It passed. We move on now. No. Motion carries five zero. Thank you. Now we'll start our hearing now. So the presentations. Coming to the. Commission, please.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a citywide ordinance restricting oversized and recreational vehicles in residential and commercial corridors based on elements from the surrounding cities of Lakewood, Costa Mesa and Westminister like: • No RV shall be parked on any street or alley for more than 48 consecutive hours. • RVs and trailers not registered to a Long Beach address cannot park on streets without a daily temporary permit. • RVs registered to a Long Beach address may park on the block they are registered to for no more than 48 hours consecutively. • RVs may not be repark within one fifth of a mile from any prior permitted location within 24 hours. • Nonmotorized vehicles may be parked for the sole purpose of actively loading and unloading for a no more than 24 hours.

LongBeachCC_10042016_16-0876

Great. Thank you. And now we're going to go to item 14, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price and Councilmember Supernova. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a citywide ordinance restricting oversize and recreational vehicles in residential and commercial corridors. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I have brought this is an item that I requested some information from. Over a year ago, I think, or close to a year ago. And we received a staff report in March of 2016 on this item. RV parking in residential areas and commercial corridors has presented major problems for residents and businesses. The biggest primary concern is some public health issues because we've had illegal dumping, trash and other items left behind from folks that are staying in RVs. And that has caused a detrimental impact to quality of life for a lot of residences. And the other problem that we've seen arise as a result of RV parking is that the size of the vehicles is such that when they're parked on a residential street or in close, close to intersections at busy commercial corridors, they are blocking the view or the view corridor for line of sight for traffic safety. That's presented a quite a number of issues for people who are looking to make traffic maneuvers in the roadway and their sight is obstructed by the RV vehicles. A number of cities we've done a lot of research and so has staff. A number of cities have restricted RV parking so that they cannot be parked on residential streets or commercial corridors and require that residents who wish to load or unload the vehicles obtain, you know, a permit so that they're able to do that in front of their homes, which is reasonable. We certainly want to make sure that people have access to their RV and are using their RV. But we don't want residential streets and commercial corridors to be parking spaces for RVs. They're not meant to be. They present all sorts of public health and other issues in terms of our communities. And so I'm asking my council colleagues to support me in restricting the parking of RV vehicles in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. At this time, I'm not requesting that they be restricted in all of the city, but in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors . I am open to hearing from my colleagues on any recommendations or comments that you may have in regards to this item, and very much willing to work with my colleagues in finding solutions to this that will work best for individual neighborhoods. Having said that, I note that the staff report indicated that we should have some consistency throughout the city because having a piecemeal approach, one is more costly to the city because of the signage that's required in terms of signage that has to go up different in different places throughout the city. And to having consistency in the city helps us be able to better monitor and enforce the ordinance. I did want to ask one question before I turn it over to my colleagues for their comments, and that is, is there a way to draft the ordinance, Mr.. City Attorney, such that placement of signage is not necessary so that we can I know that it's for us. If we were to do a consistent citywide ordinance, the cost is much less because we're talking about signage being placed possibly at the entry points of the city. Whereas if we do individual neighborhoods, we need different signage throughout the neighborhoods. Is there a way to draft the ordinance so that we are not incurring. That's a sign of signage. The cost of signage. It attempt to answer your question. I think currently the way the Long Beach Municipal Code is written, Section 10.24077 requires where posted no person or control the oversize vehicle is defined. And so the way the municipal code is written now we would need to post if you just wanted to do residential and commercial corridors, it would be street by street or you'd have to post those in order to enforce. The other option of a citywide is is also going to be expensive because you would have to post every entrance to the city of Long Beach and certain other cities have tried to do this and the courts have overturn their ordinance or not enforce the ordinance if they found they didn't properly document and post all of the entrances to the city. So it depending on what the direction is this evening, we'll certainly go take a look at that. And either we could bring it back or bring back a memo to the council describing the options and working with public works on what the appropriate or the associated costs with the posting would be. Sounds good, and it looks like they have an estimate of 100,000 if it was at the entry ways and $1,000,000 if it was in the individual neighborhoods. And I'm not sure how that estimate is, but I think if it was, you know, if you decided you only wanted certain residential and corridors and you. Continually added to those streets like we do other sections of our municipal code that costs would be incurred. As you added those streets, if you came out with a plan to do a number of streets, then obviously that cost would be associated with however many streets you do. As you phase it in kind of thing. Okay. But the question that I had is, is there a way to ward the ordinance or right now it says as posted, can we remove the terminology as posted and just prohibit the parking without parking without a posting requirement? No. Okay. Because the reason I asked that is because the memo from March indicated something, and I think I have it highlighted here. It says it says in discussions with the city attorney's office, there is concern that the current BMC requires that parking restrictions can only be enforced if signs stating the specific restrictions are posted. There's really no way to modify that. It would be any ordinance we'd have to have signage. That's correct. Under the vehicle code, the requires that our ordinance shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. And the question is, do you place those at the entrances to the city or do you place them on the streets? And that's something that you would take a look at in the drafting. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I would like to hear from my comments on this again, on my comments my colleagues on on their comments on this. And and, of course, the public as we formulate our approach moving forward. So thank you. Thank you. Do we want to put any motions on the floor yet or not yet? Yes. I would make a motion to have the city attorney's office draft an ordinance restricting parking of. Oversize vehicles in residential corridors, residential communities and commercial corridors in the city of Long Beach. Okay. Should it turns out that all you need for that, for the motion? Yes. I believe if it's as stated here with these, it says like we would be looking at these other cities for comparable things and we would be also working with public works and streets to come up. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor. Not yet. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Can we. Is there a second? Okay, Councilman. Super now. Okay. I'm going to second to move this along, but I have a different approach to this. And I signed on with Councilwoman Pryce originally. My interest is the commercial corridors, and that's what we've received complaints on, not the residential areas. So how we've handled that so. Far, because as as Councilwoman Pryce mentioned, we started this a long time ago, a year ago. And so we've been placing individual signage at these kind of dangerous corridors. One is examining where it curves between Atherton and LASCARIS diagonal, where it was blocking the view. The the RVs are blocking the view of people coming out of the shopping center just because it's taken so long. We've expanded that to other streets and we're continuing to do that. We have requests in that's working for us, but it looks like we we could use, you know, something that's more comprehensive. But with that, I'd like to hear the public, because with any of these items, you know, it takes a while for the word to get out. I just realized that no one diligently, not everyone diligently reads my newsletter every Friday, which we've talked about this issue, but not everyone got the message. So I just like to get input before hear the public and maybe we'll come up with some type of hybrid here that that works moving forward. Next I have Councilmember Ranga and actually once again so ma'am, I got councilman council speaker. So just grab a seat and I'll call the public during public comment. Thank you so much, Councilmember Gringo. Thank you, Mayor. When I first read this request for a study on this and an ordinance, I had some things popped up right away. Because if we're talking about a citywide policy, equity, the the ramifications for Long Beach because we are a coastal city where Beach City and obviously implementing something citywide would affect those areas that are along the coastal zone, which means that we would have to look at other areas as well and differently because of the coastal zone. We would have to look at impacts with our local coastal plan, the LCP. It would require that we look at if we are going to implement something like this, that a lot of the coastal zone we will require. It would be the Coastal Commission would probably require a coastal development permit to do that. So there's a lot of other questions that this brings up that I don't think we've had properly reviewed as yet. And it's not within this this request here. So I would I would move that we probably move that that we receive and file this for the present time because of the uncertainties that it has, impacts on terms of the coastal areas. And we're not separating that out. And I don't think that we can at this at this point. And so I don't I don't I don't see where we have the feasibility of providing an ordinance that would address all the other issues that affect Long Beach as a whole, being a beach city. I understand that we could look at other. Neighboring cities and what they've done. However, they're not on the coast. We are. There is experiences also that I've had in the Coastal Commission that we've we've looked at these types of ordinances being put and they've all been rejected because of the fact that any, any changes would made for RV parking and other types of parking along the coast. It would limit access. And we're talking about access to the beach, not just to the parking lots and other areas along our coast. So it's incomplete. I'm not very I'm not very clear as to what we need to do with it. So I would move that we receive a file. Well, Counselor Rosetta is that I am making a substitution. Okay. I think that if you're going to do that, you have to process the stop or. Okay. Is there a second on that? Okay. That's the second on that camera. Go down the speakers speakers list. We have Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Yeah. I feel like I have a lot of questions about this, both in regards to the coastal zone, but also especially on a day when we just had hours of testimony around homelessness. And we have 70% of our homeless people in L.A. County sleep outdoors. And there's a DOJ ruling, several DOJ rulings that says that unless we have adequate beds for our housing, for our homeless, that we cannot make it illegal for them to sleep in their cars or to do camping. And so I would have some questions for the city attorney about, you know, Jones versus L.A., Joyce versus the city and county of San Francisco and a number of other rulings that would put us at risk and ask the question if we would be at risk for a lawsuit if we did something like this when we didn't have adequate housing yet. So I think you raise a very good point and a very true concern that our office will have in drafting an ordinance regarding the RVs. And you have to truly separate the issue of homelessness and RV parking restrictions. You are correct that certain cities have had their RV ordinances overturned if they're used as a pretext to either punish or try and eliminate homeless. So so you're absolutely correct. The point that Councilmember Price made, though, is a valid point on line of sight. Other issues where you have oversize vehicles that create those type of issues, I think you can properly regulate, but you cannot use this ordinance. And as some of the comments that came in electronically on this ordinance were alluding to is they see it as a remedy to cure the homeless issue or folks that are living in their cars. So, yes, that is a concern that we would have to look at, as is the concern of the councilmember from the seventh District of the coastal zone. Um, we could certainly maybe come back with a report before an ordinance or a receiving file. We can we could work on something and bring something else back at a later date. But those are two very important issues that we would be looking at in crafting an ordinance that we believe would be enforceable for regulation of RV parking. Thank you. I mean, I think I would say, you know, if we received and filed this and came back with something that know was very clearly had protections for our coastline, that ensured that, you know, our homeless population was not going to be at risk, you know, that that I'd be open to a future conversation on that . But this right now, compared to the staff report, it seems like there's still a lot of inconsistencies. And so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you. I also would like to thank Councilman Price for bringing this forward. I have two business owners here from the west side. I think in the first district, what we've often dealt with are commercial corridors and having RVs block our places of business. And so that to me is a huge concern. And so I think I have a couple of questions. So when we talk about commercial corridors, is that defining a specific area or is that every commercial corridor in our city? I mean, is there a specific. That's a great question. And I would have to work with traffic engineers to talk about commercial corridors and how we would try and define that in an ordinance. So to be determined. Okay. That would be great because I would hope that it would mean everything. But who knows? It's a tough one, but okay, perfect. So we'll hopefully come back with that information. And then as far as signage, I think signage is important in this. I know it would be very costly, but perhaps we can phase it in starting with certain hotspot areas that are more liable to receive the RV oversize issue. That's just a thought. And then as far as differences in businesses and then residents, we have different perspectives because businesses I know there are some areas where in the Westside Industrial area where there's a need for oversize parking on the street. And so we've had issues where we've cited some of these business owners, but yet they are you know, they're parking there at 2 a.m. and they need to park their you know, they're parking there for, you know, a little a short time. But they're, you know, they're employee parking. And although that area doesn't have any residences, maybe there's some sort of, uh, I don't know what we're able to do and if we've done anything that has a perfect balance because that's an issue. And I know we're going to hear it on the West Side. Definitely. I'd also like to see if it is possible in our language because. In this is as to whether we can include something that states that these vehicles cannot block places of business because it doesn't state that specifically. And I think that is a huge hindrance, whether you're oversize. RV Whatever the case, I think blocking a business and I think I've heard from our business owners quite often that it's just it's really an impact to them. So I don't know. Can we include that language in here? Charlie Vice Mayor Councilmember Gonzalez Currently we're talking to the motion of the seventh District to receive and file. If we get back to the original motion, I think there's a lot of different options that we can talk about. And depending on the direction of the council, we can research in and look at what our options would be for the council to consider an ordinance if they desire. Okay, great. So yeah, I was talking to the original motion, but yes, I think I would be supportive of the original motion because I agree. I think the two issues need to be separated. I think we'll have a larger discussion in November. We're going to have a more comprehensive homeless report coming out. And I think at that time we can discuss issues related to RV. Are these people sleeping in cars, which I think is a huge issue. We talked about it at length today, but is when it comes to RV, it's an issue regardless whether it's east side, west side, north. I think it needs to be handled and we haven't really figured that out yet. So I would be supportive of doing a substitute substitute motion that would revert back to the original motion. Basically, everything Councilwoman Price entailed in here. But I would like, as I mentioned, clarification on commercial corridors, possibly an idea on phasing in signage, whether we can block places of business or we can include not to block places of business in finding some sort of balance between business and residential. Preferences. Thank you. Councilman, could you, uh. Do you mind plugging in your. But. It's not going up on my screen for whatever reason, but. I'm not getting anything. Did you really did you really push it? Okay. It just went up, actually, so. Okay, great. We have a we have a substitute. Substitute and a second and essentially is to take councilman precious motion, but then to add what Councilman Gonzales talked about as part of the discussion. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So let me just go down, Constable Austin. Thank you. So I do have a few questions for clarity, because now we're speaking to the substitute substitute motion. The I understand the intent is to to address concerns and traffic safety in our residential communities and on our commercial corridors. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And. I'm sorry. For me, it's councilwoman. I'm Tony. Gonzales, the substitute. Councilmember. Gonzalez and Councilmember Price. Yes. And then the. The. The enforcement of the ordinance. Is that purely predicated on there being signage? Yes. In order to enforce any type of ordinance like this, the vehicle code and our municipal code require proper notification to the residents or the owners of the RV. And so Councilmember Price threw a couple of numbers out. And I guess that was based on a too far from the signage being from 100000 to $1000000. Is that correct? Yes. City staff put together just a order of magnitude cost. We haven't done a tremendous amount of analysis, but we estimated if we were to sign the entrance ways and again, we'd have to define those entrance ways of about approximately $100,000. If you're looking at actually. Signing streets and we would do that fairly liberally under the million dollars, we'd be actually looking at $1,000,000 that could actually be higher than that. But of course, we're going to try to keep the costs down if for whatever option the council chooses. So our actions tonight and giving you direction to potentially draft an ordinance, would that be committing us to up to $100 million? I mean. No, no. I mean, tonight, if there was direction then then as soon as we were completed with the ordinance, we would bring that back to the council with a staff report. And I envision working with the city manager's office and public works for what that ordinance would look like and then also what that audience would cost as far as notification and enforcement. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. That makes me feel a little bit better about moving forward with this. I do think this is an issue that has come up in numerous community meetings in my district, mostly on the residential front. I think if. If I could, um. And that, you know, it's not just recreational vehicles. And I don't know how we're defining recreational vehicles, but oftentimes they are large boats or oversize other vehicles. And I think it's very important that if the intent is mostly traffic safety and removing nuisances from from neighborhoods and commercial corridors, that we be inclusive with that language and making sure that it's a little bit broader. That's just my recommendation. Councilmember. I believe that the motion does include restricting oversize and recreational vehicles. If I may have just been saying recreational vehicles, but I believe that the direction is to include both oversize and recreational vehicles. So that would include boats, large boats. Is that a recreational vehicle? That would likely fall in the category of oversize depending on the size of the boat. Okay. Thank you. And then I personally had an experience recently where, you know, I used my my in-laws RV and parked it in front of my house. And it was over the weekend that we we used it and we're working family. Uh, I had to return it all the way back to the Inland Empire. And so it took a few days for me to, to actually get the muster up to, to, to brave the freeway with this large RV. Um, I can imagine if that is the case for a lot of folks, particularly families who are vacationing and using recreational vehicles and to meet a 48 hour restriction is very, very restrictive. Right. And so I would like to offer a friendly amendment to extend that that time, because not everybody in that recreational vehicle is is homeless or there to be a burden on their neighbor. Um, you know, sometimes people have vacations and people have to go back to work and uh, I like to see that that extended at least, you know, four or five days so that the families can, can have the opportunity. And oftentimes you have families visiting, visiting your home, and it's oftentimes difficult for them to find a place to park an RV. I remember many years ago, the the parking lot at McDonnell Douglas in Bowie was full of ARVs from employees, from whomever else. That was a place where it was a safe place for for folks to park their RVs. It was free. It was a, um, and it served a purpose. I don't know that we have those options available as abundant as they were. And so I just think we need to be I understand the intent here and I support the intent. I just would like to be a little bit more flexible with the with the time. And so I'd like to just offer a friendly amendment to extend that to. Days. Like four days. That's. There's a. I'm assuming, Mr. Attorney, that's possible. What counselor we would need is a decision. No, I know, but that's fine. Okay. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, I would also just ask that because, again, businesses are different from residences that we look at that because four or five days in front of a bit different than four or five. Well, I'm speaking specifically to reservations. Yes. Okay. Yes. And so for residents, I think it should be extended a little bit longer. I'm just understanding that. They're real challenges. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have customer supernova. Thank you. I think Councilor Austin Austin just covered it for me. And that is, you know, most of this is a complaint driven to our offices, and my complaints have been on those commercial corridors. And that should include we wanted a definition of that. It has to include surface streets. That is, that run parallel to a commercial corridor that seems to be a favorite parking spot. It's not in front of anybody's house. It might be at the side of someone's house, but those load up quickly. And also, I would really like to hear public testimony, first of all, because I've sat here for so long, I appreciate that this isn't a typical council night, but I think Councilman Rawson is in the right neighborhood of of days versus hours. And but I'm sure our public testimony will zero in on that. And it just gets back back to that concept of Can I. Park my RV in front of my own house because I don't want to unload it after driving several hundred miles home, I want a few days to recoup. So I think that's very reasonable. And Mr. Mayor, if I can point something out for the council's liberation from the signage plan, if it's a standardize for most of the corridors, that is when we can do it at the entrances. If we if the council chooses to go in a direction where it's more restrictive on certain corridors and less restrictive on others, that's where signage becomes more of a bike corridor, or we have to have more, more signage. So just something to bear in mind as the council considers. Thank you. With that Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Just a few quick points. The first is in regards to Councilman Aranguiz concerns, I think they're very valid concerns, especially coming from him, from the Coastal Commission. And again, I do want to highlight that this is an issue that I have conveyed to my colleagues for over a year now that's very important to me. And I've really tried to do my best to communicate so that we can have the time to have a dialog. On March 15th, Council's TFF actually highlighted several I'm sorry, the city staff to have several ordinances and in there they wrote that specifically what Councilman Urunga is talking about in regards to the Coastal Commission, stating that. There. We would have to get approval from the Coastal Commission if any of the areas are going to involve a coastal zone, which I thought was very, very good to point out that that wouldn't prohibit us from moving forward. In fact, the same TFF talks about SEAL Beach that has a they prohibit parking within the city and Huntington Beach also has a city wide prohibition. Newport Beach has a city wide prohibition. A city of Santa monica has a citywide prohibition, which wasn't in the staff report, but some information that we research later. So that's just something for us to to think about, is that certainly we would go through the steps. But there is some precedent for this because there is a public health concern as well as a traffic safety concern with with these vehicles because of their size, which sets them apart from others. In regards to Councilwoman Pierce's comments. Again, really great comments, points that we have considered. And the first question I would ask is, Councilwoman Pierce, you mentioned that there were some inconsistencies with our item in the staff report. I'd be curious to know what those inconsistencies are, because we did a. Really, really. We tried to be very. Thorough. And go with the staff's recommendation. The TFF from March 15th has the recommendations from staff saying staff recommends a more focused approach and believes it is necessary to change elements of the Long Beach Municipal Code to provide more clarity. Further, any modifications should provide consistency throughout the city and minimize the cost of enforcement. Specific changes to the Long Beach Municipal Code should include a prohibition against parking oversize vehicles within the city right of way and in front of residential properties. That was one of the suggestions and exceptions can be made for loading and unloading of oversize vehicles. So we try to stick with the staff's recommendation in our agenda item. So if there are inconsistencies, I'd love to have those pointed out because we definitely tried to not have that and that must have been inadvertent on our part . This is very separate than the homeless issue. In fact, you know, we have there are several facilities, several areas in the city of Long Beach where people can actually park ARVs. They're permitted to do so. The Walmart location is one. We also have the multi-service center and we've talked with our our folks over and homeless services about the possibility of eventually moving towards a scenario where folks could park oversize vehicles in the parking lot area there and allow them to get some services, maybe health care services and things as a way to offer more resources to folks that may not have a place to live other than their car. So this item is really, truly about public health in terms of just waste disposals and things on public streets and in areas that are not designed for that and the blockage of corridors for traffic safety reasons, that's the complaints that we've received. That's really that we brought this item forward. Like I said way before, we were having discussions about homelessness. The TFF is from March of 2016, but the item was brought forth by my office about six months before that. So it really the motivation for this item had nothing to do with tonight's meeting or discussions that we've heard of late. There really are complaint based residential concerns that we've heard and we're trying to respond to. Having said that, if if this is an important issue and it's important for all of the communities and all the districts , I would ask because it's an important issue and because I've I really have tried to give courtesy to my colleagues and get feedback and input and allow a lot of time for discussion and individual communities that we not receive and file. I think that really is is a way to, you know, to try to kill this idea that's important to at least a couple of us. So if if there's a need for additional reports that folks have, then maybe we can approach it that way and report back on something specific. But I think to receive and file, you know, I just would say on a personal and professional level, I don't really see what the need for that is if in fact, it's important to one of our. Colleagues and we have allowed ample time. If someone doesn't like the ordinance, certainly they can vote against it. But to receive and file it is to kill a discussion that was started a long time ago with ample opportunity for involvement by everyone. So I'd ask you guys to really think about that. So thank you for your courtesy. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Price and Supernova for bringing this forward and the city council for their comments. And I think everyone is speaking the complete truth that is there. If it is their truth in their council district and is their reality that they're dealing with the nuisances, and we should acknowledge that and respect that. After all, that's why we have council districts with different perspectives and points of view so that we can be responsive to our community. So I'm entirely supportive of this this discussion. I do have my concerns as the ninth District Council member and with and, you know, a little bit of experience here on dealing with issues where our laws aren't flexible enough to address issues in our in our community, and it doesn't lend itself to creativity. I think Councilwoman Pearce said it best with the conversation we had earlier on homelessness. I think we have to really be clear and focused on what the intent is, what we want to address, because what I heard earlier from Councilwoman Price was about health and safety and and that I completely agree with 100%. There's no no need for the elimination or dumping of raw sewage into into, you know, gutters and things like that. I completely understand we've dealt with issues like that in my council district, and 100%, I would say the entire council would be unequivocally clear that we support we wouldn't support that activity. But at the same time, I think that's distinctly different from the individual who owns an RV and has worked it out with their neighbors. And, you know, I have an example. I was sent a text message tonight from someone, a neighborhood leader who lived in their neighborhood 20, 30 years. And they worked it out with their neighbors. And their good neighbors are actually officers in the neighborhood association. And and it's the reason that they don't they don't go to storage. It's not that they're you know, they're poor. They can't afford storage for the RV, but they've taken the time to build that rapport and they don't want to pay the, you know, whatever it might be, between 100, 200 bucks a month for storage. And we need to be able to have flexibility in cases like that. But in our neighborhoods now, I think we need to understand what the difference is between those two so that we can build public policy around it. We've gotten caught up before on this council with the concept of Not in my backyard, and that's becoming and I'm afraid that's becoming the nemesis of good public policy or compromise. So local solution, in my opinion, it needs to we need to establish some criteria for what that is. And it might take some time, but establish some criteria for what what what would determine a neighborhood that qualifies to to go no RV in the flexibility given to the traffic engineer to work with those local neighborhoods and business corridors to find solutions. We've we had an example like this. We are preferential parking districts. Our ordinance is very stringent. It has criteria and it takes a long time to put in place. And that was problematic given we had a temporary problem. El Camino College, Compton Center, which is in our city, had to open up its gates and created a parking impact on a neighborhood that typically wasn't parking impacted. So we changed our ordinance so that we could be more responsive quicker, gave the ability for the traffic engineer to go around the petition process and and make the call that this area is indeed impacted by these problems. And they put forth a 18 month process to meet that neighborhood's needs. And when construction was over, it worked and everyone's happy. Many people in the city may not know about this because we handled it locally and we address in our neighborhood locally. I know that this and we just should be very clear that this is not this is this is going to be we had a lot of testimony. This was this has been the kind of policy that takes cities sometimes years or even a decade to implement, because there are people on all sides of this. And let's not you know, I don't think there should be a receiving file, but I also don't think that we should move forward with direction to do a citywide ordinance. There has to be something in the middle that says, you know, we take our time, get it right. And, you know, we we try to avoid being divisive. We try to bring people together around what the real issues are, is based on health and safety. We should be able to define, you know, what are the parameters or criteria to define who actually has a registered RV that lives here and who is, you know. Renting out their RV to homeless folks or who's living in the RV, and we address it through services or whatever that is. So. So I just want to make sure we have an opportunity to be creative. I don't think we should rush to, you know, number one, it's going to be either motion that's on the table right now filled up in the first three speakers motions. So there was really no opportunity to be creative or put something together tonight. And that's the very reason why if I had to, I would probably vote against all the motions tonight. What I would rather do is ask that we we, you know, ask the maker of the substitute substitute motion that we work with staff, give them some flex flexibility based on either this temporary fresh rental parking district or other things that look like to look at establishing criteria and establishing a pilot that we can actually look at in a city, in an area town, this that's impacted. And we look at that and, you know, what goes in that into that pilot, that local council member can help create that pilot and should it work. Then we explore going citywide because we're larger than every city listed in the report. And and those cities took a long time to get it implemented. And they're literally a fifth of our size. And I know there are other cities that have gotten done that are bigger, but I'm just let's not let's not forget how large of a city we are and everything doesn't have to be a up or down vote . So so I guess because there's no way to do anything else, I'm just going to offer a friendly to the maker of the substitute substitute motion that they give staff the flexibility to look at a pilot and establish some criteria based on some of the things that we heard tonight. So the business corridors and things like that and report back on how they would approach that, that pilot. I think that would probably be something that I and most of the council could see in nodding heads. A lot of people can can support tonight. That's my that's my friendly. I'd like the pilot in CD3. So this would be a I mean I'm all for that, I guess if everybody's, you know, on board, but I guess are we seeing a citywide pilot? So each council district is not promoting their I guess I. I wouldn't say a citywide pilot. I think we like, you know, we when we piloted the Alcohol Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, we piloted an amount of space that our planning folks that we can manage, we can manage this in this area. And they ended up being the 9 to 5 zip code or the planning district in North Long Beach. I think we just got to leave some flexibility to staff to say, what can we do and do well and study and see, should this expand? Almost every time we do a pilot in Long Beach, it ends up getting expanded because our staff does great. Whenever we start citywide, we end up with chickens, goats and bees. We end up with, you know, things on the ballot that we could, you know, just just saying we should take our time and look at it. But perhaps the pilot can give some flexibility to staff. The things you guys brought up are not they're not unheard of. Like to protect your business teacher who who doesn't want to do that, protect feces and things like that going into the you know, on the street. Of course we wanna support that. But there but you have to agree there are very legitimate neighborhoods or people who own an RV and have worked it out with their neighbors and would really be offended if we didn't take our time and and do this the right way. So this is in the interest of finding a compromise that meets the needs, gives the tools to the local council members and the traffic engineer to make those determinations and doesn't break our budget. That's all I'm looking for tonight. Okay. I think. I mean, it should be fine, I think. I don't know if it's possible to, because I would like to see what an ordinance would look like. I don't know if it's okay to have something simultaneously. You know, it would still have to go to two readings. I understand the council person from the ninth district. I think the friendly would be to change your motion to make this a pilot program in district number x, whatever district ion CD3 volunteered, but whatever district you would want, I think we would come back with something. Again, I am to talk to the traffic engineer in public works, but some sort of a draft ordinance that would be a pilot program only adopted in that district for some period of time. Okay. Well, if we want to adopt them in the districts that I think are most I mean, such a friendly environment, I. I think well, I don't want to speak for the councilmember, but it would be very difficult if we're going to do pilot programs in eight different areas or nine different areas of the city. That would be unmanageable. I'm sorry, I. Wouldn't be a pilot to do them. A bunch of them. It wouldn't be a pilot that's essentially hashing out tonight, which is what we're trying to get away from. I'm just trying to understand what how what are your. I would recommend allowing whoever is going to working on the city site work with maybe the council members who who who brought it up and explore and look at one. One area that could be a pilot. We learn from it. If these things if there are certain things we can glean, like taking commercial corridors out citywide, then great. That's what comes out of this. If it having the tools to go, you know, look at neighborhoods that have certain criteria like homelessness issues and things like that, then those are the things we can learn from this pilot. But what we want to get away from tonight is determining citywide or which neighborhood, and we want to give some some flexibility to staff to work on somewhere that they think can be successful. Is that even possible, Mister City Manager or Mister City Attorney? Is that feasible? What I'm asking. I didn't run it by any of you. I just didn't want to have a fourth. We were just talking about that. You didn't run it by us. We're needing some direction here because our our dilemma is if we were directed to come back on an ordinance and you scale it back in size, we wouldn't be able to give you any kind of scope on the cost of enforcement because we have no idea what what the size of your pilot program would be if you give us direction that you would like to do a pilot program in and I'm making this up in CD3 and you tell us to work with a council person to determine the size. Then we would come back with it with a draft pilot program or an ordinance for that section that we could give you some idea of the scope and the cost of both signage, which would have to be by street in this case, and then enforcement costs depending on the extent of the ordinance. But here we'd have we're pretty broadly defined on the various things you've already added to your motion. Yeah, I just I guess with that, I think we're just honing in on just one specific district and I think there's more districts that have issues. So I mean, if we're going to do that, then maybe I mean, is it possible to do three or four districts? I mean, I'm trying to get some sort of I. Think the intent of the pilot is to see how well it works in there and then and then expand it as as you see fit or change it or modify the ordinance if it's not working as as correctly or in accordance with your desires. But and the timing of that is I do not know how long you would want that pilot program in place before you would consider expanding. Well. Councilman, do you mind if I just interject for a second, just maybe before you accept that or not accept that, do you mind for on this issue? Okay. So just let me I think that clearly I think what Councilman Gonzalez his concerns are, of course, is that there's concerns across the city, not just specifically in one part of part of the city. And there's also obviously concerns for those that have campers and some legal concerns on the coastal issue. Can I ask you a quick question, Charlie, because I think there's there's there's complexity to ask for a pilot without actually working towards an ordinance. Right. Because there could be some complexity to that there. Could we? The pilot would be a pilot ordinance for a specific area. It would be an ordinance because you'd have to create an ordinance for that specific area. That's correct. Okay. So just two questions. So I just remind a little bit, because this is a complex legal issue as well. We know that there are coastal issues. There's other legal complexities to this. It's similar to when we did the minimum wage conversation. You know, council directed you to do an ordinance, but before you brought back an ordinance, you kind of did a full report on kind of what that would look like, different models. And you brought forward questions that have to be answered by the council before a full ordinance could eventually be implemented. So I just want to just to throw out to the council, I think there's a couple of options here. I think there's a pilot option, which I think could be great, which would be to come back with a draft. I think the motion in that case would be to come back with a draft ordinance on a pilot project that would be a pilot specific area with pilot in the neighborhood, working with the draft, the makers of the motion. And then dependent on that success or not successful, we would then come back to the council and you'd report on that. So that's, I think, one option. The other option I think would be to direct you to work on on the begin, the beginning of constructing what an ordinance could possibly look like and bringing back to the council your kind of legal research on different ordinances on what what the Long Beach model could actually look like that could give people working, you know, connect with the Coastal Commission directly. So we understand what the coastal challenges are and then you can actually bring something back that could be implemented citywide. We could we could certainly do either one of those. So I just I think those are I think personally I'm comfortable with either, to be honest, I. I just want to just say that. I think that there is no question that that there actually is. There's a lot of good RV owners out there and a lot of people that are legitimately have concerns. But there also are huge problems with people parking some of these large trailers in RVs and in neighborhoods for weeks at a time. And it happened a lot when I was a councilperson in the first year. I remember it over and over again, the phone calls and trying to get these things moved. And so there are real concerns, does not put everybody in the same bucket because they're also very good owners that actually are legitimate owners and are doing are not creating blight. So just just to put out there, I think there are two options. Charlie, if you were to go and come back with kind of a legal report on the process, how long would it take? I think we could have something back in 30 days or something like that where we could take a look at and maybe come up with how to approach the Coastal Commission and and the steps that are involved if in fact this is to be implemented in the coastal zone. We have given that direction yet. But if the substitute comes to pass as we would, we will be looking at that and coming back with that. So that'll take some time. And then working with public works on the commercial corridors and how to, you know, craft this ordinance so that it's a workable ordinance for us and public works. So it sounds like there'd be one step in between actually bringing back an ordinance, but it'd be bringing back information of questions to be answered. If we would. I would envision, yes, it would be a combined report from the city manager's office in public works in our office on what we would recommend be included in the ordinance and and the reasons why we would recommend the legal issues to address the legal issues from my side and then maybe from operational issues from the city manager side. Okay. So I just think, you know, there's there's a couple options there. And I think one option is to ask the city attorney to begin the ordinance process, but come back with a legal report after talking to coast commission and the appropriate partners, which would be a citywide approach. And then there is a drafting an ordinance for just a a portion of the city. That would be a pilot ordinance. I think those are the two things that are at least that I just want to put on the table there. There's one. More option. And the other option. Is voting on the item, which. Is voting exactly on the item as presented. Absolutely. And I just wanted to to clarify something, if you might, if I might, with the city attorney, all of the the steps that you could go through to do that, could you do that under the existing motion on the floor, checking with Coastal Commission, checking out the feasibility? Um. We would certainly have to do that before if, if the substitute substitute were to pass as without the friendly amendment from the ninth district. Yes. Because we would have to address and reach out to Coastal Commission staff, etc. to make sure how we could or what are the options for implementing that. Okay. Thank you. Got to go back to Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Well, I would like to stick with a substitute substitute, but I do believe that we need a report in. And that's what I envisioned anyhow. Is that because I had some questions that needed to be clarified in terms of what defines a commercial corridor and that, you know, difference between the business and residences and the Coastal Commission items that Councilmember Suranga brought up. I think it will give us additional time, you know, to think about things going forward. And also, I think in a pilot program, if I envision that correctly, that is also just piece missing the issue. And I also feel that if I'm saying in the West Side, you cannot have, you know, RV oversight sites, vehicles that's going to go to another area. And I just think it just moves the issue around. If I'm just thinking preliminarily here. That's for sure. Just just jumping in because I kind of got hijacked on my I have three speakers while I was cued up. So here's well, here's what I'm saying. If we have if we have go forward with an ordinance and a study, all of that's fine with me. The issue I'm talking about is taking this citywide tonight or giving direction to explore it citywide tonight when multiple council people have just said we have concerns in our district. So I don't see an issue. I don't see a I don't see what the issue would be to simply say if they can't if they cannot write the ordinance without answering these questions, then explore flexibility and local communities approaches on what they can do, on ways they can do that, because they need some, they need direction. So I would explore both before they bring a city council ordinance back. So that's the best of both worlds. You get Mayor Garcia's compromise or his friendly to look at. Answering these questions. And you got and you answer the needs of a number of council members who brought up regional issues like coastal coastal commission stuff to, you know, frankly, having, you know, not sticking it to the guy who's doing the right thing. And that's what I envision will come back in that report is everything we're discussing all of these issues. Yeah. Let's clarify that. What what everybody understands, the report's going to come back and explore coastal issues. What issues? On the West Side issue? You know, all of the issues that we discuss, I would think that, you know, would be brought up residences. If I understand correctly, your motion was not accepted. So it would not discuss a pilot program, but. It would not evaluated. It would discuss the issues that you raised. We were just talking that we would never envision a report coming back to the council, maybe in a memo form, not on the agenda, explaining what we've looked at the process as we see it moving forward for an ordinance and what those key provisions of the ordinance would be. And then either the council or you could direct us to bring something back if you'd like to discuss it and or get further direction. And then we would come back with an ordinance. And maybe if the friendly included looking at a possible pilot that could maybe satisfy everyone's as an option. That's fine. Thank you. And we also have another colleague that's not here. I know that she was on the item, so that's fine. Absolutely. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Very much. Great Councilmember Ringo. When I made the motion. To receive a file. Obviously, there were a lot of issues with the with the substance of the request as it is. Based on the discussion that we're having right now, those. That's validated that there are concerns with what is here because you're used to many questions to be answered. There's too many other issues to me to be addressed. My main primarily one is, is that I don't want to put the city in the position with the Coastal Commission and also don't want to put staff into a into a quandary of having to address other issues that we have with the city in terms of its LCP and whether we have to apply for a for a course of do you have a permit for those areas that are within the coastal zone? And since my receiver file created some. Concerns. I withdraw that they will withdraw my receiver file but only on the contingency that we do the study as as the as the city attorney has has requested to check into all aspects of implementing a citywide implementation of this of this magnitude. That would address all of the issues, including coastal issues, because I, I don't see where we can do both. We can have the best of both worlds. I mean, there's going to be some issues with, with, with the coastal, the coastal zone. And and it's not going to be I can tell you right now is that it's going to be it's going to be denied because it's been denied elsewhere. While the councilmember price has mentioned that there are other cities that do have it, that is not the current path that that is currently taken. We use address one recently and in Santa Cruz, that guy denied for the very issues that you mentioned earlier about the the intent of the of the of the zoning was not to address public safety issues, but the reason was to address homelessness. So people saw through that. So I don't want to put us in that position. So I want to make sure that if we do move forward with any kind of of ordinance or study, that we study it first and that you review it, all aspects of it cover it thoroughly and completely. And you come with us with recommendations on what an ordinance would look like as opposed to an ordinance because it's not ready. This this request right here is not ready for primetime. That is definitely true. And so the only way we can address it is by having a complete study on it. If I may, Mayor and Councilmember, just as a point of clarification, you can't withdraw your substitute now because the substitute services on the floor, but you certainly could after the vote on the third motion. But but your point is well taken in that as I understand the substitute substitute motion, it now requires us to come to council with a study in the form of a memo to the council on those issues that you've just discussed and raised. And we'll do our best to address all of those issues. And I'm glad you brought that up, because it wasn't it wasn't until. The concept of a Richardson right out up again, and there was some discussion on it. So now that Councilmember Gonzalez has agreed to that and I can I can support that, but I can't support the original motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce, then we're going to go to public comment. Okay. I think that my concerns were twofold. One is, what is the intent? The intent is to ensure safety around streets where we can see visibly and ensure that people can see around the corners and things like that. Let's make sure that we are answering that question whenever we come back with the report. Two, what kind of ordinance would help us in that area? If the intent is around public safety, health and safety, around what kind of sewage is being out there, what are some things that we are doing to address that? If we're going to how are we going to separate the homeless issue from the public site issue? And that's one thing that it would be extremely important to me and ensuring that if there's something around code violations or things like that, are we doing that on a you know, are we proactively going out there and looking for it? Is it something that, you know, like other policies that we have on the books where we only do it if it's complaint driven? How big is the problem right now? How many calls do we get in each district? Those are things that I would want to see come back. And, you know, some explanation around the temporary parking zones would be something that I'd be interested in having a follow up conversation with. I can support the idea that's here today, but, you know, that's not that so that we can move forward and get a study back . So just to be be clear. Thank you. Okay. So now we're going back to the hour. Did you want to go back to the council first before public got some of Ringo? I just want to be clear as well is. This is going to be a study. It's not going to be a draft ordinance, correct? Not knowing it would be a study and I would assume that we would have in that report back to you. Some of the key items that we believe, if you decide to go forward, would be included in the ordinance. But it's not an ordinance. It would be elements of an ordinance. Well, as the as I understand the motion, unless the maker changes it, it's a study working towards an ordinance coming back with an ordinance, or the study would identify the issues that you've raised, some of the parameters and some of the challenges that we would see moving forward, and then we would move the next step. Would we bring you an ordinance? Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I can I can support that that approach completely. I would I would say just to add a little more to the whole local. The question is about local or local pilot. Explore also, if there's a way, you know, if we end up with, say, a blanket ban in residential, if there are ways to where the good guy that owned, you know, owned his RV for 30 years can do the reverse of the preferential parking where they can go collect a petition, explore something like that, collect signatures from their local neighbors to say, hey, this guy has been fined, doesn't live in his camper, he owns his home, whatever. He lives it at his house. Carney Park is his thing here. So as a as a part of this, that's a question I want to see, too. If it goes citywide, what are the tools or tactics cities have used to create that some sort of a process to allow these folks who just would have worked with rather working out with their neighbors and go pay, you know, 150 bucks a month for the for the lot rental or or 75 bucks a month. I've heard some people some places have. So that I want to make sure that that's reflected here too. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. One other thing that I forgot to mention that I would like included in the report is that it's going to cost upwards of $1,000,000 where those dollars are going to come from. So just some background on that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to go to public comment. Please come forward. Make sure you say your name at the start. Hi. My name is Marie. Thompson. And I'm in the fifth District. First, I'd like to say there's sort of a pilot. Already. Going on in a neighborhood adjacent. To Carson Park. It's been going on for several years. Can I say. Driveway? Just put it in your driveway. I can't get out of my driveway without being hit. I start to pull toward excuse me pull toward the sidewalk. And I cannot. See four, eight. Houses. So as soon as I get towards the street, I then have ten feet of sidewalk, grass area. And then the RV. Before I even get my bumper into the front road. And then somebody goes by, it's a horrible safety issue. Can extend it. Four or five days because you're already going over the 72. Hours of not moving a. Vehicle. There's cords. There's hoses going over the. Sidewalk over the. Night. During the day, I can't walk safely down the down the sidewalk without having something a trip. Over at at night when I'm walking my dog. I can't cross the sidewalk because there's someone parked at the corner. That you can't see. For literally. From corner to corner. As soon. As you start to cross, they. Can't see you. And in my neighborhood. There's not a lot not a lot of stop signs. The other thing was. They've even gone to. The point to put them. Up and over there, treated to the RV, the cords, and it's just out of control. And I've tried to do everything I could before. Bringing it here by going to. All the city emails. And phone calls. And I'm just. Asking, please do something about it. Even if it's just by street, by street. There's certain cities I cannot get out of my driveway. Without. Thinking I'm going to get. Hit. My neighbor has already been hit once. Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. Good evening. If I knew it was going to go this late, I would have brought my motor home today and parked it. That's true. My name is George Davis, and I have lived in the city of Long Beach for almost 73 years now and have attended all the Long Beach schools from elementary, graduated from California State College at Long Beach in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminology. I then went to work for the Los Angeles Police Department, where I retired for 26 years of service in 1995. Since retirement, I've chosen to mentor kids in Long Beach area at risk kids, kids without fathers. And I have. And homeless kids I have owned and lived on my property in Long Beach over 40 years. Of course, like all of us, I have seen many changes, both positive and negative. Now, why I'm here today, I am concerned with the city of Long Beach initiating this new ordinance on motorhomes parked in the city streets . I understand. Completely. Some of the concerns that both the citizens of Long Beach and the city officials have about the growing problem. Years ago, I bought a 36 foot class a motorhome. We haven't talked about motorhomes in their classes and you know, the sizes, so which is really important. But I bought a 36 foot class-A motorhome because the size is not because of its size and where I live. I acquired a space of storage that I could find ten miles away in the city of Cypress on Lincoln. After several years, I realized how difficult it was for me. Every time I decided to travel in my motorhome to drive out that distance, leave my car there, drive back, load my motorhome, go out on my trip, come back, unload my motorhome and drive back. As Vice Mayor Richardson said, it takes a lot of time. So I thought, well, it's time to downsize. And I could park my motorhome in front of my house if I bought a smaller one. So I bought a classy 23 foot motorhome. My motorhome takes up about as much space as a large van, and I moved it every Friday for street sweeping. And I have for the last five years, I use my motorhome approximately 10 to 15 times a month and sometimes more. I bought it. I brought it a day I bought a day pass at both of Chica Beach, where I sometimes take kids when I mentor them and sometimes just for my getaway. Although you say this is a new ordinance and has nothing to do with homeless concerns now happening within the city. That's not true. I too have seen the homeless parked within the city and those areas. I too have seen that they dump their sewers or their sewage in the gutters, and I am concerned about that too. I am. But there are different ways that we can deal with this without having this broad umbrella, this blanket ordinance that's going to say all motorhomes are oversize, vehicles are the problem because that's not the problem. Thank you, sir. Time is all. Up. Okay. Sorry about that, but no problem. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Paul Collins. It's the second time you're seeing me tonight in the West Side industrial area. The people aren't supposed to live there. It's actually zoned in that commercial or in that industrial area that residents aren't allowed. And yet we have 8 to 10 motorhomes that have been there for several years. And most of the people living in there are mentally ill and or drug addicts. And they cause they create great problems for the industrial businesses over there. There's no families living in motorhomes. It's it's a different problem than what you have in the residential area. And I totally understand that one size cannot fit all for an ordinance. There's no way. But I also know that the West Side would be glad the owners of the businesses on the West Side. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they'll pay for their signs. We would pay for very nice signs at our businesses. If the city could draft an ordinance that wouldn't allow them to park there because they're they're creating serious problems on the west side that people in these motorhomes have threatened employees and owners of businesses. They they're selling drugs out of their motor homes. And they are they're urinating and defecating in front of business people and outside and dumping dumping their trash in the streets. And it's a serious problem on the west side does not want motorhomes. The Westside Industrial Area does not want motorhomes in their areas, parking. They don't want an ordinance that would be for oversize vehicles because the west side is a trucking area. So if you have trucks there at night, they're there because they're loading or unloading. And they they they don't park overnight. If they park overnight, they should be in violation. But if they're there working in their businesses, they shouldn't be cited. So you can't just use a blanket and say oversize vehicles, it has to be restricted recreational vehicles. And that's what the West Side would see is no recreational vehicle parking in the West Side, period. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members. Good evening. Especially to Councilwoman Gonzalez. She is the representative from my district and she's been helping me and listening to my plight. I am on the west side as well. I run a restaurant and I'd like to unfortunately point out the bad side of this. These are views that I'm speaking of are not the ones that are packing up the kids and the dog and going to the beach for the day or going on a trip. These are the individuals that are in some compromised phase of their lives. And it's unfortunate. But I also have to point out that they're compromising our ability to conduct business there. I'll give a specific story of customers. A lot of our customers walk to the restaurant, and sometimes I don't see them for a period. And I've asked specific groups of them and they told me that they don't want to walk to the store anymore because of the smell. So these are these are messy. They don't contain to just the parameters of their vehicle. They spread out the mess. It's physical blocking of pedestrians, sidewalks and our driveways. It's visible blight. And I don't want to be in that category of, oh, it's the West Side, and sometimes it's messy. I don't want the mess the West Side to be messy. So I make my most sincere efforts to hold the standards high for the West Side. And I think these are these are compromising my efforts. So I think it's super important that. We focus on the West Side as one of the hotspots, and it'd be great if we could be the pilot. Come study us plenty because we are one of the hotspots I feel. Come put up the signs, as Paul stated. Yeah. I'd love to help pay for the science if it goes on my street over there, but definitely put down the west side as a hotspot that needs attention. And the last thing I want to state is I know these things are complicated and we have to study all facets, but the West Side has run out of time because my customers are eventually going to give. Up and they. Won't want to walk to the store. They're going to get in a car and drive somewhere else because they don't want to walk to my store. And, you know, we have to look at the big picture, I guess, but my picture is how many customers that I lose that day. So I just wanted to say that. And thank you for listening to us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. I might ask you is Mike Flynn. I live in L.A. Heights. I own an RV. I started a charity Carson RV. You can't you can only get it from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to get it out of the lot. I work during the week long days about it to take the family on vacations, on the weekends. And so for me to do that, coming home from work on a Tuesday, I'll pick it up, load it up again if it's a long weekend. Coming back on a Sunday. I got to work the next day. It takes days to get it packed up. I pay for it to store it. I only park it in front of my house. But 48 hours is just not enough. I mean, it's the four or five day thing, but it's totally unreasonable for us that are doing the proper thing and taking our families on vacation to get roped into. Obviously there's other issues, but for it being registered on a block, there should be more amount of time for using it for family vacations and whatnot to get it back. Just unfeasible otherwise. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Andy Kerr. I'm the vice chair of the Homeless Services Advisory Committee, and I represent Councilman Austin's District eight. First of all, I just want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, and the Council, for your leadership in putting the homeless study session on the agenda for this evening, and that it was a really productive discussion. I didn't want to take up time earlier from the really important speakers that spoke earlier on the issue of homelessness. But I felt compelled to to speak on this issue while I completely understand the quality of life issues that were brought up. On this issue, I thought it was important to to also bring up the homelessness issue. And I appreciate the council's concerns and sensitivity in light of what we heard tonight and talking about this issue. And while I'm not concerned about the intentions, because I know most of you personally and I know your intentions on this, I'm worried about the net results of what some more restrictions might have on the issue of homelessness. And are we driving more people to losing the only shelter they have because of tickets and violations? Are we driving more homeless people from the community? Not intentionally, but as a net result of more restrictions. So I would just just ask that and I'm not encouraging the council to not take action because I think the quality of life issues are important. But I would just I think maybe this is an opportunity of how we can create a win win and address the issues that we heard earlier this evening on the issues of homelessness and address these concerns at the same time. There's a couple cities in the central coast city of Santa Barbara and the city of Monterey that have done some really innovative things. On creating safe parking spaces for people experiencing homelessness and are living in their vehicles, both ARVs and just living in their cars. And I think maybe there's an opportunity to do something creative there. It's also a way to partner with nonprofit agencies such as one of the existing organizations in the S.O.S., or maybe a new partner that we can bring into the S.O.S. to provide supportive services, to have people instead of spread out all over the city, to have them in one place. I was glad Councilmember Price brought up the Multi-Service Center and already talking to our folks in the Health Department about maybe creating a space there, I am concerned about the capacity at the Multi-Service Center. I think maybe there is very limited capacity. And does that capacity meet the need of folks that are living in their vehicles in the city? Maybe it is. I don't know, but I would hope maybe we would look at that issue. And if that isn't an appropriate issue or appropriate space for safe parking, maybe there's someplace else that we could partner with churches, with other nonprofit agencies. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Next speaker, please. My name is Mark Nevin and I live in only two sites and I support the intent of the end of the ordinance. I just don't think that, you know, we should be wrapped up in, you know, RV owners that. Store their. Their RVs offsite in a storage lot should be wrapped up in the in the ordinance. The time frame for loading and unloading is not sufficient for, you know, for families loading up an RV, especially if you're on it, you're going on a big trip. It's just. It's just not. Not enough time. The other component of the ordinance was oversize vehicles, which are defined as 20 feet and larger. A pickup truck with a crew cab and a standard bed is 21 feet six inches. So that would, in essence, make all those trucks illegal to park on the city of London, on any street, on any street in the city of Long Beach. So I think that should be changed to most in the in the memo that you that was in the in the report, you brought up a couple of other cities , and they had also changed their oversize vehicle ordinance to 22 feet, which I think would be. Probably a good idea to do in Long Beach, too, since that's the size, you know, that would that would eliminate the modern modern pickup of today. The. That was it. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Speaker Patrick Watson, fourth district. Like the last person said, my Dodge pickup truck that I drove my family around in is now illegal by her ordinance that she wants to pass. That's ridiculous. I also appreciate Mr. Richardson's common sense on the matter as far as giving people ample time. I'd also like to know what the statistics are on how many accidents are caused by RVs being parked in front of residences. You know, you keep bringing that point over and over again. I'd be curious, you know, maybe the city attorney or the manager can bring up those stats because I doubt there are very many on the residential streets. I could see the major business fares, $1,000,000 for signage, the amount of money to do the studies that we're all talking about tonight, the added budget for parking enforcement and our police to do this. Are we taking this? You were the heroine of the homeless situation. Are we taking this from the homeless or is this money coming from. We don't have money in the city. So let's pinpoint the areas that we have to work on it. I'm sure there's a camping ordinance. Target the camping if there are people living in RVs. Target the camping ordinance. Don't punish the people at work. One last thing are the people that in my neighborhood, they're plumbers, electricians, carpenters, drywall. They have work trucks. They come home from work and they park in front of their house so they can get up at, oh, dark 30 to go to work, support their family. They can't park it from their house now. What about the guy that has a cement pumper because he pumps concrete. Can he no longer come home? Does he have to rent a parking spot to go park his work truck and then drive home or getting Uber? Let's just. I'm just asking for common sense before we come out with these ordinances that just blanket everybody and punish people. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Thank you to treat them in the fourth district and similar to some of the other comments. The time frame on the RV owners, I think is is too short. And personally, I've moved from the third district to the fourth District in an effort to get more room and have more property and be able to park my RV when I need to in front of my house for a few days. I store it in an office of storage lot and a boat, and if I want to use it, I need to bring it home. Use it, come home, go to work for a day, unload it, get it back. Like many people said, a lot of these lots, they're not open very long. You can get there from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 6pma lot of us can't get there that time. You need another day or two. You take my boat to Catalina. Where do I put my trailer? You won't let me leave it in the launch ramp for more than three or four days. So I leave it in front of my house. What am I going to do with it while I'm gone now? So there's a lot of different issues. I can understand a lot of the West Side. I'm a business owner in the city. I think there's a lot of definition we could work on between cities. City streets, figure out the terminology, use the boulevards and our neighborhood, the central neighborhood areas that are off the street. I don't think we need to target right now. Let's target the stuff. You know, I see Bellflower Boulevard. I see Los Coyotes. I see examiner. That's easy. Let's put some signage on those streets. And do you have enforcement opportunities already on the books that have been there for years? That can be 72 hours for the residents if they start putting it in by residents. I can call. We can get rid of those people if they move somewhere else. So at this time, I don't think the residential smaller areas need to have the enforcement that some of the other businesses need, the West Side and some of the. Other business districts. I definitely see the need for that. So I think it's something that needs to be looked at. I never heard about this. I just saw it on social media. So we came down. I didn't see the opportunity to have any input, so I think more input from the entire community would be something we need to work on. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Angela Kimball. Good evening. Uh, Mayor Council. I live just outside of the city of Long Beach. I live in the county unincorporated island. And we have a significant problem in our area that is surrounded by the city of Long Beach with RV stored throughout our community on our streets for extended periods of time. We actually had an RV at the end of our street. My street on Gondor Avenue, actually, it was stored on Conant on the city side of the property for four months with people living in it and it did not move. Slide outs out. 35 foot motor home. Huge, huge. Beast with people living in it continuously. They would move it around the corner on street, sweeping day on Conant and then back around on back to go on it. One of the big concerns that I have tonight is the problem with these RVs, boats and trailers that are surrounding Patrick Henry School, which is the city of Long Beach School. The county sheriff has worked really hard with their resources to try to keep that area clean and clear of RVs, boats and trailers. We have kids crossing the street in between these vehicles. It's very unsafe over there for these kids to cross to go to school. So that is one of our big concerns. There's a lot of great RV owners heard a lot of them tonight, but we have a lot of RV use in our neighborhood that are actually registered to the city. Now, people who live in the city of Lakewood, because they passed an ordinance back in 2006, overwhelmingly their voters, they went to the polls and they had had enough of this RV all over their community. So we're asking you to really evaluate this on us and take a citywide approach, because these piecemeal ordinances do not work. We see what's going on up around Skylands golf course. We have people living in RVs all up and down. You piecemeal it up with signage up there and there they move the RV for from to to from. 2 a.m. to. 6 a.m. and then they're back and there's trash and debris and sewage dumped in the streets there. And it's a huge issue for all the families living in those residences all around. So we're just asking you to take a citywide approach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. I hate to wake everybody up, Mr. Mayor. Councilman, but I'm from the fifth district. My name is Robert Wenzel. Sorry, I'm usually in bed by now. I'm 77, so, you know, but. I have an issue that I've been trying to work out for eight years through councilman ship ski and now Stacie Mango, who I wish was here. But I appreciate Mrs. Price invited me to come out. We're I'm sitting on a service road. A service road, which is probably a good car with narrower than a normal street. But you allow parking on both sides. So when you get an RV on one side and RV on the other side. I've seen the fire department actually have to push in mirrors to barely inch through this thing to get to the restaurant at the end of where I live. So I don't think there should be that kind of vehicle. Unless there's only parking maybe on one side of the street. The other thing is, is we don't have a stop sign for the street that has a lot of traffic on 28th Street going through. And so when you try to get out, you can't see down 28th. There's no stop sign for them there to stop. So you can maybe inch out. So you really are playing with your life a little bit. Other thing is cars are coming in from the main street and they get they don't have to stop for anything either. It's kind of difficult sometimes the safety issues that come about. The other thing is the stop sign on the service road sits almost eight feet back from the from the other side of the service road. They don't have to stop. You can't see if a big vehicle parked right there all the way to, you know, in here to the end of the street. So. I've been trying to do this for eight years. I've talked to this person for eight years. There's him and his wife. I came home even at two, 2:00 this afternoon, 212 vehicles that were parked there, owned by that particular couple. Two cars. The rest of them were a 32 foot RV, a foot attached, a 15 foot trailer behind it. He has a steak truck. He's got well, they're all big vehicles. All I want to do is have peace, peaceful enjoyment in my home and be able to know that I have some safety around there. Not everybody will come out now. I don't know if I can do this, but. A good friend of mine came to visit me and said, she's an ex mayor of one of the cities in the South Bay. And she said, What the hell is this? And I said, I know I've been dealing with this for quite a long time. So she said, Well, if you can't get it straight with your current council person, then see the city manager. So I have some photos that I would like to leave as are possible that I can do that. Yeah. In fact, sir, I'm going to we're going to contact you tomorrow at my office, and we're going to work with Mr. Beck as well. This RV issue, we have to obviously is not resolved tonight. There may be some other traffic issues there. That we can help here. So we will we will we will take we promise that we will be in touch tomorrow. I'm kind of glad I came here now. Okay. Well, go ahead and pass this, Mr. Beck here. This is our director of Public Works. He's going to contact you directly and we're going to go out there and take a look at your street. Okay. Yes. Hi, I'm Aaron Wilhelm. I was born and raised in Long Beach. I'm in the fourth district. I've owned my home for 25 years and I am married, have four kids that I've raised in college. We have an RV. We just sold our boat. We also have a motorcycle trailer. Because that's what we do. We go camping and we store them offsite, but we bring it home just like the other people that you know. And it might take a week ahead of time because depending on when we have to pick it up and drop it off and you've heard all this, but and I, I don't like the idea of doing a pilot program in a district because if you are. Pick our district because I can guarantee all the neighbors will. I mean, you're going with all the calls that are coming in saying, hey, we have a problem here. We have a problem here. Our neighbors don't call and say, hey, we've got great neighbors that have an RV. We have great neighbors that have a boat. You don't get those calls. So you think they're not there. So do a pilot program, the fourth District, and you're going to have no one complaining. Everyone has their Arby's offsite. Some of them some people keep them in the neighborhood. And they're very nice neighbors. Right. But if you do a pilot program where her store restaurant is and I get what she's saying, but you do a pilot program there, then you're going to screw the rest of us over in the fourth District , on the east side, or wherever good neighbors are. And we have our Arby's. So I don't like the idea of a pilot program in one district because it's not going to work for everyone else, because if you do it in our district, she's going to get. Screwed. And it's not fair. Also, I you know, as far as the size limits, too. My husband has a large truck. That, again, is it would be considered oversize. Some people have boats. They're small. So where are you going to cut it off? This boat's 18 feet. So it's okay to park on the street every day. It's okay to park in the main thoroughfare. Like, are you going to tickets? Are you going to tow people, confiscate stuff? I don't I don't know what you're doing and where you're going to go with all this. Um, I like Richardson. Austin's ideas about just everything they said seem to make more sense than what Mr. Price said. I don't care for her. Um, her, whatever it's called. But anyway, I just. I didn't. And then someone else was saying parking the driveway. I have a 30 foot motorhome, so I can't bring it home parked in the driveway because it's going to block the sidewalk and block the street. So then she can't walk her dog. We do park it in the street in front of our house and we put the cord above the motorhome to the balcony so that she's not going to trip on it. So she just complained about it being on the sidewalk, but she also complained about it being up top, but up top, it's above where anyone could even jump and grab it so that it's not a nuisance anyone. It's not going to be a danger to anyone. And we're being responsible neighbors that are charging our motor home so that we can go on vacation with our family. Thank you. Thank you so much. And our final speaker. Thank you. The definition of a motorhome. Is mobile living. Mobile living. Regardless of where you're living. It's mobile living. And it just so happens that there's a segment of our community who really are living in those things. They're not vacationing. I wonder how. Inconvenient the Indians were when the first Europeans arrived here. Our convenient were they buy by the very trafficking on the ocean coming back and forth bringing all that stuff. They had to handle that. And they've done it. They handled it so much so that. American Indians have but the real Americans have been pushed. Over and we hardly ever see the Indians. Anymore. They were so inconvenience and they took it in stride. They lost their land because of it. Our discussion here of mobile, living and hazardous to the community. What really are we? What's the intent? What really are we saying? And I'm not. Going to read my prepared. Short story. Because some people's lives, their livelihoods are dependent upon the decision that you're going to make tonight. Or won't be made. What is the inherent detriment in the complaint to the neighborhood, the neighbors, the streets that warranted this ordinance? Did you ever say, really, what's bothering you, Mr. Smith? You get tired of. Looking at that thing every day. Do you know who's living in that being? Miss Jefferson? Have you ever knocked on the door and. Offered a bottle of water? And can I help you with anything? How easy is it to inconvenience the homeless? Just because the neighbors don't like the look on the street. I lived in a motor home and I'm about to purchase another one because. My work for the homeless requires that I. Be on well on point wherever they are 24 hours a day, just in case they need me. How I got the first home. Somebody called me and said, You need a motor home for the kind of work you're doing. I'm going to have it delivered to you in a flatbed truck. They paid the insurance on it for the whole year. And I told them. Lady, I dreamt that I had a motorhome five years ago. Let's be. Honest here. They are people who are homeless, who are living in these things. And the city can't provide anything for them. For whatever the reason. What is the itemized resolve for this for this ordinance? Thank you, Mr. Assad. The last speaker, Mr. Goode, here. And then we're going back to the council. All right, good. You. It seems to me at the beginning, in the end, it boils down to no matter what district, it is the public safety issue. There are large vehicles. Whether to be a motor home recreational vehicle, or what if they present a public safety issue. That issue needs to be addressed. Period. And listening to this, one of the things that came to mind. Is this a great business opportunity there for somebody? Because there's obviously a need for. Location to find locations for a number of these. Vehicles, whether they be the recreational vehicle used on weekends or for vacations, or whether it be housing for people. There's no reason why there cannot be a mobile home courts set up for people that are. Living in them as their permanent residence or a temporary residence. But it's got to be done in a safe manner, period. And I've got I'd like to think that the majority, the overwhelming majority of people that have these vehicles are responsible people. So there's a there's a definite need there. We've got maybe facilitate some business development to have those mobile parks. For various different purposes, then there'd be a, a sub the business of shuttling people back and forth. But it at the end of the day it becomes a public safety issue. As one who rides a bike a lot, they do present problems when they're taking up the roadways. Also, I do notice a number of them are operating de facto offices out of them or shops, chop shops of some sort, particularly around the traffic circle area in the fourth district and then going up Bellflower Boulevard and on out into Lakewood, so forth. So they're at the end of the day, as you say, it's a public safety issue. And it has many aspects, but it should not be an indictment of, you know, there should be an indictment at oh ten of someone's intent while you're trying to root out the homeless or the, you know, the the nuisances and so forth. It's a public safety issue, and that's how it should be examined, in my view. Thank you. Sorry. I think you didn't speak. You speak again. Can I speak again? I can't do what? It's one speaker per commenter on the topic. Okay. I just think that, uh, it is a public safety issue and it's a completely separate issue between living in a motor home and someone that owns their residence. Thank you. Yes. Get out. Of it. Thank you, sir. So. Okay, so that concludes public comment. So let me go back to the council. Councilman Price. So just a few things. I'll be very quick here. I appreciate the comments from everyone. And I know sometimes when we come to council meetings, we have certain things in our mind and we're anxious to say them. But when I started off the comment, this is for some of my neighbors who are up there and the woman from the fourth district. Sometimes we think that we make certain assumptions. When I started off, what I said was, I'm very open to hearing what my colleagues think about this and and talking about how we can draft an ordinance. And then one of the speakers talked about having, you know, read my proposal. My actual proposal for tonight specifically talks about a situation and the need for a proposal that's very different than residential people using it to parking it outside of their home for a limited period of time. It says constituents report that vehicles are parked in front of homes and businesses for weeks or even months at a time, taking up valuable parking spaces, blocking view corridors and limiting access to driveways and alleys. In many cases, the occupant is illegally living inside the vehicle. Additionally, residents have observed several instances of individual disposing waste from the vehicles into stormwater drains, as well as report of portable gas generators being used as a power source. So that was the reason it came forward. So the definition of oversize vehicle is actually not my definition. It's not what I was proposing. It's actually currently in the Long Beach Municipal Code and has been for years, and it defines an oversize vehicle, as you stated, 85 inches high or 80 inches wide or 20 feet long. Several other residents, actually, it was passed in 2005. Several other cities have definitions, and I think that's a really great point for us to think about expanding the size, because three of the cities that are cited have a 22 feet. So I think that's an excellent point and that's something that we should definitely consider updating our ordinance. The other thing is in terms of the time to load and unload. Councilman, one of my one of my council colleagues and I actually it was Councilman Austin who actually used the example of his own situation where he wasn't able to return it in time. We actually had a conversation. Most people returned from a holiday on a Sunday and they probably have to go back to work the next day. So moving it in 48 hours is probably not realistic. Where that came from again is the current ordinance. Also, the city of Lakewood has it looks like a three day loading and unloading. SEAL Beach has a it looks here like they have a two day loading. It looks like Huntington Beach has a three day loading. Newport Beach has a one day loading. Costa mesa has a 48 hour, two day one. So every city, it looks like it's about 24 to 72 hours. We can certainly make that longer. That's not the issue. Again, the intent of the ordinance isn't to go after residential owners who store their vehicles off site. I live in Alamitos Heights too. I get daily emails and complaints from people regarding some particular spots where people are parking on the street for an extended period of time. And although sometimes neighbors may not share that with their neighbors, that it bothers them. They certainly share it with their council member. So we're trying to find an ordinance that is fair. And obviously we don't want to punish people who store their vehicles. There are in the city of Long Beach currently. Ten different places where you can store your vehicle ranging from anywhere 75, $75 a month to $200 a month, depending on the size of your vehicle. So there's a lot of opportunities. We want to encourage people to use offsite storage. We want to allow ample time for people to load and unload. But we also want to address some of the growing issues that we're seeing in terms of an increase in the number of RVs that we're seeing parked in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. So I just I did want to clarify that and let you know that you're being heard. And really the intent of the ordinance was not to go after people who are traveling on vacation and fact that my my ordinance my proposal actually says as the summer months come to a close , fewer families will be using RVs and trailers for recreation. So this is an appropriate time of year to address a change to the municipal code that would provide adequate time for everyone to become aware of any changes before major travel months are upon us. So we're trying to work with residents who have RVs and figure out a solution that works. And like I said at the beginning of this discussion, I'm open to finding out what works for everyone as we move forward on this. But it is a very, very controversial issue. And just because your neighbor may tell you that they're okay with it doesn't mean that's not what they're telling. That's not doesn't mean that's what they're telling their council person. So thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I'll try to keep it brief. I'm reminded that years ago, one of our colleagues, Councilmember Andrews, had explored the idea of having safe parking places within our churches and possibly with some of those nonprofits that provide services to our homeless community. I would like to ask and I can do this, you know, put on agenda item down the road. But I would like to say that I'd like to propose that we get a report back on safe parking initiatives that have been done in places like Santa Barbara. As Commissioner Kern brought up that there are some opportunities that we can possibly partner with the Multi-Service Center, with some of these churches, with the places that provide services so that we have two outcomes. One, we're getting some of the people that are living in their cars off of the the residential streets and corridors that are important to us. And two, that we're finding another way to connect them with services that will help them hopefully get back on their feet. And so I don't know that that needs to be a part of this item, but I can direct staff, you know, in a more formal, formal way to to come back with that. And I think if we're doing that alongside this initiative, that that's something that I would definitely be supportive of. Thank you, Councilman Austin. So I just wanted to add a piece to the story that I told Councilmember Price and I let everybody else in on a little earlier. So on the fifth day when I got ready to return, the RV code enforcement was sitting outside of my house writing me a ticket. So there is some enforcement in place. Okay. So we're going to go back to the motion on the floor, which I'm going to have repeated, just to make sure that we all know what we're what's being voted on. So, Mr. City Attorney, can you repeat the motion on the floor, which I believe is a substitute substitute by Councilmember Gonzalez? That's correct, Mayor. The motion that I have is a substitute submitted made by Councilmember Gonzalez, seconded by Councilmember Price, would be to now as amended, would be to prepare a study from the city attorney's office and from city management that would look at a number of issues that an ordinance like this would or may create. And they include the business district banning the definition of oversize vehicles, the application at service roads or access roads, prohibited parking in front of businesses, definition of commercial corridors. Addressing the Coastal Commission issues including coastal zone, possible CDP, coastal development permits and and the impact on the local coastal plan pilot options. The number of hours increasing for in front of residential to 48 to 72 possible tools to allow for parking in front of residential houses different hours different the number of hours for in front of businesses would be less than what is in front of residential. And then the public safety issue of illegal dumping and the notice requirements to implement. And it's just a report. That's correct. That that would be the report that we would try and answer those questions that have been raised tonight in a report to council. And in that report, if we're able maybe put in some suggestions that public works and the traffic engineer have on how we could craft an ordinance to address these issues, and then we would take further direction. Okay. Okay. So just to be clear, it's a report that's comprehensive on all those issues, and that's the motion on the floor. It's not an ordinance. It's to get information and bring it back to the city council. And I would also just add, there's a lot of folks that came tonight. So there'll be plenty of opportunities, too, in that report comes out to everyone. Take a read, take a look and have some further discussions about this issue because there's a lot of people interested as well. And I just want to re-emphasize something that Councilman Price said and having I know that she talked to me about this issue and I know that her intention has been completely to try to focus on those problematic areas that have been a blight on a neighborhood. And so whether it's the issue out in West Long Beach, there's other other campers that stay out for weeks. I've seen them at a time. It's in no way intended to affect folks that are getting nervous for their families and trying to take a nice vacation or have their boat out there and do all that and do all that work. And so I just wanted to re-emphasize that motion is on the floor. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. So that report will come back to the council. And now we're going to go to what will absolutely be the latest we've ever done public comment. So let's go ahead and do public comment. And once you're still here, I have Shirley Bouchard, Steve Updike and Larry Goode here.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.77, related to short-term rentals; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1203

Councilwoman Sara. I'm Councilmember Ranga. I had some in Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Bush and Kerry. Item 32. Item 32 Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau Former Councilmember Pearce Councilwoman Price Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending and restating Chapter 5.77 relating to short term rental and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately and adopt it as Read City one day. There is no public comment. I have a motion by Councilman Manga. Can I get a second please? Mr. Mayor. Price Second, I apologize. My queue is not working. Okay, sure. Councilman Price is the second roll call vote. Councilwoman Sandy has. Made. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman Sabina. I. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Councilwoman Ciro. I. Council Member Rangel. May. Councilman Alston. All right. Vice Mayor Richardson, I motion kay. Okay. Thank you. Next up, we're going to do item 23.

On the message and order, referred on February 16, 2022 Docket #0273, for a supplemental appropriation order for various departments for FY22 in the amount of Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Nine Dollars ($2,016,409.00) to cover the FY22 cost items contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the City of Boston and SENA. The terms of the contracts are October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. The major provisions of the contacts include base wage increases of 2%, 1.5%, and 2% to be given in October of each fiscal year of the contract term the Committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_03092022_2022-0273

Docket numbers 0272 message. In order for your approval, in order to reduce the fiscal year 22 appropriation for the reserve for collective bargaining by $2,016,409 to provide funding for various departments for fiscal year 22. Increases contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the City of Boston and senior docket number 0273 Message in orders for a supplemental appropriation order for various departments for fiscal year 22 in the amount of $2,016,409 to cover the fiscal year. 22 cost items contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the city of Boston, as seen in the terms of the contracts, or October 1st, 2020 through September 30th, 2023. The major provisions of the contracts include base wage increases of 2%, 1.5% and 2% to be given in October of each fiscal year of the contract term filed in the Office of the City Clerk on February 14, 2022. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes Councilor Bach, chair of the Committee on City Services, Innovation Technology Council. You have the floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And I note for colleagues that you have a committee report filed with you, and we had a productive hearing yesterday here in the chamber. Thank you so much to Council President Flynn and also Councilor Murphy for joining me and to Councilor Lujan for sending a thoughtful letter. And we were joined by Chief Financial Officer and Collector Treasurer for the city, Justin Sterritt, Budget Director Jim Williamson and our Director of Labor Relations, Tammy. And they were here to testify on behalf of the administration. And so I want to thank central staff for getting us back into this. Now, the second one of these hybrid hearings where we've we've got all the mechanics of the in-person hearing and also the mechanics of the hybrid hearing. So shout out as ever to the folks behind the scenes making that happen, especially in this case, Michelle and Terry Duckett 0272 Transfers transfer funds from the collective bargaining reserve to various departments and to 73 authorizes the funding of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Boston and Senate, which stands for the Salaried Employees of North America. As was recited in the docket by the clerk. We've reached an agreement from October one, 2020 to September 30th, 2023. It's for further background and for those who weren't able to make the hearing and I think many people know basically all of our bargaining units are out of contract right now. And Santa is one of the many that lapsed sort of a year and a half ago. And so the way that the city handles that financially is it sets a certain amount of money aside in this collective bargaining reserve, just sort of anticipating that we'll spend it once deals are reached. And that's what this appropriation today is is doing. It's taking 2 million out of that $10 million reserve because a deal has been reached. And that's to cover the amount of the deal that runs up through the 30th of June this year. Everything that's part of this contract that the city is obligated to after July 1st will be reflected in the proposed budget. So this is just for the balance of the contract period that's sort of already happened. And yeah, and so the main provisions of the contract are of the changes are that Juneteenth has been added for these employees as a holiday and that there are increases, incremental increases to salaries across the board, 2% for the first year, 1.5 for the second and 2% for the third. And this for it to even get to us. It's already been ratified by the union and been agreed to the table by both sides. And we heard good testimony about how sort of a balance between making sure that we're treating our city workers well and also that everything is within sort of the fiscally responsible remit of the city, especially since we have to balance so many of these. So with that. Mr. President, I would recommend that these 20272 and 0273 as read by the clerk pass today. Thank you. Thank you, Constable. We will now take these votes separately. Council. County Council Board. The chair on the Committee on City Services Innovation Technology seeks acceptance of the Committee report and passage of Docket 0272. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And docket 0272 has passed. Councilor Borg, the chair on the Committee on City Services Innovation Technology, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0273. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I opposed nay. The ayes have it. Docket 0273 has passed. Motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Couric, please read Docket 03570357.

A bill for an ordinance approving six (6) metropolitan district Service Plans for the creation of The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District. Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-24-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0797

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill seven, nine, seven on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 797 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has moved. Been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 797 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. We've been having a lot of metropolitan districts come forward this summer, so I have one more for you. And here is the Staff Report Council Bill 797 Series 2018 is for an ordinance approving service plans for six new metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of the area commonly known as the River Mile, containing eulogies, amusement park and surrounding areas. The districts are called the River Mile Metropolitan District number one, the River Mile. Metropolitan District. Number two. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number three. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number four. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number five. And the River Mile. Platte Valley Metropolitan District. The service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of Casey Euless Gardens at Invesco Second City LLP pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act. 30 2-1, Dash 201 and more particularly 30 2-1, two or 5.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Each service plan contains the district's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations, policy and other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and of other governmental entities having jurisdiction. It is anticipated that District Number One will act as the Management Management District organized to finance, construct, own, manage and operate the public improvements. Districts two, three, five are anticipated to be organized as taxing districts in order to generate revenue to pay costs of public infrastructure. The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District will act as a regional district and will specifically assist, where appropriate, in the contribution of financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure related to the Platte. River and other. Regional improvements. Participation in this district is optional. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating financing, acquisition, construction, completion, operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation all streets, safety, protection, water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation and park and recreation facilities. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 60 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The new metropolitan districts will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the discretion of the city. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $665 million. In order for the new metropolitan districts to have the financial wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improve as needed in the service area, the new nature parks and districts shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The new metropolitan districts will also have the ability to impose up to ten of the 60 authorized mills to raise revenue for operations and maintenance at completion. The current plan for development projects is at completion. The current plan for development projects, an estimated residential population of 15,000, with approximately 7700 resident residential units and 6,500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space. The planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley and West Side neighborhoods with transit corridors and the South Platte River, including park and riverfront enhancements. The planned development is located in the city's downtown area plan and conforms with the area's plans. Recommendations to create a year round mixed use site and to improve connectivity within the service area. The new metropolitan districts are not currently located within an urban renewal area. The approval of the service plans establish the following. There is sufficient and sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for President projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial or ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and services standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city and county of Denver. City staff does recommend approval of the service plans and the applicant and their representatives plus city staff are here tonight to respond to your questions. Thank you. Thank you. We only have one individual signed up to speak this evening. So, Reece Dugan, you want to come up, you have 3 minutes. Hi. My name is Reece Duggan, three through two for Town Street in Denver. I'd like to thank you all for considering these districts tonight. And I'm just here to answer questions this evening. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask Andrew in some of the other ones that have come forward, we've seen 50 mills. So how are we making the determination of what that maximum of mills are that we're approving to move forward with any of these metro districts? Yes, that's a that's a great question. I'm 50 mills is our standard that we go to for our debt and operation in mill mill levies. That's what we start with. If we had a development that is showing that it has quite unique and community involvement with its public infrastructure and this this project doesn't elicit those kinds of pronounced infrastructure needs, such as revitalization of the river, including dredging of the river and an activities activation of the riverfront for an entire mile. And some of these additional community costs is what we considered when we were going through the extra 60 mills. Okay. So I'm assuming that that work will involve direct interface with urban drainage and flood control district to ensure that it's not creating any further impact downstream for communities that are already experiencing some flooding challenges like the Globeville neighborhood. Absolutely. I mean, this is the metropolitan districts don't are not addressing that tonight. There is definitely a tremendous amount of conversations that with many partners to try and solve those all of the city's problems and regarding flooding. So Andrew, what is the percentage of open space that Denver is requiring with this particular proposed development? I don't know the specific answer for that. I will bring up Stephen Ali from our Community Planning and development, who probably has that right off the top of his head. Good evening. Members of Council Steve Nally with community planning and Development. As you know, in the Denver zoning code there is a requirement for a general development plan which requires 10% open space. We've had quite a bit of discussion with the community through the Downtown Area Plan Amendment. There are a number of recommendations in that plan that talk about open space and engaging the river, the types of open space, not just one part but different typologies, a big central plaza, neighborhood parks, park pocket parks, dog parks. And so this is one step in the implementation process. There will be many more steps. We are working on a infrastructure master plan and development agreements and a rezoning that will be coming soon. And we will we love to talk about that at that time. Okay. So the 10%, does that include frontage along the river and does any of the river contribute towards that? Or they would have to create the the land that then interfaces with the river. So the 10% requirement is for open space on their property. Got it. Okay. Now their property abuts the river, right? But it's got to be on. That's where things get fun. Yeah. And the activation of the river. And so, you know, it could. It could in the future, the lines could be a little blurred. You may not know if you're on, you know, the former religious property and it may be a public park. It may be privately owned at that at that point. There's a lot that we are working through, but it's 10% on the private property. Okay. The last question is just about the. Cumulative impact. And this is for you, Steve, because you're at the planning department. And this should be this should be what you guys are looking at in terms of the vast amount of acres that are on the west side of the river, that are all proposed to have pretty high density development, that will then have further impact on the adjacent infrastructure and the adjacent neighborhoods. So how how are you all at the planning department looking at that cumulative impact and ensuring that we're we're taking that view? I mean, I use the example of the 41st and Fox, you know, area where we were seeing all these rezonings come in. But nobody was looking at the fact that we've got one road into that site and we really had the need to look at doing more, requiring all the developers in that area to do more and contribute towards not just the roadway infrastructure, but even some of the drainage issues because, you know, 38th Avenue floods in that area. So as you look at adding this many more people in traffic and higher density to the area, how are we moving to address that? That is exactly what we're working on right now. So we're working through an infrastructure master plan. We have basically every department in the city at the table from Denver, Department of Environmental Health to Public Works parks. We have urban drainage at the table. We even have Army Corps at the table, Metro Wastewater. The list goes on and on. Multiple agencies. RTD is our is our Office of Emergency Management at the table as well. So that is that is going to be part of the discussion. Not not yet. But that is definitely part of the discussion. You bet. So the the how close we build to the railroad tracks, how we buffer and protect the buildings and the people that will be in them will be all part of that conversation. That's right. Great. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Steve. Only because that line of questioning sort of made me sort of think about this. Right. There's current entitlement with the land right now. Are there any mechanisms? I don't see anything in the service plan that doesn't seem to be any sort of there's acknowledgment that we just did a master in a, uh, area plan update, but there is no sort of compulsory or some sort of requirement that, uh, future that this area be rezoning in a manner sort of more consistent with those plan objectives. So is there any way to sort of convey to us that, um, that the current entitlement will be used with this metro district and that this is essentially a preliminary step for what is being proposed in a sort of more master plan sense. Okay. So just to understand your question, you are asking, should the service plans say that the current zoning will not be used to implement this plan? That would be great. I wouldn't go that far, but I sort of did so. So as you know, the downtown area plan envisions this future state. Right, this future neighborhood, and recommends that the site be zoned in order to implement or accomplish that vision. The service plan is in the Met Districts. It's it's one of many implementation steps. It's more closely related to the infrastructure necessary for that buildout. Now, I'm doing interesting thinking, but maybe you know. But the answer I don't think I don't think it includes the rezoning that the the neighborhood or the downtown area planning amendment recommends rezoning . And and we are, as you know, going through that process. So in. So where would we. This is getting complicated because. Right. They need that GDP in order to to start utilizing start doing infrastructure, sort of not do it willy nilly, but guided by the GDP. So is that GDP going to sort of hold off for rezoning or are they going to be concurrent or, you know, since that's public works how I mean, that's so you guys so how are we marrying those sorts of components, the other things that will sort of release the ability to sort of make use of this metro district. So the current plan is that the rezoning will include or there will be a development agreement that will accompany the rezoning. And that development agreement will go through a number of topics, including the requirements of an infrastructure master plan and a number of the kind of big moves that would be necessary on the site. That's the current thinking right now. But, you know, we're I was in meetings. Today, we're we're working very hard on this infrastructure master plan to ensure that all of the major infrastructure moves are in place as this develops over time. So. Those are those are great things because those things those all those documents sort of speak to how you might go about addressing the concerns that were already voiced in your prior questions. Maybe this is more of a question for you or Andrew. But again, those tools developer agreement would be with the administration infrastructure master plan. That, again, is sort of a purely voluntary effort. GDP would be a document, but that would simply be adopted by the planning board. So the only sort of next step that this council will sort of engage on would be the the text amendments in the map amendments. Where do those where do you foresee those falling with regard to those other three documents? So we we actually envision the development agreement coming to council. There may be some vesting rights that the developer is pursuing. I don't want to get into too much detail because this we're still working on this and you guys will be seeing this soon. But that that is the thinking that when we actually come forward with the text amendment and potential map amendment, that there will also be a development agreement. Yeah. So just because, you know, I'm not totally naive to this been part of many conversations that have gone down the central by that I've not been part of several as well. I understand that. But is it safe to say for the general public that many of these concerns will be some somehow articulated and in some degree codified where appropriate in ways that we have previously maybe not done at this scale or at least in this area. I mean, I think we have precedent examples. I'm pretty sure the Broadway station rezoning package and development agreement came before council because there were vesting rights as part of that development agreement, I think. I think we have examples of this taking place in the city, but that that's our current approach, as I described earlier. Right. And so I think I just wanted those, you know, have carried that conversation a little bit further. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega. Rebecca. Yes, Steve, just real quick. When do you anticipate that infrastructure master plan to be completed? Because that's looking at the whole area and not just this one site. Right. So the infrastructure master plan that we are discussing right now is for this site. Specifically not looking at the effect of all of the development. We're certainly considering the effect off site. Okay. Of of this site. And keeping in mind the development of other sites, there is a lot of engineering, there's a lot of work that goes into an infrastructure. Master plan is very expensive. And so we anticipate that that coming after the rezoning and I don't want to put a date on it. So after rezoning. Issues like roadway connectivity, I mean, you know, we've got the Burnham yards that are not far away from here that will soon be finished with the cleanup that the railroads are doing. And that's about 70 acres or so. So when you start looking at all of the development opportunities and how people get in and out of these sites, they're going to be utilizing existing roadways like 13th Avenue, Colfax that runs, you know, alongside this location. And for me, it's looking at how how is that folded into the big picture conversation? Because just like the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was created to look at the cumulative impact of all the projects that are going on in Globeville area at once here and along the Brighton Boulevard corridor, and making sure that, you know, there's some interface between how they all connect to one another as opposed to just dealing with each of them piecemeal. So help me understand how much that. Infrastructure master plan and that big picture look that the planning department is doing factors in all of those things. Sure. That's our job. That's exactly what we're working on. You may not see in the infrastructure master plan recommendations for the next neighborhood. However, we're thinking about the impacts on the next neighborhood when working on the infrastructure master plan. It's not just the existing streets. There are also new streets and new connections that will be necessary. I would suggest to answer that question, looking at the downtown area Point Amendment and all of the connections that are recommended and the improvements to existing network that's recommended as well. Yeah, and that's important because that affects the connectivity to downtown. Excuse me. But then when you look at the effect to the Jefferson Park neighborhood, just to the West Side, you know, and I do know that you all work to ensure that 23rd Street was a major connecting route to the site, which I know is really critical for those neighborhoods, because that is an access road that not only Jefferson Park but Sloan's Lake and in those neighborhoods to the west utilize that road. So that was really important. That's right. Let me just get to my next question really quick. And this is about freeze. Would you mind coming forward? Do you have any anticipation and I know we're not there yet, but do you anticipate using tax increment financing as one of the tools to do any of the development on the site? We do not. You do not. Okay. Has the community been talking to you about any kind of community benefit agreement that would look at ensuring that there is affordable housing, that there is a commitment to jobs, you know, those kinds of things. Can you just talk about where you're at with those conversations? Yeah, we haven't had detailed conversations about those specific topics yet with the neighborhood. As Steve Downey. Mentioned, the downtown area plan speaks to a lot of those things. I think specifically as it comes. To affordable housing. If I recall correctly, the downtown area plans for a higher level of affordability of affordability here or so, more units of affordable housing here. Should I say more correctly. Than in other parts of the city. Given its strategic. Location and its proximity to rail transit. So let me make sure I understood that correctly. Was that a higher amount of affordable units or a higher level of higher, higher incomes that would be served? I believe the area plan speaks to a higher number of affordable units. Okay. And just to finish that thought, we've been. Yeah, I know. I had to clarify it for myself. I realize I misspoke. Sorry. And we've been in some. Fairly deep discussions with city staff on what that means and what that looks like. I appreciate it. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 797 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am excited to support this metropolitan district, primarily because of the systematic approach that we're in right now. We just approved a an area plan and went through a very in-depth time with our community and District one, District nine, talking about what we want to see in this at the 50,000 foot level . What we want to accomplish, the drainage issues, affordable housing, day care, jobs. All of these things we want to see encompassed in this area. And from there, you've got to fund it. And so this is a funding mechanism so that we can start looking at how to take care of all the infrastructure needs. And I appreciate the city, CPD, the developer, all inviting me to the table and other council folks as well. And so I'm I am confident that this is going to be an area in which we all are proud of and an area which invest a lot into the social fabric of our community. And in a development that we can be proud of. So I'll be supporting this and look forward to the coming months of negotiation of what comes out from this area. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. If past is prolog we're we're this is just another step in a sort of incremental process to sort of realizing a very different future of those parking lots and and and sort of former railyard of Denver. So I'm just I'm encouraged thank you to Andrew and Steve and to Reece particularly, because, you know, it's not every day that a property owner, you know, invites a whole bunch of other stakeholders to sort of help them figure out what what to do with their land and sort of welcomes those comments and tries in earnest to to capture as much as possible. And so, you know, this is a tool that is if you heard me talk about it before, I'm not always the biggest fan of them, but this is the sort of exact situation whereby to me it's completely consistent but is bolstered by those other those other agreements and steps that still need to be done. And and I look forward to sort of seeing some of those as much, if not all of those ideas and things that have been articulated to date are being captured in in master planning and and developer agreements and and the infrastructure that goes in with this with this metro district. So with that, I'll be happy to support it and look forward to those future conversations to sort of continue to mold what Denver will look like 100 years from now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman can eat new Ortega SUSSMAN Hi, Black. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results.

Recommendation to approve naming the North Branch Library, the "Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library," in honor of her contributions to youth, education, literacy, and the United States.

LongBeachCC_02092016_15-1340

Thank you. Next item, please. Communication from Councilman Andrew's chair. Housing a neighborhood committee recommendation to approve naming the North Branch Library, the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Hold on one. We thought we worked it out. Okay. So, Councilman Richardson. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilman Austin, Councilman Andrews, for a. Talking with us about this this. For bringing this recommendation forward, I want to start off just with a brief staff report. Do we have a report on the process that we asked for in terms of public outreach? Yes. Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council providing the report today will be director of the Library Services, Glenda McWilliams. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and three members of City Council. During the January 19th meeting, City Council referred a proposal to the Housing and Neighborhood Committee to consider renaming the new North Library the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. Library Services and Parks Rec. Maureen were also directed to conduct additional outreach to engage youth and library patrons. Since that time, four community meetings were held to obtain community input. The ninth District community meeting was held on Thursday, January 21, with 150 participants, and they were asked that the name of the new North Library should inspire youth and if Mrs. Obama's initiatives aligned with the interests of the Ninth District. And during the discussion, 72% supported renaming the library the Michelle Obama Obama Neighborhood Library. Library Services held a focus group meeting on Saturday, January 23, with 11 library patrons at the current North Branch Library. The same questions were asked of the participants. Six of them voted to keep the name the North Branch Library. Other names provided for consideration were Indira Hale, Tucker Branch Library, Martin Luther King Jr Branch Library and the Coretta Scott King Branch Library. City Council's Housing and Neighborhood Committee met on Tuesday, January 26 to discuss the referral. There were seven members of the audience who spoke during public comment. Six people voiced their support to rename the new library in honor of Mrs. Obama. The Housing and Neighborhoods Committee voted unanimously in favor as well. 20 youth attended a meeting held by Parks Rec and Marine on Wednesday, January 27, at Houghton Park. The same questions were asked. 15 of the 20 youth voted for the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. Other names put forward included doorstops, the L Word Branch Library and Brighter Futures. This concludes my report, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. So I want to I want to thank Chair Andrews and the rest of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee for bringing back this recommendation of approval for the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. This has been a very open, inclusive process. We've conducted more outreach around this proposal than any naming process that we've heard of in recent city history. Through these past two months, we've held forums, focus groups. We've engaged in online discussions around the topic. And at this moment, I'm most proud of the opportunity to witness our community of different ages and backgrounds coming together to build consensus around the idea and to inspire and engage the next generation. There are many individuals and groups that I want to thank tonight for actively participating and being supportive of this process. So first, I want to extend a huge thank you to the students of the rap program at Jordan High School. They'll make are brothers in the ZAE Sisters for the original idea of the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library and for their strong participation and advocacy over the last couple of months. This has been an exercise in democracy and the civic process that won't be soon forgotten. So thank you to to the rap students and their program coordinator coordinator, Candace Meehan. So next, I want to thank the students from Hamilton Middle School and the Andy Street Community Association for the the over 80 letters that I've received in support for this library, naming and coming the council and participate in the community meetings. You're all an inspiration to other youth around the around our city. I want to thank the North Long Beach community leaders like former ninth District Council member Steve Neal, school board member Megan Kerr for lending your voice and standing who supported this proposal from the beginning. Thank you to the neighborhood association presidents for committing their support and being engaged through this process from the very beginning. That includes Laverne Duncan, Deborah Shelton, Dan Press, Berg, Eileen OII and Jeff Roe, Hilda Gaytan, Otis Hogan, Julia Brown, James McWhorter and Jimmy Murray making up ten neighborhood association presidents representing ten different neighborhoods in North Long Beach . Thank you also to the elected officials who expressed support, including the letter we just received from Congresswoman Janice Hahn today. Congressmember Alan Lowenthal State Senator Ricardo Lara. State Senator Isidore Hull Speaker elect Anthony Rendon. Anthony Assembly Assembly Member Mike Gibson Assembly Member Patrick O'Donnell. I want to thank staff, particularly departments of Parks and Recreation, Marine and the Library Services Department and their staff, for helping to helping with the outreach efforts and working with our staff throughout the process. I want to thank the Long Beach Library Foundation for engaging and supporting in this process for the and for their commitment to our North Library campaign. I want to thank Delta Sigma Theta and Zeta Phi Beta for their sororities for engaging in this historic process. And finally, a big thank you to the over two. Community members who participated in the library, community discussions, focus groups and the housing neighborhoods, community meeting. So there's been a tremendous level of outreach and in for the first time we can make history by naming a library after a person of color and in the same gesture demonstrate that we're forward thinking city, which values the opinions of its youth. Quickly, I have I have a question for our director of Library Services. Thus, the Council has invested funds for an opening day selection for our new library. Can you tell us about that investment and what that brings starting the library? Yes. Councilmember Richardson, the $400,000 excuse me, approved by city council will purchase about 17,500 volumes for the new North Library. They're going to be books for reading pleasure, as well as information and instruction and all subject areas. And that would be for little ones. Our school age children are teens, are adults and are seniors. Thank you. So I'm personally excited at the opportunity to engage with these 17,000 new volumes of books in this new library. I'm excited to take my daughter there and and to introduce her to the new stories and open up her imagination. Personally, living in a forward thinking city that acknowledges contemporary heroes like First Lady Michelle Obama and values diversity and literacy is an added bonus to raising my family in this great city. But I've said this from beginning. I'll say it again now. We fall short if we don't utilize this library to inspire a new generation of library patrons and readers. So that said, on March 2nd, read Across America Day. We're going to launch our read with RECs challenge. So we're going to be challenging our community to get library cards and to check out and read 25,000 books within the first 100 days of the library opening. I'm excited to launch this challenge. I can't wait to share more with you on how you can get involved. On March 2nd. In addition, we're going to be turning our attention to the Library Foundation's public fundraising efforts to support them to make sure we have the technology and capital resources necessary to meet the needs of our community. Next, during the OUT during our outreach over the past few weeks, we asked the community their input on the process in general. While this process was consistent with other processes in city history, we have the responsibility to figure out how we can continue to improve on this process. So as a part of my motion tonight, I'm going to ask staff to take the event, evaluate the feedback received through this process, and make recommendations to our Council on ways we can use technology and other means of engagement to improve naming processes in the future. So that said, I'm proud tonight to make the motion to approve the recommendation of the Housing Neighborhoods Committee and naming the North Neighborhood Branch, the North New North Branch Library, the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library, in honor of her contributions to youth education literacy in the United States and to further explore opportunities to improve our city's naming process . Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Andrews. Yes. Yes. Mayor, real quickly, I want to thank our Councilman Richardson for bringing this forward. And I need not to say much more about it, because I think he went through everything very eloquently and let everyone know that the community voted unanimously to favor, you know, renaming the new library for Michelle Obama. And I think it's a wonderful idea. And I want to congratulate you again, Councilman Richardson, for bringing this forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let me open it up now for public comment. There's public comment on the item. Please come forward. And just make sure you say your name for the record, please. My name is Benjamin Miranda. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Benjamin Miranda, representing the program at David Star Jordan High School. I'm current president of the Omega Brothers. I'm here to present to you why we would like to name the library being built in the north Long Beach in north Long Beach after Michelle Obama as an individual, why do an individual why do I choose the name? Why do I choose to name this library, the specific name of the First Lady? She's done a lot from promoting healthy eating to creating community projects. She's a she's accomplished many goals from advocating poverty, higher education and healthy living. Michelle Obama decided to use her position by making the Let's Move program, which has the potential to lead the childhood obesity epidemic in the right path. As the program was running. She's made a lot of progress by trying to keep the youth of America eating healthier and getting active, to show her gratitude and our appreciation for her efforts. We decided to pitch her name for the library. She's been successful in all her programs. She's also a role model to the citizens across the nation due to her successful program and her success as a first lady. Also, we have to pay attention to our youth. Our youth reflect Michelle Obama as a person. She's paid close attention to our educational system because she wants all of us to have a bright future. They see a local library with one of their role models name on it. They're about to go and check it out. I, for one, would go off then so I can check out their books. As a program, we agree that she deserves the naming of the library. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Margaret Turley and I'm a resident of the ninth District and I would like to thank the council and I'd like to thank my city councilman for bringing this issue up to name the library after Michelle Obama. But I believe the library is one that we truly need in our district, and I believe that it will help educate and serve our community. And I believe that Michelle Obama would appreciate the fact that the library was considered by the youth to be named after her. And so I think I'm in very much support of this library. And I'd just like to say thank you to the community for coming out, too, because I believe it was a diverse and also transparent meeting. So I'm also in support of the library and of naming it Michelle Obama. So thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kate Azhar. I'm the interim executive director of the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. As most of you know, the Library Foundation has been very supportive of all library issues in Long Beach, and in particular because this has been such an exciting issue that the community has been really involved in. We have really urged that this process engage the community and every step of the way to decide a new name for the North Library. And we've been very proud of those who've arrived this evening at the other community meetings and their involvement. We thank Councilman Richardson for his partnership in engaging the community both on this issue and others. We've been working with them, as you said, on our campaign to raise the much needed funds for the new North Library. We fully support his recommendation that we look at the process for the future of naming buildings in Long Beach and ensure that the community has a say because it's clear that the community wants to participate in this process. I've said it before that that our foundation will continue to support the North Library and all our libraries, regardless of their names. So I really hope that the rest of the council and the community will show equal engagement and support for our campaign to raise the much needed funds that will provide resources that are needed to make this library truly great. Things like the Family Learning Center, the digital studio. This is work we've been doing for 20 years as of this year, and we can't do it alone. So I ask that you, the Council and the community get involved in our campaign to continue to make this library great, that whoever's name should appear on the front. They can be truly proud and the community can be proud of what's inside the library as well. Thank you. Thank you. Other speakers, please. Good evening. My name is Ben Rockwell. Reside at Fifth and Magnolia. I'm surprised that Maya Angelou's name was not brought up as a possible suggestion, since she is one of the wonderful prominent. Persons of color who is now deceased. And I think it would have been a great honor to have the name named the Maya Angelou Public Library. However, I have no objections to using Michelle Obama. I just thought that that would have been an excellent name to give honor to Maya Angelou, who was at one time our great and wonderful poet and of America. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Look at. Very good. You click as the address. Let the record reflect the last time this came before this council. At the direction of the city attorney who initially blew the whistle and. Saying in the process that at that point it was in direct violation of the Brown Act. They went through a series of community meetings. The last time. Then it was reference that this city council. The Council person said we had a a. Outreach meeting, a community meeting. Well-attended, well-attended, the operative words. Three, 3 minutes later, I filed a public records request asking for those records of that meeting. You've seen the copy. Public records, the very diligent office sent me saying those will not be available until September 26. That's strange. The olfactory senses. All right. Being out and out elbowing. Michelle Obama. They monitor, there would be an embarrassment to the first lady. All right. Her husband might be a turkey, but you do not embarrass the first lady of the United States, period. Yes, sir. You can make your comments, but I would just try to be respectful of of the president and of the process. So please go on. You do not embarrass the first lady of the United States by elbowing or her name in here. I personally believe I side with the former two council people that had 20 years of experience and familiarity. And suggested that if he should be named after somebody locally here within the city, there exists no you should understand. The commendable work that the first lady does is part of her de facto portfolio. Unlike your parents, she doesn't go out and carpool you to school or after school. She doesn't take the trash out. She doesn't do the clean up, the do your sewing, do your laundry. She doesn't try to fix that broken lamp. You. Accidentally broke when you threw a house party one weekend when they weren't home. That's part of the job. She does a great thing. So the fact that she's involved is no great. Achievement period. We do have ample inventory of people here in this city. That deserve it. I happen to personally believe it should be. Eleanor Schmidt, the 20 year director of the library services. But make no mistake, she will not come within ten, 100 miles of this place knowing, and she will know she will have the full record of being. Her name is there because the more qualified people were elbowed out. Thank you, political pipsqueak. For your time's up. Thank you. Always very respectful of your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and all the city council representatives. My name is Linda Wilson. My address is on file. And first of all, I'd like to say thank you to all of you for your attention and this recommendation. I want to attest to the fact that it's been a process that I have not experienced before. However, it was well run, well orchestrated and well-attended by those who were interested in the process. I want to say that this is an excellent name. It's been well endorsed, and I would really like to urge that we had so many young people to get involved in this process. And I've not seen that much energy in the process of this nature in a very long time. Our young people have voiced and have submitted the name that they would like to see. And they are our future. They are now, but they are also our future. They will be the ones and their children will be the ones that will be utilizing this library. And I urge you and I thank you in advance for casting a vote in favor of Michelle Obama. Neighborhood Library. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Joanie Ricks, O.D., and I am a member of District nine. And I just simply want to say thank you, Rex Richardson, for bringing this forward to the council. It's really exciting for us as residents to see the engagement. And I would just like to say, I think that our first lady would be honored to know that we have young people in our district that think so highly of her that they would want to name it after her. And I just think it's just a testament to where the ninth District has come, where we are going. And so I just end with saying thank you and go uptown. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I'm Reverend Leon Wood from the seventh District. What I wanted to to actually mention here that that the recommendation for. Michelle Obama for the library reflects the entire city council that we have here. Long Beach is is is represents change. It represents what's going to happen in the future. We have now a progressive city council who are making progressive decisions. And Michelle Obama, as the library just reflects an advanced city that's moving forward where people are going to be to work together. Multi-ethnic groups of people working together on one accord, and I thank you very much, and I think you all should be commended for what you've done thus far. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any other speakers? Please come forward. Okay. No other speakers. Okay. See? See no other speakers. There is a motion and a second before we cast your vote. I just want to first I want to thank all the the young people that are here. I think it's really important that you guys were very active in this process. And I want to thank the councilman for ensuring that young people had an important voice in this process. And so, like all of you, I look forward to visiting this library. And I think that the woman's name, who will be most likely here on that on that library, is just a great symbol of what our country is about, which is someone that that that represents everyone that's successful. She's successful on her own in spite of her, her husband, and represents not just the nation, but I think a lot of the values of North Palm Beach as well. And so thank you for for what you've done. And Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you all. Next item, please.

A bill for an ordinance approving the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI) 2020 annual programs and waiving further City Council approval of specific contracts implementing the annual programs. Approves the annual Public Works infrastructure program by waiving the requirement that contracts above $500,000 be individually approved by City Council. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-23-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-18-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03022020_20-0059

No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? It doesn't look like it. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Herndon, please put Council Bill 59 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. Move the council bill 2000 0059 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded questions by members of Council Council Member State Abarca. Thank you, Mr. President. I called this bill out specifically to go on record as voting no for this and just for the public who are who's viewing this. This is an ordinance that would be a blanket authorization of our annual work program, and that includes street paving, concrete traffic signals, pavement markings all within this work program and totals to probably over 25 million. Last year it was about 12 contracts. And for the same reasons that we are being asked to approve this, I will be a no. I don't believe that with contracts that are an annual expectation that there should be this need to expedite and have this blanket approval. I think that we have checks and balances of separate branches of government in place for a reason. And so to allow these 12 contracts and this $25 million to be spent without coming directly to council for each individual contract, I think is problematic. And just to remind people, this is not a practice that we've always had. It's only been a practice since 2011. And so I will be a no tonight and I hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. I have a lot of concerns about transparency and accountability. And I think that there you know, this is this last year was only regarding 12 contracts. I think that that's not too much to ask, that these 12 contracts come through one at a time to be approved by council . And so I will also be a know tonight. I think that, you know, these can come through just like all the other contracts that come through and are approved by council. So I will also be a no tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Hines. But thank you, Mr. President. Is there someone here from Dottie who could answer questions? Oh, there is. Good evening. Council members Jason Gallardo with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Gallardo, thank you for for coming tonight. We've heard from a few of our constituents that, frankly, that I should vote against this because we shouldn't give daddy a blank check. These are their words. Is this a blank check for Daddy? No. Councilman. Member. It's not. What we do here is this is for maintenance only. So, for example, if we are doing our paving program, our annual paving program, which I sent out to everybody that is a 2020 annual paving program, shows what we're going to be paying for this year, which is an estimated around 570 mile go. What this does is it puts funding towards that early. We're able to get into contract with these contractors early on in order to be able to hold these contractors, to be able to do the work throughout the season. They're capable of doing it. So this money is spent towards maintenance only. It's not going to be new projects. We can't wait in roads with it. We can't. All those type of contracts will have to come through council like normal. This is only for maintenance, for assets we already own. When somebody says they have issues on the roads because it's getting, you know, really beaten up and we go over there and pave it. That's where this fund comes from. And it's there is a reason why we couldn't vote on these. I guess last year there were 12 contracts that came before us. I mean, what's the advantage of this mechanism? Because, I mean, we have what are the what are the contracts called? Where we have you know, I think you we already have on call contracts. So why why couldn't we just approve on call contracts? The reason we did this way in 2011, there was an agreement made that we would bring all these contracts in together as wants to get these contractors under contract early on. What we found is as we're doing work and we're putting contracts out, we end up towards the end of the season losing contractors because they're full with other work. This allows us to keep our program in and actually map out the entire city of projects that we want to get done for the entire season and to move smoothly and keep it going. This is why we were able to hit our goal 500 and I think it was 20 miles of of paved roads last year, which is the most that public works has ever done, is because we were able to get these people under contract early on, these contractors, and make it where we are able to do this work throughout the city without stopping and going through the process, which takes, you know, months at a time. Well, I think I've been on record of not being a super fan of of lane miles of roads, but I don't think that's what's in conversation right tonight. The but we couldn't we approved 12 on or you know however many vendors 12 on call contracts for the total budget amount and then if that comes in under, then we'd be fine. I guess I'm still struggling with why is this? You know what, what do we need to do this now as opposed to approving 12 on call contracts for the full budget amount or whatever, whatever the answer is to make sure I get you the correct answer, I'm actually on call. A colleague of mine up here, Beth Zullo, who knows a little bit more about the process and has done it for this entire time. And maybe she can help answer some more questions to. And also we have a Pat Kennedy here that has designed paving and those type of things, if you have any questions on that. Good evening. So the reason we do this is to, as Jason said, get people under contract earlier. It saves somewhere around 40 or 50 days per contract to take through the budget amounts that were approved for these contracts in mass in this ordinance tonight and then not take them through one at a time through the council process that can add anywhere from 3 to 6 weeks to our process typically. And this allows us to bypass that and go right to the contract. So it would advance in the contracting workflow and go to the city attorney and be fully executed. And will you mention your name for the record and for the William? Thank you. And I guess I'm going to go back to the blank check question that I asked Mr. Gallardo. Really, this this isn't a blank check. This is just the amount budgeted. Right. And it's re approving the amount that was appropriated through the annual budget process. And we attach that to these contracts. So if they if they were to come in above that budget, they would have to come through council. Okay. No exception to that. It's just re approving the appropriated amounts. And I would also say that I'm not a super fan of the budget either, but I was sworn in as it was already most of the way underway. So thank you for your questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Sure. Thank you. Councilmember. Your answers. Council members and all. Thank you. Hey, can I have Jason come back up? I have a quick question. I didn't see. Them. So thank you for your email. I saw that you emailed us the list of from 2019. Yes. What can you do you. When can we expect a list for the 2020 work? So we're approving. I am going over some of the documents. So specifically I see light infrastructure. So likes like traffic lights. Does that include work that would put left turn arrows or right turn arrows on that? Or is that new new infrastructure like completely new replacing them? No, this is to maintain what we already have to make sure that it's operating properly and everything else is not to put in anything new. This is in the any new construction that we do that reaches over the 500,000 mark will come through city council as normal. So adding a left turn arrow, let's say you're going southbound on federal and you want to do turn a left turn arrow so you could head eastbound on 32nd Avenue that would initiate a 500,000. Right. So is some of that money for smaller improvements like that? Because I would think that would be an improvement to our infrastructure. I'd have to know what budget. It comes out. Yeah, it would depend because, you know, unfortunately, we have a lot of money coming from different places, from different budgets. So it depend on where it's at and what what the actual ask is to know exactly where it's coming from. For example, if we were putting a left hand turn next to a school because there is a reason for safety issues, it can come out of this safe for us to school budget or something like that, depending on where it is. I mean, it gets more complicated when we talk about a specific area. So back to my first question for this whole total amount for the annual programs, the improvement programs and the capital maintenance, the facilities waste money. When will we get a line item budget like what you sent us today for 2019? When can we expect that? Quarterly. So we send it out quarterly to everyone and we will be sending it out in three months and give you the entire every quarter letting you know where we're at, who's under contract and what what work has been done so far. So we have. Not always. 2000 yet. Year 2000. Right. Because it's the it's the we're proving it for 2012, 2020. Right. So we haven't gotten the 2021 yet. Right. This is what you're proving. Yes. Yeah. So, so. Sorry. If you're going to if you're going to answer a question, you have to. Have the microphone for everybody who's watching on TV get that report. So it's the in the first quarter. Right, the end of first quarter. It January, February, March. So in March. Into March. We'll get that time. Frame. Yes. We'll get it quarterly. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Ortega. Thank you. I'm going to ask Mr. Kennedy, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium. Councilman Ted Kennedy with over here, Dottie, Office of Asset Management. Thank you. Can you tell us how the annual work schedule plays into this? I know we got the map showing us where some of those areas are that are outlined for 2020. So our construction season for both in-house and contracted work starts in April and precedes until weather shuts. Us down. In the end of the year. So that part of that's the criticality of the days that Nizzolo talked about for helping us get started helps us get these these programs going. So we have a full construction season order to complete our work. Okay. But the info that was sent over to us is part of what guides the projects that are part of these contracts, correct? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. Pat or Jason and maybe Jason actually for the reporting that we'll see. You know, one of one of the things that I'm interested in is not just efficiencies of this, but how the decisions are being made. If it's just a chronological response to when streets need to be repaved, or if you're referring back to department goals around neighborhood equity, program equity, things like that, and if, if or how, that would be included in your quarterly report. I think that going forward, we definitely like we talked earlier today that the equity part is playing a much bigger role in our decision making going forward. And I and I think, you know, first applaud council for bringing that to the forefront of every conversation we're talking about. And in this aspect, we plan on putting that, implementing it going forward in more equity to be able to show you where we're doing and how we're laying out the process when it comes. To actual paving. They have a great plan. And that is is that goes based off of how old and how long the roads have been there and what was the last thing we laid down. So how long it lasts and we try to try to keep up with that program based off the road's ability just to last. But everything else that you're talking about. Yes. I mean, I think everything needs to be under the equity lens. I think for for me, given this is my first time being involved in approving this process, I'd like to see that play out before seeing if this needs to be refined or done differently. Just being on the city side, I do recognize how long it takes for contracts to be developed and delivered, especially for something that I know my residents rely on, which is the regular paving of their streets. But that piece is going to be a big one for me, so I'm definitely going to. Be looking at where we're happy to work with you on that, and we are going to do individual council member briefings on your paving that's going on in your districts. We're getting those scheduled now. You absolutely. Thank. Councilmember Councilmember Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. Can I ask the city attorney to just shed a little light on this process, Kiersten or Jonathan, I'm sorry you weren't doing a crossword over there or anything. I hope this ability for the department to ask for this waiver was embedded in the charter about 15 or 16 years ago. And could you describe what that did? Because we applied to Cynthia at DIA also. That's right. Here's one covered legislative council. And after I give you the short answer, I'm happy to look up the time period because I can check that in the charter. But 3.2.6 of the charter does give council the option to waive approvals of certain contracts. And we do have a code provision in Chapter 13. I think it's 1311 where we have where council has explicitly waived authority for certain airport contracts. For example, construction contracts that exceed 5 million or under 5 million do not require council approval is not uncommon. Rather than 500,000. 500,000 is the threshold for professional services, but 5 million is the threshold for approval of construction contracts at the airport. Thank you. And Jason or. Well, Jason, the the process, as I recall it, is that within the annual appropriation for this work, we authorize we with this ordinance, we would authorize the department to go out, seek bids. And what you do describe that process. My understanding is that you do a competitive bid for each piece of the work and you go with the lowest responsive bidder, including all of our social ordinances, ah and BWB requirements, etc. and then report to us who those folks who were, what companies were selected on a quarterly basis. That's not how basically it works. That's that's exactly how it works, Councilman. And I really don't even have anything to add to that. That's exactly the process. And the lowest bidder does win. And we will report out who wins and the maybe we be contracts that we add to it and you'll know all the information as we as those contracts are made. And the reason that you ask this is because of the paving season and the asphalt the season and the fact that a lot of these contractors need to develop their summer work plans. And so if we can lock them up now, we can guarantee that this program will be completed this year. That's correct. That's correct, Councilman. And this is how we're able to be efficient and get as much done as possible. We set up goals and timing is everything for the paving season. It's weather. It's it's all these aspects to that. And that's why we try to do it, this process to get it done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank Councilmember a councilmember say to back you. Back up. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. A couple more questions for you, Jason, and just also a clarification for my colleagues. We approve a budget and then the rest of our entire job every Monday night is approving the transactions that fall within that budget. And so to color this as something that's unique and needs special consideration, I think is problematic. But I do have a question about the contracts that get expedited. So we've had things that the administration needed to see done faster, come through direct file. And so why would this not be a tool that we use for this type of contract, considering there would likely be less cost? Privacy on something that is part of this annual work program. I think because of the transparency in the ability to watch contracts being made, which is a little bit different because we're actually going in contract with a vendor and doing direct file from the mayor's office could make it more political than anything else. To have the transparency to go through is proper process is what makes it this way a little bit better. But we're asking to basically skip over the proper process and instead blanket authorize multiple contracts to be executed outside of the public side. I think that that that our goal here and I and I don't want to talk on behalf of the administration or anybody else why they would do it one way or another. I just think our goal here is to be able to get the money to fund that season, to get as much work done as possible as the paving program is related to this and any kind of maintenance we have outside of that to to get into a different process outside of this would be a conversation that I think that we're more than willing to have about that. It's just this is the process that we're moving forward with is an annual ordinance that we've been doing since 2011. And so can you explain why for an annual program of work like this, we're not a new organization. We're a city that contracts with people all of the time, people who are under the expectation that they'll have to go through these processes annually. Can you tell me why? For our annual work program, we wouldn't have contractors on deck so that by the time we're here in February, instead of approving this blanket authorization, we're actually approving all 12 contracts because. Because the funds don't become available until January. So that's when the work can be left. It's March. Right? So what I'm saying is, why wouldn't we have those 12 contracts on deck right now to be voting on those 12 contracts rather than the blanket authorization? I don't have an answer. So. So just so you can clarify, you're asking us to where we under contract before the money is allocated. So the money was allocated way before. Now it's March. And realistically, I would expect that we would have 12 companies that we're talking to to implement this work. And so and so, yeah. The way it works is we, we get the money that is allocated to us. Then we go through this process and then we put out RFP for them to apply to this process. But without the money actually being through there and actually going through this process, we can't have an RFP. We can't have the companies ready until we have an actual RFP that goes out there and allows people to apply for it. And we get the lowest bid and go through that process. And then got that because we're skipping that. But real quick, can you explain to me the difference between what we've listed as going with the lowest bidder versus best value contracting? Yeah. The lowest bidder versus. These are awarded through hard bid, which is lowest responsive, responsible bidder. So it's just a different method of contracting. And what is the difference? Best value can look at other things like schedule or duration types of work. We don't typically see that in this kind of flat work construction. That would be something like the Convention Center or the Great Hall at DEN are usually done through value. So does best value take into consideration a company's safety and health performance record on past qualification does. And so we're when we go with the lowest bidder, we're not taking any of that into consideration. Yes, anything over $1,000,000 is subject to the city's pre-qualification rule. So how do we know which one of these contracts is being held to that rule if they're not coming before us individually. Pre-Qualification is a condition to be able to bid the projects. So do we have breakdowns for 2020 of how much each contract is going to be? And do we know if they all fit within that million dollar pre-qualification rule? I don't have an answer to that. For the contracts that go up, we have engineers estimates. There's always a couple of the concrete contracts that fall in the 500000 to $750000 range that are designated for small business enterprises. But all of the other bigger contracts are well over a million, and those are all subject to pre-qualification by the contractors. Okay. But we're not using best value contracting with them. No, these are hard bid contracts. Subject that the vendor, the successful contractor meets the prequel requirements and meets any SBC or BMB guidelines that are put in those contracts. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Gallardo, if we vote this down tonight, does that significantly improve or impact our paving work? I mean, significant, I guess. Would you have to define what was significant to you and to me? But yes, it does delay our process. Okay. What would if we were to vote this down tonight? Let me try to rephrase the question. We voted down tonight. Then you would have you was in the administration or Dottie would then have to put forward 12. Proposals, 12 different contracts in 12 different RFP, the project contracts, and goes through the process, which could be anywhere between 60 and 90 days. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you. Just clarification, Councilman CdeBaca asked a question about best value that I had asked over email, but I'd gotten a slightly different response. Mine had to do my response that I had had more to do with the language in the charter. Can can you guys clarify if. Go ahead and ask to go with clarify on why I'm sorry, which. Why we base on lowest bid versus best value. Um, do you have a in search of why we're. Based on that. I don't know what is defined as best value. Right. Um, I. I'm sorry. I don't think I have an answer. I guess the best I could say on that one is, is, as Beth had mentioned, best value contracts are generally those large scale contracts like the Convention Center or the Great Hall, where these are limited in scope. They're repairing curbing gutters or performing a specific treatment on pavements. They're installing pedestrian curb ramps at intersections, so they're more of a limited scope. So the best value is obtained by the lowest responsible bid on those unit prices. Mm hmm. Okay. I have to go back to the emails that I got. There was something different around the language that we're required as a city to comply with that was in charter around accepting lowest bids. And that that's that's the clarification that I'm asking someone to make. And I can definitely get you that clarification and make sure that you have the proper answer to that. I'll look. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a real quick follow up on Councilman Hines question about what happens if we're too delayed tonight. We approve several contracts all of the time for on call services, for street paving, for concrete, for curbs and sidewalks. And so we have multiple people right now on call in the city with encumbered funds for their contracts. I'm wondering why they wouldn't in the interim be deployed to provide some of these resources or accomplish some of these goals in our work program? I think a lot of those are the scale that they're on. On call now is nowhere near the scale that the full paving plan is. We're talking about a more larger citywide paving plan versus taking care of little minor things here and there. This is a much bigger contract in that. Will any of the contracts. Based on your past experience with these work plans? Will any of the upcoming contractors be those that we already have on call? They might be. This is an RFP process that hasn't happened yet, so I can't answer that. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I'm going to call up real quick, guys. Stewart it from the mayor's office to get a clarification on the question that was asked by Councilmember Torres about the response that you got. Hi. Skye Stewart Mares Officer, historian, up the stairs to answer things. Councilman Torres, when we had that conversation, we were talking about Section 2.3.3 of the charter, which talks about construction, reconstruction, remodeling of general public improvement projects, and that they need to be awarded to the lowest responsive, qualified bidder through a hard bid. And that applies to this particular body of work. It does. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry that I'm still up here. Just one more question. What did we do before 2011? Because I think this this took effect 2011, correct? That's correct, Councilman. What it does and so, as Beth said, it helps us accelerate the process by, you know, 3 to 6 weeks when you're dealing with a finite construction season, maybe only six months long, you could lose 20% of your construction season. And in the past, yes, we had those issues where we had noticed a proceeds that couldn't be released until May or June, and we were losing a substantial portion of our construction season. And then if you get hit with an early snow like we had last October, it can seriously impact your ability to keep, you know, your annual work programs completed. Okay. Thank you. I'm not excited about the budget. I'm not excited about some of the questions that have asked. But I am concerned that I don't want to mess up our schedule by shooting this down tonight, so I will vote for it. I wanted to I want to revisit this before this time next year so that we can we can get this sorted out and we don't run into this same kind of thing for the for the next year's budget. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, so no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. CdeBaca No. Flynn I. Gillmor I. Herndon High. I can eat I. Ortega High level. High. Sawyer No. Torres, I. Council President. I think we're still missing one. There you go. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting announced the results. Two nays nice. Two nays nine. His counterpart, 59, has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Councilman 148 on the floor?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.77, related to short-term rentals; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1203

Good. Thank you. We're going to take a couple items. We have 55 and 56, I think are the audiences that need our readings. So let's do it. Let's do those. I know some folks are starting to I'm going to start losing folks. Here I am 55. Communication from city attorney. Councilwoman Mango Councilman Prepares Councilwoman Price Recommendation to adopt an ordinance or an urgency ordinance amending Title five of the Long Beach Municipal Code related to short term rentals and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Is there any public comment? Yes. Our first speaker is Diane Reed. Diane Reed. Diane. Please be in. Oh. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Okay. Hi. My name is Deanne Read. Um, my wife and I have been living in Long Beach for 26 years. We purchase up to you in a property here in Long Beach a year and a half ago, we rent the back unit out and the front unit, we we rent out Airbnb. Very successfully. I never had a problem. I do sympathize with those homeowners who are experiencing or manage Airbnbs in their community. But however, our Airbnb is being maintained in a very, very professional manner before we allow anyone to rent and would contact us and indicate the reason why they're coming to Long Beach. And if it's approved, my wife and I, we meet them at the house, we give them a call and then we give them a tour of our property. We make it very, very clear that they need to be spent sitting in the back and they have to respect the left and the right side. We also let them know that all of the people on the left side and the back unit have our phone numbers of anything wrong. They can call us. We only live 5 minutes away from our property, right around the corner, right next to Hughes Middle School. After we give them the tour. We tell them our power, couple of our rules and our main rule is no smoking in the home and no parties. We think you're an ex speaker's. Gail Sheppard. Gail Sheppard. Hello? Yes. This is Gail Shepard. Please begin. Okay. I'm a long time resident of the third district. Second District. Excuse me. I'm asking council to vote against yours as an urgent issue or emergency, if anything, as the stars are creating more risk to our city. As far as COVID goes, please vote to allow city staff more time, at least the 45 days to be prepared . There's no lottery in place for the 800 Airbnbs coming. There's no way for buildings to about. There's nowhere for neighbors or residents to call in case of problems except the police department. I've spoken to jail cell Scott Baldwin at District two regarding the house next door that's become and hosted Airbnb for over a year now. Even with the owner's phone number, we have to act as managers out of necessity. We can't. We have to call the owners. It's also a nuisance to have to call them constantly. There's plumbing issues. There's some other issues, noise issue. We have no recourse at this time except for to call the owners. There are limited partnerships. They own three stores in Long Beach. These are 100 year old homes. Infrastructures can't take this traffic. We're having backups with plumbing. And I'm hoping that if you have to vote on this today, at least you can give the city time to be able to have a number for residents to call and to think. Your next speaker is Jean Young. Jinyoung. Good morning. Good morning. Makati City Council Members. My name is Jinyoung. I'm a 30 year resident of District eight and I serve on the leadership team of the Long Beach Hosting Club. I'm calling in support of item 55, the short term rental ordinance. It is fair and balanced, and it's the product of four years of public input. The ordinance establishes standards for a responsible operation of both home sharing and vacation rentals. Your approval tonight grows the economy and an economically empowered small neighborhood and entrepreneurs and Long Beach. It gives the city much needed revenue that has been impacted by COVID. This ordinance does so much right. It limits short term rentals to one hosted primary residence and one vacation rental per owner. Fending off large corporate interests, it preserves neighborhoods and protects housing with percentage caps. It holds the host, the guests and the platform accountable, and it provides the mechanism to identify and site bad actors. With this ordinance, the controls are in place to legalize all short term rentals. Thank you to Janine Paris and to the price for your hard work and listening to all sides of the issue and crafting this fair and balanced ordinance. We hope they. Thank your next speakers, Jennifer Walton. Jennifer Walton. Hello? Yes, please begin. Hi. If you can hear me. My name's Jennifer Walton. And I hold on. I'm trying to get to a place like, okay, I'm a super host with Airbnb in Virgo here in Long Beach with guests from all over the world. For five and a half years, my property has generated a significant amount of revenue for our local businesses and our city, which benefits everyone. My property's unhosted, which makes it easy for during the pandemic for both my guests and myself. I rely on this income even more heavily now due to COVID restrictions on my other income streams. I'm very motivated to be a great host. I live just 20 minutes away and my manager lives just 10 minutes away. Here in Long Beach, we have installed noise sensors and have changed many of our house rules to accommodate. Fewer guests require longer stays and outdoor activity comes inside by 10 p.m.. Lately I've been, let's see, c one, which has ordinances in place addressing noise, parking and cost for every household, whether it's owner occupied a short term rental or a long term tenant. There's no excuse for anyone, whether a neighbor or city council member, to treat certain properties differently than others, when we must all abide by the city ordinances already in place. I just wanted to stop the scapegoating by some people of our fears and petty nonsense that goes on in some neighborhoods of a deep love and respect for my neighborhood. We have also hosted guests for of our residents of our own block numerous times, providing a service to our local community. Thank you. Your next speakers, Krosnick. The goalie. Question. Hello. I please begin. Hello? Well. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in front of city council members. Technically, I do research at Irvine. I study learning happens on how to make learning landscapes that I teach kids. Although here I'm talking as an Airbnb host who I wouldn't have been able to really support my education on the beaches of Long Beach and imagine for many years of the topic, because I really wouldn't have been able to pay rent if there was an Airbnb, I wouldn't have been able to pay rent for. I would imagine, Professor, I wouldn't have been able to support my family. I wouldn't have been able to support my schooling. And right now, I probably wouldn't have been able to support myself if there wasn't going to be me. I think we like some of the previous comments. As I said, we have worked really hard for this and I think it is time to look up this ordinance, so please adopt this ordinance. That's my concern. I think your next speaker is Susan Bailey. Susan Bailey. Yes. Good morning, Mayor, and members of city council. My name is Susan Bailey and I have owned a home in District three for 35 years. My husband and I split our time between Denver and Long Beach. We're retirees. And when we are not in Long Beach. My family members and neighbors meet our guests. Long Beach is a place I love. It's where I grew up and the source of revenue that we use from our properties supports my 88 year old mother, who lives about 5 minutes from our Belmont Shore property. I am here this evening in support of Unhosted stays to be included in the ordinance. I think, as others have said, countless hours of public input have been considered over several years and there is unequivocally a very strong value not only to host but to businesses and the local Long Beach economy, which we know is inordinately suffering and the thoughtful consideration of the Council around limiting unhosted to be able to have a proper study of the impact and most importantly, to ensure compliance. I would tell you that we consider Long Beach our home, even though we spend six months a year there, and if our home was not unhosted, it would simply sit vacant and would not generate tax revenue for the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Okay. Let me let me go back to the council. Just as a reminder, we've I know we've had a opportunity to debate this extensively, so let me just hope we can go through quickly. Council Councilmember Pearce. A motion to approve. Thank you. Just a second. About Councilman. Mongo. Anything? Councilman. Mongo. I think it's all been said in many, many meetings before. Councilman's in house. Thank you. There. I so appreciate all of the work that has been done to get this item to where it is now. And while I feel that our city is moving in the right direction, I do still have concerns about the unintended consequences this could have on our local housing market. After further discussion with stakeholders in my district and in the community. I still worry that we are incentivizing property owners in our city to market their units as short term rentals rather than housing units for our local residents. We are in the midst of two very difficult and different crisis of affordable housing and COVID, both of which are central to our discussion on short term rentals. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Remember, she's Castro's mayor. Mayor? This is a turning point in the motion, as I understand. The motion by Councilmember Pearce and second by Councilmember Mongo will be to declare this ordinance as an urgency ordinance. Is that correct? Yes. Sorry about. That yet. And therefore. Therefore, we will need two votes. The first vote will be on the urgency and the second vote will be on the ordinance. Thank you. The roll call vote on the first one. CD one. Nine. CD to. I. CD three. I. CD for. All right. Council district five. I. Council District six seven. I. Council. District eight. District nine. All right. Ocean carries. Kit. And I'm in second row, please. District one, ne district two. I. I District three. High district for. My. District five. I. District seven. I ate. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 10.34.040 relating to parking at City-owned and operated lots with disabled plate or placard, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0632

No. There are no public speakers for that item. I didn't. 21. Report from Public Works recommendation declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to no cost parking at certain city owned and operated lots for drivers with valid disabled plates or placards. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Citywide. I got a motion by Councilman Price. Can I get a second, please? Think about customers in Dallas seeing no public comment. Mr. Mayor, can I just make a comment on this item? Yes. So this was our item that we brought to council three years ago. And I want to thank staff for bringing it back. I know it took a long time for it to come back to us because it needed to go through Coastal Commission. But I do know that this is something that we've been advocating for on behalf of a few of our residents, and I'm grateful that it has come to pass. So thank you very much for coming to council, hopefully to pass. So I want to thank city staff for getting us to this point. Customers in the House should some comments also. Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to say thank you again for to Councilmember Price for bringing this item forward and and for all the all the hard work you've done. I know that this kind of work was not easy, but on behalf of all the residents that used placards like this, I just want to say thank you. It is really difficult to find a parking spot as it is already that has a disabled accessibility and they're very limited. So this kind of eases that. And so I'm very thankful that to actually see this come into fruition. So thank you very much on behalf of those who use those placards. Thank you. And with a roll call. District one, district two I'm District three I, District four. I. District five I, district six. I. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. I. Motion carries.

On the Petition, referred on January 26, 2022, Docket #0186, for a Special Law re: An Act Providing Certain Retirement Benefits for the Widow of a Former Firefighter of the City of Boston, the Committee submitted a petition ought to pass in a new draft.

BostonCC_01262022_2022-0186

Docket 0186, Counsel Arroyo offered to file petition for a special law regarding an act providing certain retirement benefits for the widow of a former firefighter of the city of Boston. At this time, the chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo. Thank you. Mr. President. I'm going to keep this brief because I have a couple of files. This is a refile on survivor benefits for the wife of a Boston firefighter, a mr. Leroy or Roy Rodriguez, who died on the surgery table for injuries he sustained during the course of his duties. He was responding to a fire. He tore his Achilles tendon. He still went to this fire. He still fought this fire. And then afterwards, a few days later, he went to receive the emergency surgery and he died on the operating table. For whatever reason, even though he received the all of the sort of pomp and circumstance and celebration and acknowledgment in his funeral and in his funeral rites of somebody who died on the line of duty, he did not receive the survivor benefits that his wife was entitled to. One of the major things here besides the survivor benefits is if you pass away in the line of duty, your children have a separate line to join the Boston Fire Department. His son would like to follow in his footsteps and join the Boston Fire Department. And so receiving this would would allow him entry before he ages out. And so that is something that we're going to move on hopefully soon, once we once we know how that's going to go. But that is what this is for the newer members who are not here last year when we had a hearing and introduced this . This is for the widow and his family. And this is to provide him with the survivor benefits and all that comes with that that he's entitled to and his wife is entitled to. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Royal. Anyone else like to speak on this matter or the idea of the other name? Please add Counselor Baker. Counselor Braden. Counselor Fernandez. Innocent Counselor Fiery Counselor with counsel. Laura Conservation Counsel. Counselor Murphy Counsel. We're all employees at the chair as well. Um. Docket zero one. 60185 will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. 1600186. I'm sorry. But we will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Madam Clerk, please read docket 0187.

A bill for an ordinance approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and TMC Enterprises, LLC for the building located at 12025 East 45th Avenue. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-8-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-6-14.

DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0924

A CLP Certificate of Power of Participation Ordinance will be coming forth in the first quarter of 2000. Now the probable scenario, and I say probable because as I understand it, not everything's been finalized, but they do know that that's the mechanism they're going to be using. The probable scenario is a debt of about 10.5 million. It will be a 15 year debt instrument, which would, at the rates that are anticipated, garner about a $4 million interest cost. We've just gone through establishing a budget. Now, there was plenty of one time funding included for other projects. I question the administrative priorities that can't say emergency response. This 911 building isn't a top priority for one time funding, but it wasn't there. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay an extra $4 million of interest and incur debt with a budget as rich as the one we approved. Well, I like this first ordinance. No problem whatsoever in having a new building for this call center. The second one. Floating cops is a real deal killer. I'll be voting no. Thank you, Councilman Fats. And there any other comments from members or questions for members of the council? CNN. Mr. Secretary, being on 924 will cover these thoughts. No. Can each layman i. Lopez. I. Monteiro never. I. Shepherd i. Brooks, i. Brown, i. Mr. President, i. Councilman Brown voting in favor. Mr. Secretary, please close the venue, announce the results. 99199919 924 has been ordered published for the sector acuity of the next one, which should be 961. Wait for technology to catch up. Call out by Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Fox Would you like for us to do with this? Please put on the floor for a vote? Certainly can. Councilwoman Sheperd, can you please put 961 on the floor to be ordered published? Certainly. I move that council bill 961 series 2014 be ordered published.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property 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 as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project. Approves the designation of certain property as being required for public use and authorizing the use, acquisition and disposition by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of certain properties needed for the Platte to Park Hill Storm Water Systems Project. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0758

Your councilwoman was I? So that's tonight's three nays. Yeah. Council about 757 passes. Okay. Please pull up. 758. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this? This one? I'd like to call for voting. Okay. Please, Councilman, put this bill on the floor to be published. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 758 be published. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Espinosa. Simply similar to the previous comments that this is the acquisition of land for these this 39th Avenue channel that. And so my comments sort of are familiar, I mean, along the lines of what Councilman Cashman just mentioned. So I will be voting no on this bill as well. Okay, great. Not great that your vote. No, but thank you, Councilman Flynn. This was for president. The same remarks as before. I think that having voted no on a fee and having a lot of questions about whether this project should proceed, but after having met with staff, I see it as my duty now to see that the project is done correctly and not to obstruct it. So I'll vote yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Count. Councilwoman Ortega. My comments that I shared earlier apply to this one as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Okay. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Espinosa. No. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. High knew. Ortega. No. Sussman. High. Black, high. Class high. Mr. President. High. Close. Voting in US results. Ten eyes, three days. Okay. Got to right that time tonight. Three A's Council Bill 758 passes. We are now. There are no other bills. Call it out. We are now ready for the BOP block votes. All of the bills for introductions are now ordered published. I also want to remind, as folks are leaving, that we don't want anyone standing because it's a fire hazard. There are plenty of seats up in the front and I do believe we have overflow tonight. So I just wanted to let that be known. Councilman Espinosa, are you ready for the black votes? We'll see. I don't know about this new system. Okay. Councilman, please put the move that you think the resolutions and bills for deduction be adopted. With them both. Together. So. Kelly. I don't think the screen changed. No. Did your screen. I mean it. And Councilman because 757 758 have already passed. You don't need to mention them. Let me grab my actual agenda, not the electronic version. So just resolutions or bills for introduction or both? All of them. Okay. So thank you, Mr. President. I believe that resolutions be adopted and bills for final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass and block for the following items. 60 are Council Bill 16 059408250622. 0755. And that's it. Point of order. Yes. That's for adoption, correct? That's for final. No, he's supposed to read all of them. And so. But he placed them on final. But they're for adoption. Yes, correct. It's it's both the bills on final and. Yeah. Madam Secretary, can you go to his screen and it's because the screen does if he scrolls down, he could. Oh, there we go now. Didn't I just rattle those up? Okay. Let's try that again. But I still have that. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that, resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration, placed on final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 594, eight, 25 and 755. Yes, I keep, keep, keep going. No, that's okay. Just those three. Yeah, but I thought we're doing resolutions and bills for introductions. He did not. Introduction final. Okay, we got it all. Go ahead. Madam Secretary. Black Gold. I. Clark II. Espinosa, I. Flynn, I think i. Herndon, I. Cashin Can each. Lopez All right. You. Ortega I. SUSMAN Mr. President, I would. 30 Nice. 13 Eyes The bills on resolution and bills for introduction have passed. Is that correct? Bills on final have passed and resolutions were adopted. Okay, we've got a new system. Everyone will get it. We'll get it. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, are there any other bills that are are hanging fire? Okay, good. Tonight there will be a combined one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 625 626 regarding affordable housing programs and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 760

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

SeattleCityCouncil_02102020_CB 119726

Agenda and one to be part of the Sustainability and Renters Rights. Committee accountable. 119 726. An Ordinance relating to. Termination of residents, residential rental tenancies prohibiting eviction in winter months and amending Section 22.20 6.1 60th respect. The committee recommends that the bill passes AMEND with Councilman Russell Morales and Lewis in favor with Councilmember Peterson with abstention. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Council colleagues, we have about six amendments that have been proposed to this bill. Council members want this as your bill. Would you like to open with a few comments before we take the amendments? Thank you so much. President Mosquito. Last November, the Seattle Renters Commission recommended that council take up this urgent issue. They pointed out that winter evictions are especially cruel and harmful. In 2018, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association jointly issued a study Losing Home the Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle. The study found that nearly 90% of people evicted become homeless, and that people of color were disproportionately, in fact, overwhelmingly were the ones who were evicted. And more specifically, black tenants experienced eviction at a rate 4.5 times what would be expected based on their demographics in Seattle. So it's specifically affecting the most marginalized in our society. Most Seattle tenants are evicted for not paying their rent in, you know, for being short on rent. And in most cases, the study found the evicted tenants owed one month or less in rent. In one case, the tenant was evicted for owing $10. And there was a Seattle Times article, I believe, which showed a tenant being a you know, she fought her eviction, but she was there was an eviction notice for being charged $3 on a rent. You can't make the step up. Eviction also can be a death sentence. The study reviewed 2017 evictions and found that six Seattle tenants died during or right after evictions. Four tenants committed suicide. One died of an accidental overdose a day after being evicted, and one tenant died during the eviction process while receiving hospice care. The study also found that at least nine people who died homeless on the street in 2017 had an eviction filed against them in the three preceding years. And this is happening to so many people. You know, I would urge everybody to read Dan Beckman's excellent article in the Seattle Times that was published over the weekend that shows over a thousand people were evicted in King County in this past year. The data are a brutal indictment of a private housing market that is dominated by corporate landlords who care more about profit than housing people. I recognize that there are good landlords out there, families who own a small number of rental units, or sometimes just one unit who care about their tenants, who make timely repairs, who don't try to get away with charging the highest possible rents, and who don't exploit their Dennis. But those landlords aren't why we are considering a moratorium on renter evictions tonight. They are not the problem. The Renters Commission pointed out in their letter last fall, and I want to just quote from the letter. During winter in Seattle, temperatures regularly fall into the thirties overnight. And according to all home King County's count, does it count? As in a report for 2019, 41% of homeless neighbors sleep outside every night with an additional 19% sleeping in vehicles. Neither of these situations provide much protection from the elements, and both can be deadly. And they have more statistics on how being outside and unsheltered in the winter is a contributor to that. Obviously, you can't fully isolate what the immediate causes of that work. So I really thank the members of the Seattle Renters Commission for demonstrating leadership on this issue and also wanted to point out. One of the members of the Renters Commission, Devon Southern Neil, is now a staff member at NAMI Council Member Darin Morales's office. I wanted to commend his work and work of Seattle as well. I also want to thank Ali Banerjee from City Council Central Staff and also the City Attorney's Office for fully engaging and developing on this issue and developing the work that we need it. And a city attorney's office for developing the precedent setting legislation. Just to give a timeline of where we came here. The bill was recommended by the Renters Commission in early November and December. My office introduced the first draft. We discussed it thoroughly and the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd. And there the the bill that got voted out of committee was an amended version of the previous version, which took into account many concerns that we had heard in a very thorough manner. And and it was supposed to be voted on February 3rd, but the vote was delayed by the council holding it today. So I hope we are able to vote today. Just one point I wanted to make in general on the amendment and on the specific amendments, I'll speak when they are moved. I am very disappointed to see that many of the amendments that councilmembers are bringing forward will actually, if passed, if these amendments passed, will make it more difficult and more restrictive for renters to be protected by this winter eviction ban. The exception is Councilmember Lewis's amendment, which I support and was already ready last week. And I and I wanted to point out that it is shocking to see how elected officials demand and less data and justification for even the smallest measure to benefit for our working class people. But really that our programs are pushed forward, policies that are pushed forward with no data at all. And in fact, like the sweeps of homeless people, unless data to show that they don't work. And yet the city continues to spend $8 million every year on that. So I you know, I welcome the support of my colleagues on the bill as a whole. But I'm disappointed that the amendments that are coming forward are, I don't think will help other people who are facing evictions. But I'll wait for the amendments. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, as sponsor of the bill, we appreciate you moving this forward. I also want to underscore my appreciation for the council colleagues, ongoing conversations with your office and central staff to come up with various amendments, though, because I think it is important that the bill move forward. This is a really good vehicle for us to build upon. So if amendments do hang, I think that there is always work to do as with any piece of legislation. But I just want to commend you for bringing this forward and our council colleagues who've I think finessed some ways to make sure that this is going to be implementable, meaningful and always the first step to continue to get worked on. I would also like to say for folks in the press, I know if you're used to going to the halls of the state capitol, they have a press table there. We haven't had that as a common practice here, but you're welcome to use the table here if you need to. Here's your laptop or if you need to come behind the diocese. You're welcome to do that, too. So for the security folks here, if there's any press that need a place for their laptop, they're welcome to have that. We now have six amendments and we'll take them in the order as they appear on the agenda. And amendment number one, council members. Would you like to speak to this amendment? Yes, I, i of course. I guess I should move amendment one. I'm sorry. No, no. Can I double check? Do I need to move the bill or are we good? Okay, great. Great. Go ahead and move it and I'll second it. I move Amendment. One, I second it. Thank you. This amendment is a technical amendment. It does not make any substantive changes. It adds a just cause to permissible evictions that is identical to one already included in this legislation that regards a time when a landlord is legally required to evict someone and is responsible for relocation assistant and this assistance and this amendment adds a clarifying whereas clause and provides clarifying language of the moratorium on window evictions is a defense and eviction court. This was already the case, but the language just makes it more clear. Are there any other questions or comments on amendment number one as outlined by Councilmember Swanson? Since none I it has been moved and seconded that the bill be amended with amendment number one seeing no additional comments. All those in favor of Amendment one vote I and raise your hand I any opposed? None. Madam Clerk, it appears that there are seven votes in favor of Amendment One. It will be included in the underlying bill. The Second Amendment is from Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Lewis, would you like to move your amendment? Yes, I do. So move my amendment. Second, Councilmember Lewis, would you like to speak to your amendment? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So when we discussed this ordinance in committee, one of my takeaways from it, or one of the most salient criticisms I think of the ordinance, was that there wasn't a mechanism put in. Place to compensate landlords in the event that there was an economic eviction, that that potentially put especially small landlords in a position where they would have to face their own hardship, especially households that are dependent on their income that they make as a landlord. A lot of the comments we heard at public comment today address that very same concern of a lot of landlords in our community where their primary source of income is renting a small number of units. So under this amendment, we would establish a a mitigation fund. It would only be accessible to folks who establish this defense. And I think it is important that when we talk about this moratorium, we're really talking about a defense and an eviction proceeding as the way it's applied in the case that a tenant facing eviction is able to establish this defense. This would then exist as a fund that could be accessed by the tenant in order to pay rent or access additional rental assistance. So it would not. The reason I raise that is this is not a fund that would take from existing rental support funds. This the vision of this is that we would fund, hopefully, in this fall's budget, an additional rental support fund that would apply in the event that a tenant was not able to receive assistance through existing funds. I did have central staff come up with some initial ballpark estimates on how much a fund like this prospectively would cost . The cost varies depending. The cost estimate varies depending on how many months. This legislation today ultimately will cover in the event of five months, it would be $1.6 million. In the event of three months, it would be about half a million dollars in financial assistance. This estimate is based on the current number of evictions for the from the Losing Home report in 2017, based on an estimate for the winter period that evictions minus the number of people who received home based assistance. And then that comes up with a number of an estimated about 169 folks in a given winter that could potentially face eviction in in the winter months. So I think it's a doable number to fund a mitigation fund like this. I think it gets at the core concerns of a lot of the landlords, particularly small landlords, who are in a position where they feel like this eviction moratorium would cause them severe hardship, a hardship in being able to provide in the event that someone is in a position where they can't pay their rent. We do know that it's all too common in this country right now where a overwhelming number of Americans are within complete homelessness or bankruptcy for an unanticipated $500 expense. And so a fund like this can provide much needed assistance. And I hope to revisit this in the fall when we are looking at budget priorities. And for the time being, I would ask that we move this amendment and incorporate it into the ordinance. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments or questions? Comments? Cosmopolitan then. Councilmember one. Thank you. President Mosquito. I support this amendment which, as Councilmember Lewis said, sets up the framework for a mitigation fund to help tenants facing eviction pay, overdue rent and avoid the eviction altogether. And as noted, there are already some funds, most notably the home based program that is operated by the Housing Justice Project and the United Way . And I support increasing funding to those programs. I just wanted to point out how much the mayor's office has opposed this legislation. And in addition to the previous letters that they have sent and memos they've sent, they just a few minutes before this meeting started, they sent us another letter opposing this legislation. And and one of the things that they've attempted to do is to counter oppose the window evictions, moratorium against mitigation funding and other rental assistance. I just wanted to clarify that they're both necessary and they both work together, work well together. And so it's good to have this amendment. And just to echo what was just said. This amendment creates the framework for mitigation funding. But to make those funds a reality, we will need to push for resources in the budget in November. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just have a question about the mitigation fund and how it it interacts with the effective date of this legislation. As I understand it, this legislation as currently drafted, the effective date would be about ten days before April. And because I am I am truly concerned about the impact of this legislation on small landlords. I'm wondering, is there concerns that. The mitigation, either this mitigation fund or the the capacity of current rental assistance funds will be able to meet the need for those those ten days before this goes into effect. Do we have information about that? So thank. You. Councilmember Herbold, my understanding from talking to central staff and and executive departments is that we will not be in a position this winter to offer resources through this fund, that this fund we're really this is really a forward looking resource to next winter. So when when this whatever window we decide on, we are considering an amendment later to determine what the window would be. There wouldn't be resources on this until we go through another budget cycle. Councilmember Swan Homebase currently has funds though. I mean, this is additional. Right. Right. But this particular fund I was saying. But but that's not. Because there aren't existing. Just in response to the concern that was raised, I'm saying. It's my understanding that as it relates to how this this legislation would be implemented, the home funds, the ability to access those funds is is very different because of the timing of of how this how a tenant would assert a defense under just cause. And it's my understanding that they would not be eligible for the home based funds. But I might be wrong. Just shake your head or nod your head. They are eligible. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing any additional comments or questions? Seeing none. I also want to underscore my support for this. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for working with our office as well on this amendment. Given the existing tenant support models such as Home Base Fund and we know that they have a proven track record of being successful, improving fund and providing funding for tenants to avoid eviction. I think this makes a lot of sense. And in cases where tenants may not qualify for the support, this amendment creates the fund to meet those needs. So it's, I think, a common sense amendment and really was echoed, I think, by the testimony today. And it also came from some of the calls that we've received in our office. And I appreciate you advancing this. The intent is to create this really as an upstream tool to support tenants and avoid evictions in the first place and to address any concern about impacts to the affordable housing providers, many of which are non-profits, which somebody else testified on earlier today. So I'll also be supporting this amendment with that. All of those in favor of amendment to please note I and raise your hand. I i any the opposition and the oppose none. Wonderful. The amendment passes with seven votes and will be included in the underlying bill. Amendment three. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to speak to this amendment? Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for coming out today and the people who were watching at home. I appreciate the desire to address this troubling situation with evictions, and I'm happy the state legislature has made progress on this issue. The city council passed. City councils have made progress on this issue. I appreciate hearing from one of the tenants who was evicted in the winter, Alicia, who had the courage to come and speak to Councilmember Silence Committee. I've received many calls and we've received many emails on this legislation, and I've considered the various viewpoints and perspectives. And I'm. This amendment is to exempt small landlords, those who own four or fewer units. We've heard a lot from small landlords since the legislation was introduced, both phone and email. They they were not invited to our committee table, which was disappointing, I think when we're advancing a piece of legislation that's ever been tried before. I think it's valuable to hear from all the stakeholders. We we would learn things from that. And that's the amendment I think is important to exempt them because they do face economic hardships as well in terms of being able to provide those units to the housing market. They do have a mortgage. They do have utility bills, insurance, property taxes. And five months is a long time if they were not able to collect those. So I would encourage my colleagues to consider this this amendment. I think that it's important that we recognize the we well, we'll be able to talk more to the legislation again as a whole, but happy to answer questions about this amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. Any comments or questions on the amendment? Okay. And would you like to move the amendment? Yes, I'd like to move. The amendment back in has been moved on second. And are there any additional comments councilmembers want? This is unfortunately an example. Of. A politician proposing a policy to benefit those who already have more than most at the expense of poor and working class people with really no data or evidence to support it. Now I want to talk about the amendment and explain why I oppose it. But just very quickly, because a comment was made on the structure of the committee table. This is a committee chair. I chaired the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, and Councilmember Peterson is claiming that small landlords were not invited to the table. First of all, just to be clear. Most of the small landlords we've spoken to, including the ones who oppose this legislation, say they've never evicted any of their tenants. So there's a whole bunch of what if kind of fears that they have, which are understandable, on the other hand, but also on the other hand, are not the basis for policymaking. In my view. What ifs are not the basis for policymaking. Hard core data, which are so overwhelmingly showing that the most vulnerable are the ones being damaged by not having strong laws against eviction. That's the basis for policymaking. And the the people we had at the table were the tenants union of Washington State and the most impacted, including Alicia, who you quoted, who was evicted in the winter and her as a consequence of the eviction. Her. Her life took a dramatically devastating turn where she lost family members. So I don't apologize for the structure of the committee table. I'm proud that it is one of the committee tables where people who never have an opening in city hall are invited. And we will continue to do that. We have we have hard data of thousands of people who are being evicted. And, as I said, a totally hypothetical specter of an imaginary landlord who only owns four rental homes and is on the verge of winter bankruptcy. I just it's hard for me to fathom that if you own four units, how are you on the verge of bankruptcy? I don't understand. I mean, you know, really, I mean, it's possible, but really, what are the statistics there? My office met with small landlords. It's not like we haven't met with them who testified about their concerns about this legislation in the committee meeting. And as I said, none of them had ever evicted their tenants. We were unable to come to agree on the policy, but I do appreciate their time and willingness to discuss it. But the point remains, the small landlord that this amendment is intended to help is entirely hypothetical. But the tenants whose lives are being destroyed and for whom this amendment would not help. That's very real. Those tenants are very real. The biggest problem, though, with this amendment is the impact it would have on the renters who are unfortunately renting with the worst slumlords in our city. Slumlords overwhelmingly divide up their rental properties into different LLC used to hide their common ownership. So while this amendment technically says that different LLC is owned by the same person would still count as a large landlord, the practical reality is that it's almost impossible for renters to know what other properties their landlord owns. Do any of you who are renters know what other properties your landlord owns and do you have the resources to go and find out? I'll tell you something. My office, with all the resources we have from being in City Hall, we attempted to track down all the properties owned by some of those large slumlords who are we know are abusing their tenants and found that it is extremely hard and actually impossible to do it without completely devoting your resources. We simply don't have access to that information. So if we don't have access to that information, how is it that renters facing eviction, who are the most marginalized anyway? How their world being turned upside down? How are they supposed to find out all this information? How are they going to know if they're protected by this moratorium or not? In fact, many tenants facing eviction, totally despondent about their power to prevent the eviction, don't even come to eviction court. The attorneys who help those renters in the court will tell you that they end up helping a fraction of the renters because most renters don't come to court. So in reality, this amendment will end up meaning whether it's intended as such or not, that they absolutely were slumlords in Seattle who were actually evicting people would effectively be exempted from the legislation in the name of protecting good small landlords, and therefore I will not support this amendment. Any other comments or questions? Additional comments or questions. Okay. So, colleagues, I appreciate this and thank you for calling out the intent or versus not intent, because the last council meeting we talked about in wanting to make sure we didn't impugn the motives of anyone. Appreciate that distinction. I see you reach for the microphone because I remember. I was just going to say that I really appreciate the the intent of this amendment. I just don't see how it can be implemented, given that it is it is a virtual unknown which landlords own fewer than than four units. So I appreciate the attempt to exempt small landlords. And regretful that we don't have more time to work. Out that that part of the policy. Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments? Okay. So then I'm going to go Ken Crawford, but unless you'd like to. Address the concerns. So. Are you? Is there a concern that the landlords might register under a limited liability company or a limited partnership because that data is available from the Washington Secretary of state? Are you really saying that the most vulnerable tenants are going to go into a Washington Secretary of State website and look at. The let's not debate up here, but if there is a question, do you have a response to that, where the data is specific to that question? Okay. Look at me or both of you. Okay. No problem. I already said that my office tried to compile such data. It is virtually impossible to do it with all the resources we have. I don't know what more evidence you need to show that. For the most vulnerable tenant, this is this is basically an impossible task you're putting on them. Okay. Any additional comments? Councilmember Morales. Well, I will just say that the. Work that. We did shows that the of the. Buildings that are registered. To almost 29,000. Buildings. Are registered with four units or. Less. Which means that this would exclude. 87% of the renters in the city. So I do think that that's that's a significant impact on what this legislation is trying to achieve. So, you know, and we know. We've heard most of our small landlords. Do try to work with. Tenants to prevent eviction. Do offer. Some kind of assistance. Or extension. We now have a mitigation fund that has been put in. Place to try to make sure that landlords are not affected. By this. But as we've said, those landlords aren't the problem. The problem are the landlords who do take things too far and are willing to push people out. So I think that it's. Important that we consider the scope. Or the, you know, how this particular amendment would really limit the scope of what we're trying to do here. So this is not something that I could in good conscience support. Councilmember, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I, too, have heard some concerns. Initially, I was intending to support this amendment because similar to sort of the argument that was made around some of our labor standards, we never really expect our employers to know how many franchises they have. And so that argument was sort of used in a similar way, but different here. And we continue to pass labor standards, given the statistic that Councilmember Morales just shared. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to check in with you before that. I unfortunately will be voting no on this. But I appreciate where you're coming from with this. And if I'm happy to keep working with you as we think about future amendments, if that sounds good to you and future legislation. We have central staff available to answer you. No central staff is available to answer questions. Ideally, this couldn't be done in the committee, but what we could do is hold this amendment if that works and we could come back and have central staff answer some questions. Well, I as a sponsor of the bill, I would prefer that the bill is voted on today, because. I'm not mentioning holding it off today. I'm just mentioning it till the end of our amendments, and then we can come back to it and have that question answered. Okay. I see. Central staff. Come on in. Welcome, Ali. And Ali, if you don't mind introducing yourself for the record. Welcome. Good afternoon. Council members. I was running down the hall, so I may have missed the question. So thank you. Thank you, Ali. So I appreciate that. It's helpful to have these statistics. I just wanted to understand, when a committee I thought I thought you had mentioned a number in the range of 200,000 or so rental units. Just trying to get the scope of those that are four and under. Or do we have those? If we don't have those readily available, that's fine too. So it is a somewhat of I think we're not necessarily comparing apples and apples here. The rental registration inspection ordinance, I'm not sure if the numbers you were quoting, Councilman Morales, is the type of structure. So if it's a unit, we have units that are in detached buildings, units that are duplexes, triplexes complexes and units that are in multi-family buildings, not necessarily all owned by the same people. So what your amendment would do would exclude units that are owned by a landlord who owns more than excuse me, like the only owns four units or less. Those could all be in one unit, so the four plex could be excluded if the same owner all owned all four. But it could be four units spread across four single family homes, four multifamily buildings where they own condos or that sort of thing. So it's hard to know exactly the universe of units we're talking about exempting here. Yeah, and I'll just clarify that. What I was referring to is data offered by SDI. That we have, that this would exclude 28,882 of. 33,000 buildings that are registered through that ordinance. Units of four or more councilmembers. Yeah, and it's not clear because of owner who owns them, it's hard to know if some of those units in smaller buildings are owned by LLC that own 25 units. I'm just not I haven't seen the data you're referring to to know if I can sort that out. But essentially I don't I don't think I don't know that we're comparing apples and apples here. That's okay. Thank you for that answer. Councilmember White, did you have one more thing? Yeah. I just wanted to say that. Yeah, I was thinking exactly what Ali was saying in terms of the accuracy of the numbers. But I think having that having clarified that, it doesn't change the fact that it is an almost impossible obstacle to overcome for tonnage to know the exact detail of whether their landlord is going to fit this category or not. In in a way, this is kind of a means testing in a sense that, you know, it's sort of it's putting the burden is the same in the sense that it's putting the burden on the of the detrimentally affected party to figure out whether they are eligible for this protection or not. It is best to just make the protection available across the board. And I'll tell you something, the experience of not just tenants, but also small business owners with whom we've been talking a lot, who are also facing rent gouging from their landlords, is that sometimes when they are even and this is, I'm quoting, a small business owner , they were being gouged by a landlord in Columbia City, and they started looking for spaces all around the city. And they found that so many of the properties are actually effectively owned by the same exploitative landlord, and they're all spread out. So I don't know how we can put this burden on on tenants and the most vulnerable tenants. And really there's a racial component to this also because black families and black children are the most impacted. Any other comments or questions? Okay, Council colleagues. I think that we have heard a number of concerns about this. I am interested in getting the actual data. I'm sorry that that was sprung on you, Ali. And we appreciate you running down the hall. I think that there is a rational argument for excluding small landlords, and I wish that I had that that actual number in front of us. I also think that there's a reason that we have excluded small businesses in the past when it came to some of the labor standards, and we didn't make that distinction for workers. So today I'm going to support Councilmember Peterson in looking at the smaller businesses, and we'll see how it goes and continue to advance the conversation today. So all of those in favor of including Councilmember Peterson's amendment, please say I and raise your hand. I opposed. No, no. Okay. So it's 4 to 3. Okay. And we can continue with the amendments. Councilmember just in terms of process, I'm not sure what you mean by continue with the amendment. You already voted for the amendment. What what does that actually mean? And there's three. More amendments to come. No, no, I mean, on that amendment, you said that you. We will continue the conversation on that. What the continue the conversation about the amendments to. The rest of. The year having voted on the prevailing side. There is the chance before the end of today to go back and take a look at that. I'm not sure, Ali, if that did exist. You're looking at me like a dozen, but I do. I would be concerned if it was 80 something percent and if there was a chance for us to go through this and come back. I'm happy to do that. But I would like for us to take a quick second if you have any feedback on that before we move the committee. Before we move the amendment forward. I can I can I can try to see if I can get SDI on the phone to understand that data more precisely. But I think because the way this amendment is drafted, it includes if you are the owner or you have an ownership interest in in any unit. And so I don't know that we would be able to tell by looking at the rental registration and inspection ordinance data who has an ownership interest in all of the fees that are included. And so so it is difficult. So essentially, just like the way the ordinance itself, the main the main purpose of the ordinance presents provides a defense eviction proceedings. It would a landlord would have to claim that they own less than four or less than five units, fewer than five units, and that therefore this defense shouldn't apply in that situation. And then if they were lying, they would be lying in front of a court. I mean, I'm not obviously this is an oversimplification of how these court proceedings would work, but I don't know that I will be able to in the next 10 minutes. What I can instead offer is that, as was mentioned previously, this bill will go into effect, assuming it is signed within ten days by the mayor and goes into effect 30 days after, that will really only be relevant for a short period of time. So what I can do is work on trying to figure out what data we have and is available and if necessary. The Council could revisit this prior to next November or whenever the period starts, because I just I don't know if I'm going to be able to give you a satisfying answer in the next however long this meeting last. Okay. Yeah. Council President Pro Tem Council President Parker. I said, Madam Chair, to the question about this item being included in the bill, let's go through the other amendments and let me see what we can get from as DCI. And then having voted on the prevailing side, there may be a chance for us to come back to this. Okay. So moving forward, I'd like to ask Councilmember Herbold, it looks like you have an amendment. Amendment number four. Would you like to move your amendment? I would like to move amendment forward, please. Thank you. Councilmember, could you please speak to your amendment? Did I have a second? Thank you. Perfect. So this is amending a previous language that was added to the bill. Currently, a reason for termination that is exempt from the bill includes unlawful behavior, and this amendment would expand unlawful behavior to a particular type of lease violation that specifically impacts the health or safety of other tenants or the owner. This has been brought forward because of concerns from folks who operate nonprofit housing, specifically through conversations I've had with the Associate Director of the Archdiocesan Housing Authority through six Catholic Community Services. And again, it's a it's a very narrow exemption, not for any rule violation, but specifically rule violations that have a negative impact on the health or safety of other tenants or the owner. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments or questions? Council members. Well, this is still procedural, right? This is just amendment. I'm sorry. This is on the amendment number four. And if you have questions for her amendment specifically. Oh, no, but I would like to speak in favor of it. Okay. Please go ahead, Councilman Lewis. Yeah. So, you know, I think that this amendment and I appreciate Councilmember Herbold bringing it forward also goes a long way to strengthening our case in the event that we do have a legal challenge related to this ordinance. I think anything that we can incorporate into it that gives more flexibility is more cognizant of existing rules. And existing things that make this look more reasonable in court does bode well for the legislation as a whole and having it survive that challenge. I think this is a very reasonable addition to make sure that that we're not putting landlords in a position where there is some ongoing activity affecting the health and safety of the building, but they are unable to, for a period of several months, enforce an eviction. So I do support this amendment and hope to see it pass. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, any additional comments or questions? Councilmember Morales. Yeah. So I. Just want to make sure I understand my my concern with this is that these kinds of notices. Can be used for retaliation, for retaliatory purposes, for discrimination. And there is. Already. You know, with the just cause. Laws that we've had, there's there's already a concern that these kinds of leases, these kinds of tools are being used against tenants. And I keep coming back to the fact that the folks who are here. Have said themselves like this. Mostly doesn't. Apply because you try to work with your tenants. And small landlords are really trying hard to make sure that their tenants are able to stay and work out the situation that you have. So, you know, I question how well we could. Enforce something that's this broad. And I feel like the legislation that we have already includes criminal activity as a reason that folks can definitely be evicted. So I'm I'm I'm concerned about this amendment and I don't think I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilmember. Well, it's Councilmember Silent and then Councilmember Herb, or do you want to respond? Yes. Thank you. I want to just highlight that this language establishes what the legal bar is. It's specifically an imminent threat to the health or safety of other tenants in the rental belt and substantial detrimental impact. So this would be something that would have to be proven in court in order to be held up against a tenant's attempt to use the moratorium. And so a landlord would actually have to demonstrate that it's both a substantial threat and that the danger is imminent. And again, this is this is these aren't just random words. They're words that are established in case law. And that, I think, bound really well the expectations we have for protecting the safety of other tenants. And again, I just want to say that this request has come. From a. Provider of low income housing, one of our nonprofit partners. This specific request for this language, and it does not in any way expand or extend the existing just cause eviction language. Councilmember one. Thank you, President Mosquito. I also appreciate the intent of this amendment, but I have similar concerns as to what Councilmember Morales expressed in committee. We amended the legislation to make an exception, as you were saying, go to the mimosa exception for criminal activity. If neighbors or building owners are being put in danger, if someone is cooking meth in their apartment or shooting guns. I mean, you know, obviously something that we would all agree is extremely dangerous. And there is an exception already in the legislation. And it is written in a way that is relatively objective, citing what counts as criminal. I understand that the phrase substantial, substantial detrimental impact may have caselaw background, but I still don't I still don't think that it really is necessary in terms of the fact that we have already put in protections in place to make sure that if there is any such imminent danger that it will be covered already and that the eviction will go through, a landlord who wants to evict the tenant will use whatever tool is available to them. But the problem is that, again, the tenants who are supposed to respond to an eviction order. Oh, how others want to how are they? Are they supposed to respond to claims that the tenant is having a substantial detrimental impact by attracting vermin with unclean habits or by hanging out with bad people? And these are what I'm using these words not as hyperbole, because this is what some tenants, you know, be here, tenants being evicted because they're accused that they attracted vermin and they're not they have no way to prove that they didn't or hanging out with bad people. How do you you know, how do you decide that and all? And, you know, in a fair world that could be arbitrated in eviction court, but overwhelmingly election court rules in a tenant absence or if the tenant is there, then it's still a extreme power imbalance. And I feel like this is does not express the just cause that we have modeled this after. So and I'll be voting no on this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments or questions on amendment number four from Councilmember Herbal? None. All of those in favor of voting to include amendment number four. Please raise your hand and vote I. I opposed. No, no, no. Okay. The amendment will be included. And amendment number five. Councilmember Strauss. Would you like to speak to your amendment and move it? Yes. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. My amendment number five narrows the no eviction period. And I would like to move this amendment at this time. Second. Would you speak to it? Yes. Thank you very much. This amendment would reduce the period in which eviction defense applies to three month period of December through February. These are the three months that when temperatures are the coldest. And I believe that the three months is a more feasible length of time for this defense to apply because, again, as we've heard, this bill will not prevent evictions from occurring. It will it is more so used as a defense for the eviction, as we've heard from the many small landlords who have come to testify and who have called, they are not the ones that are oftentimes most often evicting people, because the small landlords that I've had are always very willing to pick up the phone, have a conversation and work with me. So again, this three month window is more feasible time for the eviction defense to apply rather than for half the year. And this three month period also aligns with the recent changes in state law that allows a judge the discretion to require a 90 day payment plan before an eviction is issued. And so that for those reasons and that December through February through March, is are the coldest months of the year. And this is a winter evictions Bill. And those are the winter months of the year. That's why I moved this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Any additional comments or questions? Cosmo, so on. So this this bill would reduce the number of months of eviction moratorium from five months to three months. And right now, keeping in mind, there's no winter eviction protection at all. So if all that we're able to do is ban winter evictions for the three holders and by those months of the year, that would still be a huge victory and tenants rights. However, we worked with central staff. My office worked with central staff to look at average monthly rainfall and average monthly cold temperatures. And the data shows, again, you know, for a council that says that they want to be data driven, the data shows that the cold and wet months stretch from November to March. And also, if you're living in Seattle, do you really need data to tell you that the cold and wet months to march? I also would like to point out that, Alisha, weren't you evicted on Halloween or just after Halloween? So, you know, so if we reduce this to three months, Alicia and people like her were evicted in early November, one would not be covered by this. So I'm not sure what the logic is. If we're going to do it, why don't we do it right and cover it for the whole winter? There's no logic behind it other than pandering to landlords, the landlord lobby. And so I, I really think at the end of the day it comes down to, as you've seen through all the amendments going down, comes down to who politicians think they they need to support, they need to stand for the most vulnerable are the people who have everything and all the powers. I will be voting no on this amendment. Any additional comments? Councilmember Lewis. So I intend to vote for shortening the window to three months for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons that I mean, speaking for the same reasons that I spoke to Amendment four, the more narrowly tailored that the legislation is, the more likely it is to survive a court challenge. I like that the three month period is lined up to the 90 day mitigation period that was authorized last session under state law. I think that that's a good argument in favor of retaining this in the case of a preemption or takings challenge in state court. I think that it's also important to note that after a year of seeing how a 90 day moratorium operates and how administrative it is, we can entertain extending it to five months. I think that that would be a natural evolution of this policy. And for those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments? Any additional comments? Thing, then all of those in favor of including Councilmember Strauss's amendment. Please raise your hand and vote I on Amendment five. I opposed no. Okay. The amendment does hang. Council Member Strauss, you have one additional amendment. He's made. That threat. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. I think with the number of amendments in the substantive nature of each amendment, it demonstrates the need for further work to have occurred in committee. And so I raised that for the table today. Amendment number six I would like to move which moderate limits this eviction winter eviction prohibition to moderate income households. It's been moved in second and. Councilmember Strauss, would you like to comment on your amendment in more detail? Yes, thank you. As a renter, I have a very solid understanding of what making rent looks like every month and what transitioning between units looks like and in what the economics are. My amendment number six will allow the eviction defense to be used by only moderate income households as defined by 100% of the area median income or less 100% area median income is $76,000 for an individual or $108,600 for a family of four. Data on rent burdened households supports this 100% area. Median income threshold. Nearly half 49.1% of households at 50 to 80% AMI are rent burdened. 28.5% of households at 80 to 100% area median income are rent burdened. Only 4.8% of households over 100% area median income are rent burdened. And so this amendment would ensure that households making more than 100% area median income. Well, this amendment doesn't make sure. It is just clear that 100 households making more than 100% area median income are also the least likely to become homeless as a result of an eviction. I think that it is very important to provide protections for tenants who are not at the highest levels of our economic spectrum. And I want to ensure that this bill will not protect people who have the money without the who are high earning, but have not followed up on their their due diligence. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Additional comments or questions from the council colleagues. Yeah. Customers want please. Thank you. I first of all, just on the comment about the readiness of this legislation, I don't agree that the amendments, the slew of amendments demonstrates further work. What it demonstrates is the corporate landlord lobby still has a lot of pull on the council and demonstrates the need to build even more powerful movements. That's what it demonstrates. This is another amendment that will make it far more difficult for renters who need these protections the most to actually use them. The reality I mean, this amendment says that, you know, the rent household is a moderate income household as defined and so on. But the reality is that the renters who are being evicted are very, very low income people as just a quote, the tenants union who are coming to table. They said, as they correctly said, the evictions, the, you know, eviction itself is a means tested process because it's I mean, poor it's poor people who are getting impacted. It's not, in my opinion, go look at the data again if you want to be data driven. Find me another 130,000 earning salary, you know, salary earning person who is evicted, which is what council members make. You know, you make about $230,000. I take home only $40,000, but that's the reality. How many people who make on rent $30,000 are being evicted? It's just it's just it doesn't exist. This, again, this is all imaginary things that are pulled out of the hat and said, Oh, we need to make sure that this doesn't happen. That is not some great wave of well-off people being evicted. It just doesn't happen. And if it did and the court would order the rich person to make up all the unpaid rent for those winter months, you know, that would be a fact. So if this amendment doesn't practically exclude rich renters who are already or well-off renters who are already excluded by their ability to pay rent, then I'm not sure what it actually does. And here's what it actually does. It will what it will do. And this is what means testing does in general. This is not the first means testing example. What means testing really does is it forces poor and working class people to jump through additional hoops to access a protection that was meant for them. Without this amendment, a judge could use this moratorium to avoid the election of someone who failed to show up in court. Like so many desperate people who don't show up in court because they don't think the system is going to work because it doesn't work for them. So even in their apps, if this if this moratorium is a strong one, then even in the absence of tenants, a tenant could be protected from eviction. Imagine how much it would improve people's lives rather than sending them into a downward spiral. With this amendment, how would a judge determine eligibility in a renter's absence? It would be impossible. Means tests like this are well documented to severely limit the number of low income people who take a nap, taking advantage of services that are Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You know, there's tons of data to show that people don't end up you know, the the pool of people who are eligible is far bigger than the pool of people who actually take advantage of it. These are again, these are also established factors. And this is not my opinion. And in fact, we locally there was an example when I first took office in 2014, we found out that a utility discount program for the Seattle City Light, which is supposed to give you subsidized rates for your electricity. That program has existed for years. But when we came, when we took office, it was very sparsely used. It was only 18% of eligible people were using it. Why? Because it was an opt in program, meaning you had to show proof that you were eligible for it. We pushed the mayor's office at that time and Murray to make it an opt out program with the help of a wonderful staff like Ali and right at City Light. And from the time we made it opt out, you know, the the rate of people actually enrolling in being enrolled in the program automatically because they're already poor has gone up tremendously. To quote L.A. Times business columnist, not a socialist business columnist, Michael Hiltzik Hiltzik. The word means testing, quote, can allow officials to pry into the most private aspects of applicant lives. The process tends to discourage applications, thus serving the goal of making the programs less useful for beneficiaries and quote, again, very systematic. I know Councilmember Chavez presented a proclamation last week which I supported to designate February 7th to be International Class Day. I cannot help but quote from the Clash song Know Your Rights, which says You have the right to food money, providing of course you don't mind a little investigation. Humiliation. This is. This. It's a reality. People, also people. And because of means testing, people who are eligible end up not using the program not only because they don't have the paperwork or they're, you know, they're despondent, but also because they feel humiliated. If they are automatically enrolled in the program, then it's not a question of self-respect. It's a question of your right. And so for that reason, I will oppose this amendment. Think. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Strauss and then Councilmember her. And thank you for your comments. Councilmember Swan I will also quote from Know Your Rights. Oh, here we go, guys. Look at that. Which is that you have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try and use it. And so I think that using free speech, it's a it is. Go ahead. Ironic, right? I absolutely understand that and appreciate everyone's coming to council today to use their right to free speech. And so I also my point of returning this comment is just to say that this is also not an asset means test. It is just simply income. And I took that comment to be self reflecting, not on any other councilmember. That's the way I took it. Yes. Okay. I am going to call on Councilmember Herbold and appreciate all the good intentions that are up here being expressed, both in the underlying bill and and through the amendments. Councilmember Bill. Thank you. Before I get to my the substance of my comments about this particular amendment, I do want to speak to something that I'm sure that Councilmember Swan did not mean as I heard it, but I just want to clarify it for the public she referenced what what would. I. What would happen if a tenant didn't show up to court and how would a judge know what somebody's income was? Even with passage of this law, a tenant will still have to show up because not showing up and and speaking to this as a just cause will limit their ability to use us as a defense. So even using this ordinance that we are poised to to vote on will still require tenants to show up in court if if an eviction is filed. I think that's really important within the context of us all knowing our rights default. Please continue. I'm going to get on to that next. As it relates specifically to the question of means testing, the utility discount program has brought up been brought up a few times. You do have to income qualify to participate in the utility discount program. And I think I think utilities are actually a really good example for for an analogous situation. Some of our largest, most profitable companies are also some of the folks who have the largest unpaid utility bills. And it's not because they don't have the money to do it. It's just they want to they want to pay it when they're ready to pay it. And so I am actually really supportive of this amendment because I don't want folks of means to just decide, yeah, I can I can pay this in five months if I want. And in the meantime, members of our small landlord community are left holding the bag. Yeah, they might eventually get the money. They might get the money after five months, but I think that will actually have a really negative impact on some small landlords because sometimes people with a lot of money don't pay their bills also. And we know now from the analysis that the council member has done that there are very few people who who would be above this income threshold. For that reason I support the amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Hummel. Council members want. Just one sentence to talk about the utility discount program. Making it opt out did make a huge difference because we were able to order. And for example, I'm just giving you one example because I don't have time to go through the whole thing. But we were able to because of me, because of changing it from opt in to opt out, we were able to auto enroll Seattle Housing Authority residents. So that's a big example of how, you know. Income. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Swanson. Thank you all for the explanation here. Any. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments or questions? Okay. We're going to call for the vote on this. All those in favor of amendment number six by Councilmember Strouse. Please say I and raise your hand. Are all those opposed? Nay. Okay, the amendment does hang and we will now look at the bill as amended. Councilmember Swan, I do appreciate you both having a robust conversation in your committee and the process that you went through and also engaging with the council colleagues as folks brought forward amendment. My desire council colleagues was that we make sure that this got on the agenda today and that we got a pass out because this will be a significant policy win for the folks that you've been working with, the Renters Commission and tenants rights folks. I know that this bill has been amended and I appreciate the council colleagues for their work to include various amendments. But I think it's important for you to close this out as you talk. Talk about what this will mean to working families. Thank you, President Mosquito. And I agree with you. This is this is going to be historic legislation. And I am you know, I haven't I have not made any. I've not disguised my disappointment with the loophole that I've been put in. And I think the ultimately, the the what it demonstrates is, as I said, the need for even more powerful movements of ordinary people. But I just wanted to also highlight the fact that the fact that we're even discussing this legislation and having it voted out does show how much advocacy people have done. And I wanted to thank everybody who's here and also everybody who spent months advocating for the commission. But I also wanted to mention, you know, among the people we have here are also the activists who are involved in the India resolution. And I've decided that they can be more than just one thing, that they have to be involved in our community as a whole. And I think that's very important that we are bringing immigrant communities together. I also specifically wanted to highlight the Washington Community Action Network and Housing just as broad project for all the work that they have been doing for years because of whom we are at this stage. And I think that at the end of the day, what we have, what we will have achieved if this legislation is voted through, is landmark legislation that has no precedent in the in the in the country and in fact, very little president in the world , because as far as we know, only the country of France has something similar. So this is huge. And I think we should be proud of our movement for this. And I thank God to members for, you know, I'm assuming that have been forgotten. Some members will be voting yes. So I'm speaking a little in advance. Just very quickly, also, you know, just we should also be sober about the limitations of the legislation. It will not end evictions. It will delay them. And we know that delaying will provide a real lifeline and could potentially completely prevent evictions. But on the whole, this won't be enough. We also do need rent control and we need a major expansion of social housing so we can't stop fighting. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. Councilmembers the one and four process wise, we have now adopted amendments one through six in the base legislation. I would like for us to take up the amended bill as discussed today. Ready. Can we go? Councilor Bell 119726, as amended, is in front of us. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of council 4119726 as amended sworn i. Strauss I. Herbal I. Lewis, I. Morales I. Peterson I. President Musharraf i. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. I. Thank you. So council colleagues, there are a number of. Items that are still on our agenda today. Thank you for hanging with us for just a few minutes over 4 p.m. and we just have a few more items. Madam Clerk, would you please read it into the record? Let me just say this. Officially, the bill has passed. The bill has passed as amended, and the chair will sign it. And at this time the bill is not ready for presentation of the signature. But I will announce when the bill is here so that I will sign it in this full chamber before we leave today. Thank you. Counsel. Colleagues, Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record item number two from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

A bill for an ordinance designating the Vassar School Bungalows Historic District as a district for preservation. Approves the designation of Vassar School Bungalows as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, bounded by Lincoln Street, Sherman Street, East Vassar Avenue, and the public alley between East Vassar Avenue and East Harvard Avenue in Council District 6. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 10-22-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.

DenverCityCouncil_10222018_18-1072

On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Nu, will you please put Council Bill 1072 on the floor? Okay, move the council bill 1018 1072 Postpone final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1072 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, city council members. My name is Jenny Button Borg. I'm a senior city planner with the Department of Community Planning and Development. And tonight I'm here to present to you on the landmark designation application for the Vassar School Bungalows Historic District. The authority to designate structures and districts for preservation is found in Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, more commonly known as the Landmark Preservation Ordinance passed in 1967. One of the purposes of this ordinance is to designate, preserve, enhance and perpetuate structures and districts throughout the city and county of Denver. And the map you see in front of you on the presentation. We currently have 340 landmarks and 53 historic districts. The districts are indicated in purple and the individual landmarks indicated by red dots. This equals approximately 4% of the city or one in 25 structures that are designated landmarks. Designation. The designation process is very much designed to be community driven, and this is the case here with the Vassar school bungalows, where the idea and interest for the district was generated by the property owners. Applications for designations can be submitted by an owner or owners of the property by the manager community planning a development by a member or members of city council. And this is the case here. Councilman Cashman is the applicant for this district designation or three people who are either residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. The proposed historic districts includes six parcels with six individual owners located at 105 115 119 127 135 and 141 East Vasser Avenue in the Rosedale neighborhood. The six primary structures that you see on the map here are those that will be contributing to the historic district. Again, this is council district number six, Paul Cashman, who is the applicant and blueprint Denver. This is an area of stability and the current zoning is you S.O.B. one. In order for property or properties to be designated, they have to meet a certain set of criteria. They are required to meet a designation criterion in at least two of the following categories History, architecture and geography maintain historic or physical integrity and be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for its relation to historic context or theme. The Landmark Preservation Commission has found that the district meets all required designation criteria. More specifically within those categories. It meets history a 30 years old and shall have direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation architecture. A has designed quality and integrity and embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type and geography. B It promotes the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. And I'm going to go through each of those really briefly here with you. First for history. A situated one block east of South Broadway. The district is directly associated with the growth of South Denver in the pre Great Depression era. The development of the bungalows between 1925 and 1926 was influenced by the overall growth trends along South Broadway at that time. And the image you see on the screen on the left is the Gates Rubber Factory, and on the right is the Ford Motor Company running down the city or excuse me, the center of the street is a streetcar route along South Broadway, going north and south. This very much created a working class demographic in this area. If you look at the map in the middle of the screen, you can see the Vassar School that's highlighted by the red dotted line. That's in 1905. And then 24 years later, the map on the right, you can see that development has filled in in the neighborhood and you can see the six bungalows in the lower right that have replaced the Vassar School. The bungalows are directly tied to the former Vassar School, built in 1892, then in the town of South Denver. The school served K through eight, closed in 1924 due to construction of Rosedale School, which was built to accommodate the growing student population of the neighborhood. And the property was purchased and developed into six residences by Elbert L. Franz, who is pictured on the screen in Ohio native and building contractor. He designed the bungalows using the historic Vassar School topography and building materials. And although we don't have a historic image of the Vassar School, the Milton School, which you see here built around the same time, has pretty much the exact footprints of the Vassar School. So we can have a sense of what the Vassar School may have looked like. For architecture, the six buildings successfully convey distinguishing characteristics of Spanish revival style architecture. The flat roofs are found in only 10% of the style in the country overall. And although the buildings are not architect designs, there is a great deal of thought and resourcefulness that was put into their design with the elements reflecting the historic Vasser School . In general, there's a very uniform, cohesive appearance between the six buildings. Geography B to promote the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics and rarity is achieved in this district due to its unique uniform grouping of Spanish revival style architecture and direct association with the design and layout of the former Vassar School. No other properties in the surrounding area resemble it or exhibit a uniform grouping of Spanish revival style architecture constructed by the same builder. If we take a closer look at those six properties, we compare it to the historic map of the Vassar School. We can see a lot of similarities. It maintains the South facing placement of the school. If you look at the three westernmost properties, they are mirror images of the three easternmost properties and plot size, location and spacing in between. You can even see in between the two middle buildings the historic entry into the Vassar School. The historic Fastener School materials were also reused in these buildings and in the properties with sandstone walls along the perimeter of the property and sandstone masonry in the foundations. So this truly is a very physically distinctive and rare piece of Denver's urban environment. The properties also retain a high degree of physical and historic integrity related to the district's period of significance from 1925 to 1926. Each building retains its original residential dwelling in the location where it was constructed and continues to serve in a residential capacity . There have been minor alterations over time, but they are found to be compatible in size material to the original. And finally, the proposed district does relate to a historic context or theme, and that illustrates the growth and development of working class housing along South Broadway and also the evolution of the Vassar School property from educational facility to residential development, all within the period of significance of 1925 to 1926. Because this is a proposed historic district. The planning board also has the opportunity to review this proposal per Chapter 30, Dash 4.6 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. The Planning Board considers the proposed designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation or amendments. The Planning Board has found that the proposed district is consistent with applicable plans, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver and will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Two notes There is no neighborhood plan for the Rosedale neighborhood. Just a reminder that this is U.S. to be one single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units. The proposed district advances several comprehensive plan goals, visions, objectives and strategies, and on the screen are the strategies that it meets. The Vassar School Bungalows Historic District Designation meets these by reinforcing the intrinsic, historic and cultural character of the city and Rosedale neighborhood, preserving the city's historic properties and neighborhoods and enhancing design excellence. According to Blueprint Denver, the proposed district's concept land use a single family residential and is in an area of stability. The primary character of the Vassar School bungalow is a single family residential, and the proposed district designation will help preserve that character. Areas of stability include the stable residential neighborhoods, where no significant changes in land use are expected over the next 20 years. The goal is to maintain the character of these areas and accommodate some new development and redevelopment that maintains the vitality of the area. The proposed designation identifies and helps retain the character defining features of the Vassar school bungalows, thereby providing greater, clear career clarity or certainty for any future change. Blueprint Denver does specifically note that historic designation is one of the most successful and common tools to preserve a neighborhood special qualities. The proposed designation is consistent with the Blueprint Denver concept, land use and area of stability recommendations. Because the proposed designation will help preserve the character of the Rosedale neighborhood. It will have little impact on the neighborhood. The designation ordinance and design guidelines that go along with it are only enforceable by the Landmark Preservation Commission within the district boundary. In some summation, both the Landmark Preservation Commission and Planning Board have unanimously recommended approval of the designation. There has been no public opposition to the designation, only support. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Vassar School bungalows. Historic District designation. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'd ask if you signed up to speak on this issue, if you could come up to this front row now. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. I'll call you up. As soon as I call your name, you can step up to the microphone. There will be a slight delay and then your time will start. First up, we have Jennifer Kramer. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Kramer. In March of 2004. My husband and I purchased our home located in the Rosedale neighborhood at 119 East Vassar Avenue. Shortly after moving in, our neighbor informed us of our homes. Unusual history in the other five Spanish revival style bungalows on our block were built on the site of the demolished Vassar School. And some of the building materials had been reused in the construction of these homes that explain the unusual red sandstone wall that surrounded the property. It also explained the strange mix of brick and stone visible in our basement walls and the big pieces of chiseled sandstone that we would eventually dig up in our yard while landscaping. After Denver's real estate market took off, we anxiously watched. As three of the other bungalows went on the market. Each time. One sold, we were afraid that the new owners would decide to demolish. Their bungalow and build. A new home. On the lot. Destroying the cohesive. Appearance of our block. Finally, in February of. 2016, I decided I had to figure out a way to protect and preserve these six bungalows. So I emailed Annie. Levinsky. Of Historic Denver. From the get go, I involved the other bungalow owners and our councilman, Paul Cashman. Early in the. Process, we hosted a meeting with the Homeowners Historic Denver in the city's Preservation Department to discuss the pros and cons of creating a historic district with the other five homeowners on board. I plan to complete the historic district application myself and submit it to the city within a few months. This was completely unrealistic and nothing happened for over a year because of life just being too busy. Finally, I came to the realization that we needed to hire a consultant to complete the application if we ever wanted our historic district to become a reality. In August of 2017, I applied to historic Denver's Action Fund. A few weeks later, we were approved by the Action Fund and they provided 75% of the necessary funds to hire a consultant. The six bungalow owners eventually split the other 25% of the consultant's fee. The consultants started researching, compiling the necessary information in January of this year. In April, we hosted another meeting of the homeowners to review the rough draft of our application and to once again remind everyone of the ramifications of creating and living within a historic district. And in June, our completed application was finally ready for Councilman Cashman to submit to the city of Denver. Two years and eight months after sending that first email to historic Denver, I finally stand here before Denver City Council hoping you'll approve our master school bungalow historic district, so that our charming homes can enrich the character of. Our city and our neighborhood. Excuse me for another 92 years. It's been a long road, but along the way I've met. Some all of my neighbors and a lot of really great. People. I'd like to thank. The other bungalow owners for your support throughout the entire process. Everyone has sought Denver for your. Guidance, financial assistance of your action fund. Our consultant, Christina Anello. I'm sorry. In Geneva. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Kristi minnillo. Good evening. My name is Kristi Minnillo, and I'm the owner of Minnillo Consulting, a business that specializes in architectural history services in environmental reviews. I am here because historic Denver hired me through the Action Fund to prepare the Landmark District application for the master school bungalows. I'm here to answer. Any questions you may have. About the application that Lamour staff may not be able to. And I'm also here to speak for this bill because not only, you know, I prepared it, but I have 15 plus years of experience in the world of historic preservation, and I frequently connect with the places and the times that I'm researching. But there's something very unique and very special about this place. I am proud to be associated with this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Scott Nelson. Thank you. Hi, my name is Scott Nelson. I am one of the property owners. For this district and a neighbor of Jenn who I want to thank. For her passionate. Pursuit of this and. All the hard work and. All the energy and emotion as well as. Councilman Cashman for his support and help. Historic Denver Kristi minnillo. Everybody that's been involved has been it's been a fun process, and I'm hopeful that this will. Go through. I'm very much. In favor of of. Our homes being on this historic district because of the unique and consistent architecture. They all share. I've seen a lot of other individual homes. I'm a realtor. In the area and. See some of those. Historic homes that. Are one or two. And you can see. What the architecture is. But to see a group of this group of like this is is pretty unique for a whole block. I think they fit in very well with the neighborhood in terms of the size of home and the community in general. But they're. Very unique because of the style, the architecture. Their orientation, south facing instead of east or west facing. So it's something I'd like to see preserved, and I think all. Of our neighbors are in agreement with. That. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Shannon Stage. Good evening, council members. I am Shannon age. My address is 1420 Ogden Street and I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. For anyone unfamiliar with historic Denver, we are a preservation nonprofit that has the support of over 800 member households. And our mission is to assist the community of Denver in retaining the unique character that makes up our city. Historic. Denver is thrilled to be here tonight to show our support for the strong application of the Vasser School Bungalows Historic District. The neighbors of the bungalows sought out historic numbers support and started talking to us as well as Councilman Cashman a couple of years ago to create a historic district of their six bungalow homes. Last year, they applied to the historic Denver Action Fund, which they were awarded the funds to hire many consulting to write and complete the Historic District application as an action fund awarded program. The neighbors raised the 25% matching funds to help support this application process and have helped with organizing the project throughout the entire process as well . The neighbors, as well as historic Denver, truly believe their six Spanish revival bungalows are special, historic homes worthy of being protected in this quickly changing area of Denver. The homes were all built by the same builder Albert France in 1925 to 26 on the grounds of the demolished Vassar School. And one of the unique items here are all the elements of the Vassar School building that were incorporated into the residential properties, including the low sandstone sandstone wall that runs the length of the block, as well as parts of the foundation wall of the school that was incorporated into the foundation of the homes the Vassar School bungalows . Historic District is not only strong because it meets all three of the criteria history, architecture and geography, but it has had 100% support of each of the neighbors within the proposed district. Historic Denver strongly urges you to consider this historic district application for your approval. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good afternoon, members of council. My name is Jesse Pears. I'm a lawyer at large candidate for office in 2019. We are. I'm speaking on behalf of Black Star Action Movement and Community Action Committee for Change. We are in approval of this. We support Paul Cashman and his wise decision to keep areas of Denver such as this historic. And for that, we give a salute. I see no opposition coming from this whatsoever. It looks like it passed at planning board. The whole community is behind it. Are the neighbors that are in attendance are also on approval of it. So, yeah. I am in support of this and that is all I have to say on this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou. But even Mr. President and his team members of City Council designated humble and trusted servants of the city and county of Denver. I am the organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, being the voice for those who are voiceless, the poor, the working poor, the homeless, students, senior citizens and other oppressed groups within the city. Also on the candidate for mayor, the city County Dem 2019. This evening. What we like to do is. We like to join in with Jennifer Kramer in thanking the other bungalow owners for their support throughout the process. Everyone at Historical Denver for your guidance and financial assistance from your action fund or consultant Kristy. Many yellow. Kerrigan and Jenny Lunenburg with the city of Denver and Councilman Paul Cashman and other council members for your time, effort and energy. Taking on this consideration. You know it's very often lately that. I get these historical memories of this district and it seems to be strange. But the truth is, as a senior at Emanuel High School, we were given the opportunity to go to other areas of the city to get college credit and high school credit as we graduated from high school. And I was calling I going to borderline in terms of student whether he would go to high school or not or the war to Vietnam. And also, I just happened to be a basketball player for three championship teams. So despite of my academic. Shortcomings. I was given opportunity to attend the University of Denver. And up there I saw a whole different world from the east side. Five points. I didn't even know y'all was out there because at that point, our communities are pretty much grew up in a segregated community here in the city county in Denver, where you didn't find very many black folks out there like you was on the moon somewhere. We pretty much stay on a borderline between Colfax and I-70 and in downtown all the way to Quebec, the airport, because prior to that, outside airports when my daddy taught me how to shoot rabbits and gophers and things like that , and we shoot to eat. We weren't shooting for fun. So anyway, I'm out there. Do you? And a whole new world opened up and I had to go through this beautiful look like pristine gothic environment that you see on PBS or something, you know. But actually to live in that and see that and go to school out there, it was like it opened up a whole new world for me. So this is very important for us to preserve this environment because there is a history there for this entire city, including the part that I played and lived in, going out there because it opened up a whole new world now. It was amazing in terms of how life turns out. I leave my new high school and I have to go to Northeastern during college, go have the grades, to go to the University of Southern. Cal and I go to for two years, and then while I'm there, I get injured. And then I'm because of my integrity and how I was taught how to do things. I just applied my basketball skills are going to the library and then ended up graduating with a degree in accounting and offered a Ford Foundation scholarship to attend any major university on the planet. And I chose the University of Denver. And I was the first African ever in the history of the business school to get a full ride. I didn't have to pay a dime. And then I was given an internship. More Mitchell to become a certified public accountant. But it was that environment when I was first introduced to it at an early age of 17 years old that I came back because that that environment was a world I wanted to operate in. And it wasn't very many of us out there. But I had the greatest mentor in the world, Condoleezza Rice's father, John Rice. He was vice chancellor there. And he opened up a whole new world for me. I mean, a whole entire new world. And so I feel very fortunate to be a part of the history of that air in the area impacting my life, because that story needs to be preserved because that's part of the history that may not ever be written down. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen for me. So I have to support this. I have to support this other love that opened up avenues and doors for me in my life and the lives of others who are not present here to share this story. And so we're encouraging this to happen because it's more than a preservation of the buildings. It's a preservation of the history of the people who were there. And I'm telling you straight up, I was embraced by that community. And I felt right at home. I can't be alone. And that's something that I'll treasure for the rest of my life. So we support this. Thank you very much. And good evening. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. We'll move on to questions for members of council. And I'll just start with Jennifer Cramer if you want to come back up. Sorry that you ran out of time as you were. You were going. And I think, Chairman, say, who helped you get to a few things, but is there anyone else you wanted to thank or any anything else you wanted to add about this application? He did complete my list, so I just was wanting to thank all of you for the consideration for all of the committees that we've sat through and everybody else had to listen. And for everybody at historic Denver and at the city's preservation office, it's been a great process. Okay. That's a great. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? All right. Seeing none of the courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1072 is closed. I would think that was required. Hearing comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. As happened on before the planning board. And we had the same mix of presentations. We first heard from Kendra about their project, which while it very possibly will have elements of great benefit to the neighborhood, if it should pass, it will change the face of that community. And here we have this simple group of six bungalows that will preserve the history of the community. And it is such a gift. These historic preservation, whether it's a district or an individual landmark, are so important to our community. And I'm always a bit embarrassed. I believe in the staff presentation. My name was mentioned three times, so I'm going to say Jim Cramer. Jen Kramer. Jen Kramer. Jen Cramer. You heard her passion and the sincerity with which she put this designation forward. These I've said it in committee to those who weren't there. If you have not driven this block, you've got to go see these. These are just beyond charming as a lovely group of homes that clearly meet all the requirements of our preservation ordinance. I'm just so happy to be able to bring this forward. It is so nice when people do a whole lot of work and I get to put my name on it that I always find that enjoyable. And I want to echo a thanks to besides Ms.. Kramer, Jim Boulden and Karen from staff Christie in yellow Shannon stage from historic Denver in the Legend The Woman, The Myth, The Legend, Annie Levinsky, our preservation maven in Denver. Seriously, for the work you continue to do with your entire staff. Thank you. And I would urge my colleagues to approve this designation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Now, I just didn't want I just didn't want it to be one speaker, having heard how long of a process it was and having worked on community issues myself that seem daunting at first or seem simple at first and obvious and then become daunting and then rolling that long haul or hoeing the long row. Sorry to finally get there. I'm glad in in all the narrative that was presented because it sounds like all the sort of bits and pieces and the people that are involved, both in the nonprofit world and at the city and volunteers and neighbors and property owners, all came together in exactly the way they were intended to be put together. And but it's still an education process. You know, there's there's hesitation. There's I mean, I don't know that that happened, but there's reticence about what what what it all means and what it how it might impact somebody. And and I'm just grateful that you persevered and that your neighbors came on board and that everyone is, is, is, is, is and is in support because it's one of those I probably am familiar with it. You know, I'm going to make a point of going out there and checking it out because I'm sure it's one of those parts of Denver that as you go by it time and time again, you think it's basically obvious and that these things are part of history and should remain and are probably protected. And too often we find out sort of after the fact that no and and and then it becomes a struggle and it becomes too late . And so for you guys to recognize it real time in a time where you could still act and that you all sort of recognize the importance of these sorts of homes to to yourselves, to the people that came before you and the people that will come after you and to the rest of the city. So I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your hard work, the involvement of your neighbors and the people that supported you in getting here. And Councilman Cashman. I said your name honestly, Jen, for bringing this forward and supporting your community in this effort. So thank you all. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I see nobody else in the queue. I'll just add that the day this was in committee, I got home and I told my wife, I said, Hey, there's this historic designation. I think it's on your training ground. She was training for the rock and roll half marathon. That was this last weekend. And the second I said three words about it, I think she's like, I know exactly where it is. It's so cool. She's like, I run by it all the time. So of course, she instantly knew. And so I think it's so exciting to have this in front of us for preservation. And then Councilman Cashman said in committee and don't let it go to your head. But I thought was so cool. I actually wrote it down. You said this is a gift that these people are giving Denver. And I think that that is really true, that what you're doing here today and preserving this as the owners is you're giving a gift to our city to preserve that history. And I was at the parade this weekend talking to another one of my constituents who who did the same thing. They created the South Lincoln Historic District recently. And I said, that's what we need if we're going to really, you know, preserve this history in Denver is we need we need to get the word out. So anybody is watching on TV. Take a look at your house and reach out and find out if you can do the same thing and give a gift to our city. Because it is it's really pretty phenomenal. So thank you for doing that and I'm excited to support this tonight with that. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. I. Black Eyed Peas. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Flynn Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. Sorry. Can I. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Sussman. Hi. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours. 12 eyes council bill 1072 has passed. All right. We have one more hearing this evening. The public hearing for the mayor's proposed 2019 budget is now open. May we have the staff report?

A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 1145, Series of 2021, to allocate spending in the American Rescue Plan Act Grant Fund for Recovery, Revenue Loss, and Administration. Amends Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, previously amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, to allocate a total of $100.1 million in spending in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Fund, including $25.3 million in the “Revenue Loss” category to accommodate the 2022 portion of the allocation approved in Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021 that will continue to be supported by ARPA, $73.5 million in the “Recovery” category, $1.3 million in the Administration spending category, which will be reallocated from unspent dollars in the initial Revenue Loss category, and approves a capital equipment purchase of a van for the Wellness Winnie program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11012021_21-1192

Thank you. I'll do a recap here. Under resolutions, no items have been called out under bills for introduction. Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 20 1-1192 for a vote under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for publication. Yes, I move that council bill 21-119. To be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1192. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I called this out this evening so I can vote no. This is the ARPA funds. First and most importantly, I want to thank the Department of Finance and host for their fantastic work over the last 18 months. Our city's in a solid financial position because of their leadership. And if the residents of Denver who are watching tonight don't know, you should be incredibly grateful to them. I truly, truly appreciate the thoughtful decision making process that went into allocating these funds. But at the end of the day, I can't support $4 million for safe outdoor spaces. Recovery Plan Act funding is meant to be for us to invest in long term solutions. And so sites are not a long term solution. I recognize that the value that the Colorado Village Collaborative has added to our city, but the residents of my district have made it clear that they believe housing requires a roof and a door, and therefore I will be a no tonight and next week as well. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Hoyer. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President, I. We're in a housing crisis right now. And while I don't believe that the safe outdoor space is a an appropriate long term solution, we need middle term and near term solutions. And I know that District ten hosted the first to see if outdoor spaces in our city and in the metro area, frankly . And we received more than a thousand emails in opposition to to the safe outdoor spaces before they opened. But since they opened, once they opened, they were transformative. We had zero calls, the police department. We had people who moved out of homelessness, out of street homelessness, up the spectrum into housing. We had people who got doctor and dental services for the first time in a long time. And the neighbors also found that it was totally unlike the unsanctioned encampments that were that continue to plague all of areas in our city, but particularly in District ten. So I think that the safe outdoor spaces are an amazing option that we've added to our tool belt here in the city. Before this piece of our sites opened, we had no solution for people who wanted to stay with their partners, no solution for people who wanted to stay with their their pets. And I don't know if I didn't have anything, if all I did was sleep on the street and I had a dog. I would not let that dog go. Just to. Get into a shelter. Sorry. So I think that the NSA websites are transformative, and I'm excited that there's $4 million set aside for its sites. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Seeing other folks in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-1192, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I Clark. Eye for an. Eye. Herndon, Hines. Cashman Canete, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 Ies one name. 11 ies council bill 20 1-119 to has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this as a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block. For the following items. All Series 21. 1204 1217. 1218 1178. 1191 1201 1203 1208 1214 1215 1211. 1216 1181. 1234 1147 1159. 1160. 1161 1162 1163 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169 1170 1171. 1172 1173. 1174 1175. And that's it. Thank you. You've got it. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Sandoval. I. Black. I see tobacco. I Clark. I swim. I turned in Hines Cashman. I. Kenny. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1020, changing the zoning classification for 250125152531 North Ogden Street in five points.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and SIXTEEN CAL LLC to provide goods and services to the public and other customers located at 1601 California Street. Approves a Business Incentive Fund (BIF) contract with 16 CAL, LLC for twenty years and for $4 million for the completion and operation of a strategic retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street in Council District 9 (OEDEV- 201733017-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-20-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-15-17.

DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0163

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And because we have a point of order here, we probably need to put one, 163 and 156 on the floor and vote them in a block. So is that correct? Okay. President Pro tem, please. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 163 be adopted and council Bill 156 be ordered published in a block. All right. Now, if there's still folks who want to speak, you can chime in all our time in right now because this is this happens to be in the fine District nine. And I happen to be one of the individuals working with Downtown Partnership and other leaders in the city to activate our mall. And I really respect my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, each for her comments and Councilman Lopez for his well-stated comments. I just want to say that what is a business incentive fund for if we're not incentivizing businesses that will never locate in the downtown core to do right like this is this is the exact reason we want to do something like this. Target is a suburban model development business. They would never come down to to the urban core and make a development work without some complex financing. And so council mechanics is correct in that this is with the developer. We get to do an adaptive reuse project here, which is is very well supported by the community. And I encourage individuals to walk down 16th in California and see and walk past this area that is not activated. And we have a pretty good track record in Office of Economic Development in the city that when we invest public dollars, our return on private dollars is substantial. But it's not just about the dollars. It's about the connectivity. It's about the activation. And I believe that this is going to be an incredible opportunity. And I encourage our my colleagues to support this. And I encourage members of the public to go down and see where this location is. And to Councilman Lopez's point, I represent half of my district is a food desert. And I hope that this is a precedent that we are bringing. We're using public dollars to bring healthy food to communities in the future. So I just want to be on record saying that it's been moved and seconded both 156 and 163. Madam Secretary, roll call. And. Each name. Lopez. I knew. Black eye. Clark. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Cashman. Hi. Mr. President. I please close the voting and not the results. Sorry. I think there's one person missing. We've lost some council members up here. Here we go. Seven eyes, one knee. Okay. Seven eyes one. Nay, are you? Did you get my vote in there? It should be eight eyes. One nay. Okay, let's see. No, I did not. So, eight eyes, one nail. It will be corrected. Okay. Eight eyes, one nay. 153 has been ordered, published and one 5163 has been adopted. Is that correct? Yes, Madam Secretary. 156 sorry. Yup. Has been ordered published. 163 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, we put the next item on the screen Council Bill 161. It's hard to find.

Om the message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000.00) in the form of a grant, awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston’s Chief Financial Officer/Collector Treasurer. This grant payment is made from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) in the Treasury of the United States established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Pursuant to the requirements of ARPA, the grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such State, territory, or Tribal government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year of the State, territory or Tribal government prior to the emergency, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed; yeas 12.

BostonCC_06292022_2022-0504

Arts and culture and early childhood stalking numbers 0504 Message In honor authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $40 million in the form of a grant awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the city of Boston's Chief Financial Officer. Collect the Treasury. This grant payment is made from the coronavirus, state and Local Fiscal Fiscal Recovery Fund. CEO f r. F in the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 A are paid pursuant to the requirements of a pay. The grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such state territorial tribal government due to the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency Relief relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal fiscal year of the state territorial tribal government prior to the emergency. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council Board Chair of the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 Recovery Council. BLOCK You have the floor. So much, Mr. President, and I'm going to speak to these dockets in reverse order just because 504 is a little bit simpler. 504 is a docket. The American Rescue Plan Act makes provision for local governments to receive this funding directly, as Boston did, and to use some of it to just replace government revenues in places where revenues went down because of the pandemic. In Boston, that happened in particular in our departmental revenues and things like hotel excise taxes, meals, taxes, etc. there there's also a series of deferral provisions for a lot of those. So in in but in the budget books in the city produce, there's is sort of documentation of the ways in which those resources are off where they would have been without the pandemic. And so related to that provision, the city the mayor proposed this $40 million docket, which is actually there to balance on the revenue side, the budget that we were just discussing and voting on. And so it is it is an important docket to making sure that we actually meet the Commonwealth's obligation for the city of Boston to have a balanced budget for the fiscal year that starts in two days. And so because of that, I'm going to be moving out of committee and recommending passage. Um, and so I know we'll get to that vote in a moment. The other docket, it's 503 is the proposal from Mayor Wu for the expenditure of the rest of the ARPA. Funds that were sent to the city is general revenue and it's first 349.5 million. And as folks know, it came in at the same time as the budget. And the investments that are focused in this docket have been the subject of a lot of conversation, both in the budget process in which they came up again and again as, Oh, what, we're not doing our budget, but we're able to do that on our budget, etc. And then within our committee we've had eight hearings and five working sessions to hear from the public. My colleagues in the administration on this proposal, the largest part of the proposal, 206 of the $349.5 million is for housing and is then is subdivided into a number of sub dockets related to supportive housing to homeownership , a record 60 million investment in this docket, along with some other city funds in homeownership, creating housing on public land, something that's very near dear to me and just like a large number of things. And then another 150 is split between these categories of climate, arts and culture, economic inclusion, child care, a $15 million investment, and really having the city lead a real renovation of our child care system with an eye to trying to drive better reimbursement rates and policies in the state as the state takes that up in the coming session. Um, and so a lot of good things in here and as the council's held. Hearings on that. I think there's been a lot of things that have come to the fore that we've been talking about. At the same time, the feeling of the body, I think it's safe to say, was a sense of frustration that we had not had the opportunity as a council to formally talk about things that we'd like to do with this transformative money. Ahead of the proposal by the mayor side to utilize all 249.5. And so there were a lot of great ideas that councilors were also bringing to the table that were not included in the proposal as files. And so that's something that at our committee we've tried to make space for along the way. We started we in late April suggested that folks start filing dockets related to things that they'd like to see us talk about for ARPA. We noticed those dockets with a series of hearings on different topic areas. So, you know, a number of those were noticed and discussed. And then more recently, we also we also invited folks to file amendments and discuss those and in recent working sessions. Well doing that as the chair was also sort of talking to the administration about the question of whether the revenue support docket that they had kind of reserved for next fiscal year. So not the one that we're discussing that starts in two days, but the one a year from now, whether they really needed to be holding quite as much as they had proposed, not least because of sort of the the trends. When you look at how those departmental revenues and excise revenues have been recovering, I think that we're all super, super mindful of the fact that this recovery money is meant to be spent to help the people of Boston recover and help the city recover in a more equitable way and that the need is urgent. So throughout this ARPA process, we've really been balancing the fact that this the need is urgent. And now and all of these things are things that we should have spent money on yesterday. It feels like. And also, even though it's a lot of money, we've all spent it over ten times in our head. And at the same time, because it's a once in a generation kind of amount of money, we want to make sure that we're spending it well and that the that ten years from now we'll be talking about the things that we achieved because of ARPA. And so. Basically the administration ultimately said that they were willing to put most of that money that the 19.7 that they had saved for next year's revenue support in to collaboration with the council. And so there's a $17.7 million docket, which I'm not formally speaking to yet because the late file. So it will come. But I think folks have it on their desks already, which is which demonstrates their willingness to be collaborative with the council and include a huge number of council priorities in the city's ARPA proposal. Additionally, within the committee report, which I filed, there are a number of amendments to their proposal which spell out $12.3 million worth of funds within the three 49.5 that are going to be dedicated to specific council priorities that came up in the process, that sort of aligned with the subject areas that they had already, that they had already highlighted. And so the description of those changes for this docket is in the summary of legislation and amendments is on page two if people look at the committee report. But I'm just going to read them aloud so that people are aware it will be within this docket, dedicating at least $8 million in category affordable housing to creating a pathway to four to affordable homeownership for low and moderate income residents, including a new partnership with the Boston Housing Authority, dedicating at least 1.1 million within the category of affordable housing to support a new pilot model in the style of rapid rehousing to help returning citizens secure housing opportunities. So that's another exciting new pilot, 100,000 for the to expand the Peace Institute's work and sort of emergency housing for families for families victims of violence. A million. And here is for a study to figure out if there's somewhere to be land in south Boston to say veterans housing $1,000,000 within the category of behavioral health to support further behavioral health, capacity building and training for CBOs and city departments. $1,000,000 for supporting the recovery of restaurants and bars in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The city particularly focused on sort of folks who kind of missed the opportunities in a number of the programs that were available at the height of the pandemic. And then another million split between 350 in economic opportunity and inclusion. And 650 in arts and culture to support investment in and activation of an arts corridor in Roxbury. Those things collectively add up to the 12.3. That is within this three $49.5 million docket for council priorities. There's then, as I just mentioned, another 17.7 million folks have on their desk. And I'll speak to that when it's formally the right time, when it's the late file. But those two things collectively, obviously add up to $30 million that that reflect council priorities and integrating those into the proposal of how to use the remainder of ARPA . I just also want to draw folks quick attention to at the last page, the committee report. It says. Additionally, the amended version of the order adds language to specify the shared intention to support both worker cooperatives and sustainable pay increases in the childcare sector. Those are some of the kind of qualitative things that have come up in the discussion about this transformative $15 million investment in child care. And then and then just raising, you know, worker standards and making sure that we've got good, good standards across the board and in the areas that are being funded by that order. So that is the document for us. I know as Chair that it's a hard thing to figure out how to take action on something that feels as momentous as this does. And I have definitely felt acutely the fact that it is both too ambitious to do wrong and also too much to do slowly. Because the reality is that the lion's share of the funding is proposed for housing. People know that I come out of the affordable housing world working for the VHA. Unfortunately, housing development and especially building units as for example, 45 million of the 60 million in the homeownership will be doing takes time and has extended timelines. And this money all needs to be under contract by December 2024, which may seem soon, but is not on that type of timeline. And one of the things we heard was that the the annual kind of RFP process that kicks out our our housing resources and helps us let people know what's available. Usually hits in July. And so for for me as chair, it's been a fine balance of trying to figure out how to make sure that councilors have real fingerprints on this, which I think in this $30 million we do, recognizing also a lot of alignment with the other things of the administration have proposed and also making sure that we get these dollars out to our our communities and to all. The urgent needs in our communities because we hear about those every day. I want to acknowledge before you, the Florida colleagues, that, you know, the administration ended up taking a firm position that they did not want to use ARPA dollars to fund nonprofit infrastructure projects . So infrastructure that's going to be owned by private, nonprofit entities. And certainly as chair, that was not something that I'd heard from them early in this process. And I think a number of councilors and organizations brought really meritorious proposals forward to us. And those are not ultimately included in this, unlike the process that the public just was watching, the appropriation accept and expand orders cannot be overridden by the council. So this is a place where we and the mayor have to reach a point of agreement and collaboration. And I think with these two dockets, not completely, but in large part we're doing that today. And so I ask my colleagues to support passage of this. I'm grateful to the administration for filing the the late supplemental order. And I'll also be moving passage of that later in the meeting. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Council balked that she recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you, Chair. I just need some clarity before I vote on anything. If you're saying that you're going to talk about something else later, I just. I'm just curious about. I know we spent a lot of time talking about very specific things. And and for the record, I'd like to make sure that the things that we have agreed upon are read into the record and that there is some sort of agreement on some of the things that we've been pushing for, because there tends to be this, you know, we didn't know that this was going to be the way it was when we were dealing with the interdepartmental conversation that the administration. So we you know, now it's like the administration switched it up, but we can't support nonprofits or like all of these, you know, changes, you know, give people a sense of kind of pause. So I just need some clarity and to get on the record that the things that I'm going to be voting on include the things that we talked about and we fought for. And I just need some assurance around that. And where where does that fall in this? Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Here. There's a question on the floor from council here. Council block, would you like to respond to this? I guess the question I have for you and the clerk is that if if it were acceptable to take out of order, the first lady file matter and have it formally read into the record, I would be delighted to do that. The only reason that I wasn't able to do that is because of the. Order of our. Procedure in that meeting. So I don't know if you. Not only. Was. I went to the hospital. 420. We'll do it after. Sorry. Mr. President, can I also clarify? I received from the messenger city messenger the committee report of the late file. Or do other people not have that on their table? You don't have your. Yeah. The $17.7 million docket. It's in the triple packet of late files. I haven't. Say that. We'll take a brief recess. Thank you, Mr.. That she recognizes. Counsel Bork. Counsel Bork, you have the floor and then I'll go back to counsel here. Thank you, Mr. President, just now that I think everybody has both items. I just want to clarify one more time, because we I know we discussed in the working session yesterday when we were talking about those two columns. Right. There's some so maybe it's procedurally helpful to know we're not allowed to amend the mayor's appropriation orders to be higher than the original number that was proposed. So the way that the 30 million is split is 12.3 of it is out of the 349.5 order that stock at 503 and 17.7 is out of this new late filed supplemental order. So the various council priorities are split between those two things. So if you're looking for something, you may find it in the list that I just read into the record from 503, or you may find it stipulated in the 17.7 order. So I just wanted to specify that for councilors, just to be clear that that's where everything is. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Look, the chair recognizes Councilor Baker was next. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Still some more than somewhat uncomfortable voting on this here today, after the day we've had still not totally square clear where a lot of things are going. I believe we could split this up into smaller buckets. Whatever, whatever has a priority, if it's a housing for our priority. We could be passed in 50 or 100 million today without a problem and be able to have this be a working sort of relationship here. With all that being said, I would like to offer an amendment to an amendment to trademark at 503 by reducing on what the only way that I could identify was on the Google document that came to me, which was line 20, massing cars, temporary low threshold shelter sites by 5 million, and adding 5 million in for the Georgia Tech field house. Just to be clear, that low threshold housing, that 16 million, we've already given them at least 5 million. Now for the low threshold housing, I think the number is is much higher than that. But what they've what they agree to is 5 million. And also the temporary low threshold housing is something that that community down there doesn't want. When we talk about we talk about decentralization and this this low threshold housing en masse. And Cass, make sure that that that issue that's going on down there is centralized down there for our entire lives. And in just for clarity, 5 million coming off the 206 million in housing brings that down to 201 million. A little bit of math. We just we just approved 70 million earlier in this mail, in this meeting, 70 million in grants from the feds for housing. So the 70 million plus the 201 million minus my 5 million, we're talking about $271 million here that that can potentially go through here today. So I'm going to and you all have the amendment in front of you pretty straightforward. 5 million from the low threshold that housing down on en masse and gas and replace that with 5 million for the Dorchester Field House, which we all had a hearing on. I know the administration says they don't want to build infrastructure for nonprofits but will just pound money into them. That'll be that'll be gone. And we'll say we're talking about in ten years, it's all going to be a distant memory. The only thing we're going to be able to look at is going to be this. I was so I'm looking for a second on that as the president. Thank thank you. Counsel Baker. Um. Mr. Clarke, do you want to read it into the record first or should we? Yeah, we're going to read it into the record. Yeah. Mr. Clarke, please read that into the record of. Councilor Frank David. Until they come to an end. 05033. NASCAR's temporary, so special, so to say, $5 million and $5 million for the Dorchester Fieldhouse. Is there a second? There is a second counsel firing second to Mr.. President, based on the people that are in the room here, I mean, we're going to should we wait till people come back in the room for this photo? Because one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Yeah. We'll wait for them to. Call somebody for. Us. We'll take we'll take a brief recess. Back in session. Please take your seat, everybody. Please take your seats, everybody. The the motion is properly before the body. And it has been second in at this time. Would anyone like to speak on this matter? Okay. The chair recognizes Councilor Borg Council book you of the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. If I could. Get city funding. Through the proper process to council Bakersfield house. I would I chaired the hearing that many folks attended. I thought it was compelling. I think despite the disagreement between people about the history of how the field house land was transferred or whatever, that there a really incredible vision there . And personally, as a private citizen, I hope to find opportunities to support it. I have received the clearest communication, including an informal letter which I read to the Council on Monday, that the mayor is not willing to support nonprofit infrastructure, including the field house. If this amendment goes on the three 49.5 docket, then that docket will be vetoed by the mayor. And also the mayor will not be signing the 17.7 supplemental. I if I sound tired, it's not actually because of the length of this meeting. It's because I've only slept between one and five in the morning the last two nights trying to get everybody stuff into these combined dockets. If people want to go back to the drawing board, and I understand that from Councilor Baker's perspective, it makes sense both because this item is not in it and because he doesn't think we should be moving on this money all at once. Anyways, if folks agree, fine. But I think people need to be aware of what that amendment vote is. And I also think and I say this with with due respect and affection for my colleague here, that there is a difference between supporting the field House and backing an amendment for the field House that is effectively a poison pill to the effort to try to achieve council and mayoral collaboration on ARPA. So that's where I am as the chair and I'll be voting in opposition to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Council chair recognizes Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker, you have the floor. I don't understand. Poison pill here. So if my 5 million gets in, it automatically gets gets vetoed from across the hall for no reason other than it's mine. So what am I supposed to do? People ask me to withdraw this here. You know, I've been disrespected through this thing here. In my opinion, a letter. A letter is. Is is read into the record, an informal record, because they say we can't build stuff. Without the money. You can't build stuff, put up the money. It's all going to be contracts. Not right. Not fair. I don't see us doing enough for our kids, for our teens, for people to get healthy after this after this pandemic. This is going to do that. There's three housing developments right around it. What are you waiting for? MAN Whoa! What are you waiting for? Veto it. I want to go put it over there and have her veto it. That's what I want. Veto the 350, because you're two stuck up. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to have the floor. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Wanna take a brief recess? We're back in session. Right. So. I mean. Okay. We're back in session. The chair at this time. The chair recognizes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker, thank you. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to withdraw the current motion and replace it. New language, please. And Alex has a new language called Castle. Baker is seeking to withdraw the previous amendment. Previous motion. He also provided a another motion that everyone should have now on their on their desk. Mr. Clarke, will you read that into the record, please? Motion of Councilor Frank Baker. Councilor Baker moves to amend Docket 0503 by reducing the Mayor's Office of Housing by $5 million and adding $5 million for the Dorchester Field House. The chair recognizes counsel Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if this if this passes with this amendment in here, we would have still, as a body passed, $271 million that will go towards housing. Just today. That's with my $5 million amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Any discussion on this matter for my colleagues. We need a second on new. I'm sorry. We need a second on the language. Second on no language. The second is by Councilor Murphy. The chair recognizes Councilor Murphy. I mean, I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman. Here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I just think it's important for those who are watching for us to get some clarity in terms of my kind of what does that play here? Because I keep hearing if we do this, then this will happen. And if we don't do this, this will happen. So I need to have it really clearly laid out about what is at play and what is the impact of what is at play. Just so that we can all be clear, because there's a lot of fear tactics, there's a lot of uncertainty. There's a lot of ways you can do this and you can't do that. I need it all laid out and I need the truth. On the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman here. There's a question on the floor from councilman here on if we can explain the process a little. A little bit. Can I call on the chair council block? If you're able to give us a little bit of background information that might might be helpful to our colleagues. Sure. Well, I would just say I'm not a lawyer. And, you know, I think that the the question on the table, like in terms of what that's what's at stake. Council over here depends a little bit on how you read Section 17 of the charter, it appears. So if Section 17 of the charter applies, then it's possible for the mayor to to receive this and to disapprove in part of the appropriation and approve the rest of it. So that that would sort of that would allow the council to indicate support for Councilor Baker's idea and then send it across the fifth floor and see what happens. If you don't read 17 DE as applying to this and the reason that there's a question is because it's. It's a question of whether it discounts enough of that appropriation or if it's going to accept and expand because it's federal money. And I just don't I'm not legally able to answer that question. I think I think lawyers on both sides have been looking at that in the last 20 minutes. If it if 17 days doesn't apply, then we're in the situation that I described a minute ago, which is that there's no way except to do in like a rejection at whole. So I think that's like there's just genuine uncertainty. But I think that our council and the council is taking the position that that we could make this amendment from Councilor Baker and then the mayor's office would be able to the mayor would be able to to make, you know, any selected vetoes. I will say. It's I don't think. I yeah. I'm pretty confident that we haven't had any selective like vetoing of appropriations in the time that I've been on the council. I don't know Councilor Flaherty, who would have a considerably longer record. So so I would just say that this is not been a general practice. And to be honest, it isn't it's not really something that I love the idea of just bringing into practice, because I think as a council we like the idea that when we vote for an appropriation, sort of we're voting for the whole package and that the mayor that signs or doesn't sign the whole package. But I can't answer the question and I don't think anyone on the floor is going to be able to definitively answer the legal question of the interpretation of 17 D, but it's certainly possible the 17 D applies here and that therefore we could pass Councilor Baker's amendment and then the mayor could make a decision on that and the rest of the appropriation could go through. But I can't give you certainty. I'm not equipped to. Thank you, Mr. President. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? The chair recognizes Counsel Baker at this time. Counsel Baker you have the floor. So what was said to me, councilman here sounded like a threat, was it? If my 5 million get in there, the mayor across the hall was going to veto the 350. That doesn't seem like leadership to me. You're going to because I get something in this 350 million. And to speak to this point over here, we're never going to have this opportunity ever again. So we're never going to have 350 million in front of us ever again. This is our only time right here. We're looking to pass it like as quick as we possibly can. There's no rush to pass this here today. We could have cut this up into 100 million and housing 50 million in this. And we're dumping money into into into nonprofits all over the place. So I was threatened with this mayor going to veto 350 million because I got 5 million in there. And now the discussion is, Oh yeah, well, she'll be able to just veto it anyway. Should I feel happy today? Should I feel like I've been uplifted today? Should I feel like I'm part of this body or part of this city today? No. And this fieldhouse isn't for me. I'm not going to go there. This fieldhouse is for the kids that you all met here. You all met them. You all fell in love with them. That's who was. On the board to make sure that they had what they wanted in the fieldhouse sway. It cost $55 million. That's why we should be building this sort of infrastructure all around the city. Build this one here, and then you'll see what we need to build for infrastructure. Let's stop giving away contracts. 350 million basically in contracts all out the door. We're not building any city infrastructure. We're not we're not doing anything with it. That's a strong statement. We're not doing anything. We're doing plenty with it. But we're not going to be able to, like we say, look, back in ten years and look at the good we did. Nobody's going to remember anything. They don't pay attention to legislation. Don't pay attention where money goes. They pay attention to good services. We're looking to give good services to door Chisholm. Three housing developments around it. All black and brown kids in an opportunity zone. What's your problem? Thank you. Councilor Baker, the chair. Recognize this council? Our council, where you have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. I would just. I just rise to chair in both the chair and Councilor Baker's frustration about the process. I think that Councilor Baker did an incredible amount of work, held hearings where young people came and spoke to the council, gave similarly impassioned speeches about the impact that this feedback was going to have in his neighborhood and effectively moved a lot of the council that wasn't supportive of getting the field house to be supportive of the field house because of the incredible amount of work that he did to get last minute word that the mayor wasn't going to be supporting. That is incredibly is incredibly frustrating. And so I share in that frustration in terms of the process. With that said, I do think that it's disingenuous to say that this is for the young people after we. Councilor Baker effectively just took a vote to help kill an amendment that was supposed to be for youth jobs. And so, although I admire his spirit and I share his frustration with the process, we have had plenty of opportunities here to make sure that we're giving investing in young people. And Councilor Baker has not taken them. And so I think that that stance is a little bit disingenuous. However, that is not the reason why I won't be supporting this amendment. I won't be supporting this amendment because as the Chair of Housing and Community Development, I cannot make a case for removing $5 million from housing or the ARPA funds. We're in the middle of a housing crisis. We need all of this money. Low threshold housing is a proven evidence based practice that's going to help people move through addiction and into permanent housing. And so I just want to I just want to say that I'm not going to be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel to the chair recognizes counsel royal counsel of Royal U of the for you. President Flynn, I have a question which is mostly around the timing of. I know why we have a deadline for the city budget because at a certain point it goes into a 112. I have a question about whether or not there's an urgency to pass this today when we still don't have that, at least what I'm hearing concrete sort of legal analysis as to what this will do or if this can get sort of put off until the next meeting, when we can have a further analysis on this from corporation counsel, from our own counsel and do that. I don't know if there's an urgency that I'm not aware of, which I'm happy to hear sort of the details, too, as to why this has to go through today when I think a lot of folks here are trying to figure out exactly what is happening from a legal standpoint. So I think that's for the chair that. Thank you, counsel. Very fair question, but I don't have the answer to that. COUNSEL Royal, if any of my colleagues have any information on that, that might be helpful to the body. The chair recognizes a block. Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. So on that, I mean, one of the reasons that. One of the reasons that we're moving this today is because of the fact that the. That Council. Sorry, guys, I really am very tired. We're doing this today in part because, as I mentioned, a huge amount of the housing. Money. Money is housing. And there is a. Mayor's Office of Housing Annual RFP that goes out in July. And it's the way that they start the process of making housing funds available. And one of the reasons why the timeline of that is important, as opposed to just like, oh, it's up to August, etc., is because of the way that for affordable housing projects like local funds line up with state funds and federal funds and there's like a whole kind of cycle process. And if you miss a level, then you often have to wait a year because of how the timing is done. And so again, because the money has to be spent by 2024, like all the contracts have to be signed by then, has to be totally spent by 2026, but you have to have obligated every dollar by 24 . It's that that was one of the things that precipitated the ask. I know there are also some specific things because councilors have reached out to me about particular council priorities where the urgent need is now. I do just also want to say I like. I, I totally feel the impassioned, like sense for Councilor Baker about the field house. What I reject is the idea that the field house is the only real thing that we are talking about with the three, with the 349.5 and then the 17.7. I mean, we're talking about everything from the extension of the green jobs program that has just launched for us to, as I mentioned before, the creation of $45 million worth of home ownership units. The building of housing on public land actually adds a whole nother level from a time perspective to acquiring. I think you have to go through the whole process, right, of RFP and public process, etc. and then you try to spend the money to build housing. I just think like the child care, I mean, to me, child care is one of those things where there's of course something left at the end because every kid who gets touched by an investment in child care and every family where someone's able to hold a job because they're able to put their kid in affordable child care or off hours. Child care like council over here, champion is package like. That's all real. So I don't buy the idea that the field house is real and everything else is imaginary. And I just want to be really clear that the reason that we had to go to. The. Mayor's office and and ask them to reconsider making the harbor funds that are being held for next year's budget available to the council was because, frankly, there were so many real things in the original proposal that there wasn't sufficient appetite to get rid of them. And so what we've added are more real priorities, which again, I've just spent the last week hearing from all of you colleagues about the importance of and so I just it's I just want to say there are an enormous number of things that when we talk about a Green New Deal and we talk about, you know, transforming the city of Boston for the better after COVID, like the things that people get excited about, they want to see them become real. And what it's going to take is the money to actually be appropriated and start getting spent. And, you know, so I feel very strongly as well about the reality of the things in the appropriation today. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, counsel Buck. Councilman here. Did you have your chair? Because those on. The chair recognize this council. I'm here. And let me just say, before councilman here speaks, I can only have one person speaking at a time. And if you want to speak, raise your hand or hit the button and I will call on you. The chair recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you. He realized my light was still on. But since you called on me, I'll use the time to just say something really quick. I think there's a lesson for us to learn in this entire process that I have come to see a reoccurring pattern. And for me, oftentimes I move on principle and process. And I think these two things. What I continue to see is we have a lot to grow from and learn from. As it relates to not just this conversation just overall. So I'm just going to consider this as fits and starts. Like we're all figuring things out and assuming the best intentions, right? Because it is what it is. But to what is the most frustrating for me and I'll just speak for myself is the the last minute switch ups and information that comes trickle down. And it seems like. It just makes it really hard for us to make informed decisions when we don't have all of the facts in front of us. And I hope that we can all learn from from this journey. And I still say that while I do appreciate the explanation, it doesn't. I'm still stuck on how we got here to begin with. But I you don't have to go belabor the point. I just want to say for the record that I it still feels to me that this whole entire journey since we've entered this budgeting process , whether it be through the operating or whether it be through this, it just feels like the administration and the council. We've done our due diligence to find common ground. And it feels like sometimes when we get there the. Things switch up at the last minute, and that's frustrating and that's hard to build trust when you never know what you're walking into. So I just think as we continue to move forward in our journey here that, you know, either I ask better questions so I can be better informed, so I'll take ownership for that. But then I think that there's some work that everybody needs to do, including the administration, so that we can be set up for success in the next go round. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Somebody here, the chair recognizes counsel. Clarity. Counsel, clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And obviously, through the through the chair to the original question, there's no time since sensitivity on it with respect to other than the the fees that go out. And we do have up until I think the 24th but through the chair, I just want to state has done tremendous work on it. I've served in that capacity the last two years and just to try to herd and pull things together and deal with the different priorities and personalities and also dealing with the administration. It's it's tough stuff. So she's done tremendous work, I believe, obviously, in in the field house and the generations of of young people and families that that will serve. And I do believe that that that that should be, I guess, serviced and funded and supported by ARPA funds. I think that's exactly what they're for and getting to a position of having things be shovel ready and to get those services, those support and wraparound services around kids and families is, is really what makes this job an exciting thing to do when you can transform lives, children, families, neighborhoods and so this field how speaks to that and I think that that was sort of the spirit the intense behind ARPA that said through the chair to the original question is I guess was the question is it possible to table this I guess is the question. And I think that that is true. And but I would also, as a courtesy through the chair to the to and through the President to the chair, given the time and effort that has gone into her work here. Just want to make sure that we sort of we're not disrespecting her in that process. But it is a fair ask. We meet again back here on July the 13th. There seems to be some concerns about this issue and some tension and uneasiness about whether they're supporting or not supporting and what does it mean and what does it mean? And then the lawyers, I don't want to see Adam stop doing the shifty swerving again. And clearly, I want Christine, our attorney, in the room, frankly, just so that we're getting a sort of a full focus on it. But if this is a situation where we need to maybe get the legal interpretation, that's a good purpose potentially for a table. Or if there's a push and pull of this, where as a legislative branch of city government, we do believe that the field house should be included in ARPA funding and we need some additional time to convince folks that that's appropriate. Or if folks just because we've been here now since noon and folks just want to kind of, you know, vote your conscience for all that. But I think the initial question was, is it time sensitive? The question is no, but there are some RFP dates that through the through the presence of the chair need to be need to be adhered to. But also the other question I thought I heard was, can we table this? Which was not sort of answered, but I don't want to speak for you, Mr. President, or the chair or the maker of the amendment. It's kind of not my space. We've got a measure of an amendment that's been seconded. You as the president, obviously as the chief parliamentarian here. And then we also have the chair of the committee, and then we actually have a legitimate ask from one of our colleagues. And so within that sort of happy to just offer advice on it, but I want to defer it to the folks that have spent the time and have put the effort into this process yet. Thank you, Counsel. Clarity. And it's a it's a fair question. It's a fair question that Counsel Arroyo also brought up as well is what what is the time frame of this? There was a question from you, counsel, clarity as to what would counsel a bake a table this until we get more advice, we get a better opinion , we get more information from our central staff, also from legal counsel, probably at the at the mayor's office. That was the question I believe you asked, counsel, clarity and counsel Arroyo asked. I'm going to call on counsel Counsel Baker But before I do that, I would like to call on counsel BORK if you want to address that , because I think you might have some information that might be helpful to the body. So that is. Thank you, Mr. President. What I would say is, in terms of order of operations, I think that Counselor Baker has an active and seconded amendment on the docket that I've been speaking to. I think we need to take a vote on that docket. I think that is depending on whether the amendment fails or passes. I could address the question of tabling, but I can't I don't feel like I can address the question of tabling a docket where. The. Where where it's not clear yet what docket we're talking about. It's either the one that was originally proposed or the one modified as by Councilor Baker. Okay. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK I know I'm going to call on counsel. Baker Then I'm going to call on counsel. Arroyo After counsel. Baker You were next. I have no right to withdraw this. To withdraw this. I want to see a vote on this. Thank you. Counsel and Counsel Arroyo. That sort of answers the question. I was going to say if it was withdrawn to the table, but it sounds like that's been answered. So thank you, counsel. No further comments. No further questions. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The chair recognizes counsel to counsel. You have the floor. I withdraw my question. It was answered. Okay. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Counsel Fernandez. Innocent. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Chair, are you able to answer about tabling this at all? I'm sorry. I just. Yeah, I just want to. Give counsel back. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if Councilor Baker's amendment were to fail, then the docket would not face this legal question. So obviously, I would not be looking to table it if Counselor Baker's amendment were to succeed. Then the legal question would be on the table and then, like, you know, like consider tabling it. You might want to have further conversation the body. But but yes, that's why that's why I said it matters, because if the amendment fails, then there wouldn't be a legal reason to table it for two weeks. Thank you, counsel. It's it's my understanding in talking to the clerk that the only way it could be tabled is if Counsel Baker agreed to table it. His amendment. Yes. Yes. I saw that. No. You have the full council back? Yeah, I can see this. This doesn't get any. Better if this goes longer. This is my time right here. I want to see a vote on this. I've asked, you know, we should have had some sort of expression of of support on this. I had the hearing we had the hearing back in April. Four people have known this for four months. So this if this goes two weeks or whatever, it doesn't get any better from me. 5 million doesn't get in there. 2 million doesn't get in there. Nothing gets in there for me. So this is my time right here. Thank you. Counsel Baker. Counsel Carter is next. Counsel Cleta. And then I'm going to cut it off and we're going to we're going to take a vote. Counsel Clarity of the floor. Thank you. Council President Flynn Those that know me know that I love to prep and I love legal analysis. And so I would like to see a written response and interpretation from the mayor on Section 17. It sounds like Councilor Baker does not want that to happen. So with the information that is in front of me and the urgency of. The things that I have fought for. I love you, friends. I'm going to vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Carter. Um, we're going to take. We're going to take a vote. I think we've done enough discussing of the matter. We're going to take a vote. Mr. Clerk. We're taking a vote on council. A baker's amendment, although all those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Opposed. Well, Mr. Clarke, would you take a roll call vote, please? Roll call vote on amendment offered by Councilor Frank Baker. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. Councilor Buck. Councilor Buck. Now. Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden. No. Councilor Coletta. No. Council Leader No. Councilor Fernandes. Sanderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandes Hanson. Yes. Council 30. Council for clarity. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor. No Council and no council. Illusion Council. The Regional Council and me here. Yeah. Council on me here. Yes. Councilor Murphy? Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Council world? Yes. Council World. Yes. The amendment of council. Baker has passed eight in the affirmative and five in the negative. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Thank you. So I get. We're honored to be here to. So what I. Did the chair recognize this council by our council? BLOCK you of the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, at this time, given the fact that my committee report has been amended, I am no longer seeking passage today. I will ask you to keep docket 503 in committee, and I just will note that I will also be seeking that the late file matter referred to earlier goes to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Thank you. So Council balked. We're not taking action on 0503 at this time. Is that right, Mr. Carter? Of. No, no, no. Not tried before as well as I have before. I'm still seeking. Passage. 00503. We'll be back in committee. Yes, for the clarification. Next president council take. Does so meaning when this comes back my amendments in there. Yes. The Council. Baker has a question that I'd like to ask the clerk if he would respond to. Well since the committee report was amended, but it will go back to committee and as amended to add the $5 million. So it's in now. Because it was voted 8 to 5. Look. The Chair recognizes counsel by counsel of the four. I would still like to seek passage of Docket 050 for seeing as as was mentioned earlier, that's the that's the 40 million that supports the budget that's already been passed and goes into effect on Friday. Counsel Bork is seeking passage of 0504 in a new draft. All those in favor say I'm. Sorry, Mr. President. Not in a new draft. Original draft? Counsel Bork is seeking passage docket 0504. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Mr. Carr, can you please take a roll call vote on docket 050 for roll call. Vote on docket 050 for Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Baker. I counsel Baker. I counsel. Yes. Yes. Counsel. Brief. Yes. Counsel Braden. Yes. Counselor Coletta. Counsel Coletta. Yes. Counsel Fernandez Sanderson. Yes. Counsel Fernandez Sanderson Yes. Counsel Clarity. Yes, of course. I heard it. Yes. Counsel thing. Yes. Counsel Flynn. Yes. Counsel of Counsel. Ah, yes. Counsel. Louisiana. Counsel who's in? Yes. Counsel me here. Counselor me here? Yes. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy? Yes. And Counsel World? Yes. Counsel. Well, yes. Talking number 0504 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Carr. We're on to motions, orders and resolutions at this time. Docket 0503 will be sent back to the committee along with the motion that was passed. We're on slow motion orders and resolutions. Docket 0815 was withdrawn.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding title 22 (UPLAN Zoning Code) which adds new zoning districts and regulations to implement the 2019 long beach general plan land use element update and adoption, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1109

We have three hearings. We're going to start. We're going to start with 49. I'd like to introduce our development services director. Oscar Orsi to introduce staff for this presentation. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the City Council. This is the first phase of our implementation of the land use element vis a vis the zoning code. And I'm happy to introduce our new planning manager, Patricia. Patricia Defender for who will give you a brief presentation. Good evening, Mayor and council members Patricia defend Darfur. The item before you is the establishment of new zoning districts and rezoning of Artesia and Atlantic, Artesia Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue. That is part of the uptown planning, land use and neighborhood strategies or new plan process. Next slide. Please. This item has three main components. Thank you, sir. The establishment involves the establishment of a new Title three Municipal Code, Title 22 to facilitate the update of the zoning code with new zoning districts that will implement the 2019 General Plan Land Use Element Update and transition from existing the existing Zoning Code Title 21 two to the new zoning code. It also involves the adoption of 12 new zoning tools, specifically that implement three place types within the journal that were established by the general plan. I'll go into that in more detail. The 12 zones are comprised of six primary citywide zones and six series zones, which are tailored to the north Long Beach area. And then finally, the rezoning of properties on Artesian Atlantic to one of the six new acreage zones. This diagram just briefly just illustrates the relationship between the general plan and the new zones. So the city, of course, has a general plan in 2019. The land use element was updated and the City Council adopted an urban design element. The land use element established 14 place types. The zoning code implements the general plan. However, the current zoning code is does not have the range of tools that are necessary to implement the new general plan, taste type, place types. And therefore that is why the new zoning code is the Title 22 is being proposed as an update. And this the diagram kind of on the radar shows the 12 new zones and the fact that there are six that are tailored for North Long Beach. The planning process was a collaborative effort between the city and the community that resulted in the proposed zoning tools that you that are before the council today and that help implement the community's goals and vision for an area that is a thriving, livable and equitable community where existing residents benefit from the future investment and change in the area. This map shows the area that has been under study there. As our director noted, the plan process planning process is divided into two phases. The first phase is indicated by the orange on the map here, the two corridors that we've been discussing, the phase two, all that is currently in process and is expected to wrap up next year. It will address zoning and other considerations in the rest of the area on this map. This is just a timeline that kind of really is intended to communicate the level and extent of outreach that was done for this project. This project has had extensive outreach in the form of advisory committee meetings, workshops. Work audits, demonstration projects. The next couple of slides, kind of give more detail on the timeline. I'm not going to go into that in there in a lot of detail, but just highlight some of the more near term milestones. The zoning districts, the zoning code, draft zoning code that is before the council was first released to the public in May of last year, and it went to the Planning Commission in November, sorry, in June, and is now here before the City Council in November. This is just a division statement that was developed in conjunction with the community, with the community. A number of technical studies were prepared in order to inform the zoning recommendations, including an extensive parking parking study and feasibility testing of different development standards. This slide shows the map of the general plan place types that were adopted as part of the land use element. And you can see the three different place types represented on these corridors and the heights that are permitted per the general plan, which range vary between three and four stories. So the next slide, this is the zoning map itself and you can see how those place types were translated into these zones. The two kind of orange colored zone zones represent primarily residential but mixed use zones that also allow commercial. The three blue shades of blue represent different mixed use zones that allow both commercial, residential and combinations thereof at various types of uses and intensities. And the the pink indicates the area that is zoned for solely commercial use. So no residential is allowed there. To characterize the nature of these zone changes. These are limited to the corridors and involve minimal single family. They implement changes are already established in the general plan in terms of allowable uses and heights. The new zones limit new uses of certain types that are concentrated in the area, that are existing uses, are grandfathered in and are permitted to remain. The expanded use is allowed by these zones. Zoning tools are designed to encourage housing and a wider range of commercial uses to address existing needs for housing, services and jobs. The next few slides I'll try to go through very quickly. Just summarize the rezoning recommendations. In general, the uses are broader use categories that allow flexibility for new and evolving businesses. The use regulations support desired uses in the in the neighborhoods such as grocery stores and institutional educational uses. And it generally expands allowances for mixed use and residential development in areas that previously would only allow commercial. In terms of land use. There's incentives for, as I noted, desirable uses that were expressed as desirable uses by the community. And it places limitations on new uses that are concentrated in the area, such as motels, drive thrus, off site, alcohol and the like. Okay. So development standards, generally speaking, the new zones are form based and design oriented. They encourage buildings that are oriented to the street and that activate street frontages. There are new tailored open space regulations that scale with the size of the lots. In response to the shallow ness of some lots on commercial corridors and other physical site constraints. Okay. All right. I'm having trouble advancing the slide here. Let's see. Almost done. Okay. There we go. Parking in general has been modified to standardize requirements across a wide range of commercial. Commercial uses to facilitate building re-use and parking reductions are used as an incentive. So this find that this slide is just a recap that reminds the council and mayor of the different components of this project . And that includes, I think, that our civil deputy director wants to kind of summarize here in the slide. Sure. Thank you, Petra. So so tonight is very much about Councilman Austin and Councilman Richardson and these changes to their district. But I just wanted to place into context what this means for land use in the city and the tools that we're developing. Once they're in the toolbox, once they're in our municipal code, they may be able to, in the future, address issues elsewhere in the city. So the parking issue that we're addressing in this area is not totally dissimilar from the parking district that you find in Belmarsh or in Naples, in Councilmember Price's district. It's not that different from area south of here, south of the project area and in Bixby Knolls and in areas throughout the city. What's also similar is this is about context sensitive new development. This is about what is new development look like that's less dense, less intense than what you find downtown, but still brings new housing into our city and still transforms our commercial corridors, you know, whether they're in central Long Beach, north Long Beach or elsewhere. And it's really about being able to have a framework and then customize for every single neighborhood. So here you have a series of zones which address issues in North Long Beach. But at some point in the future, when we're addressing land use in central Long Beach or coastal Long Beach, we could have that same level of customization with whatever the community desires are in that particular location. So I just wanted to give you that preview because this is the first of many efforts we'll be doing over the next several years, and that concludes our presentation. Thank you. Are there any public comment on this? Yes. Our first speaker is carelessly. Carelessly. Our next speaker is Paul Babcock. Hello. Hi. Well, my. Cordless. Go ahead. Hello? Please begin. Hi, this is CALLER. All right. Okay. I'm concerned with adopting title 22 on zoning without public outreach meetings that include the whole city. Whatever is being adopted in the ninth district will undoubtedly be used throughout the city. I have never received an invitation to a first outreach session on this. The staff report is 325 pages long. I believe this is a complex topic. It is of interest to residents. It may be a great plan, but we haven't had the opportunity to learn about it. When you purchase a piece of real estate, you purchase the zoning. It is a key facet of a property description. Changing the zoning definitions is a major move. You're affecting each homeowner's personal real estate investment. It has been said that the American dream is to have a home with a front yard backyard and a white picket fence . And while I acknowledge there are other choices and opportunities out there, the group, the Work Picket Fence Group, is normally concerned with density. I'm told the new zoning document has made changes such as defining, set back or now the amount of setback required as measured from the sidewalk. In the future it will be measured from the street. What we'd like to have is the opportunities that the ninth district has. We would like to have the opportunity to understand the proposed building changes before there are certain. Thank you. The next speaker is Paul Babcock. Hello. Hello, this is Paul Babcock. I'm a resident of the fifth District, and I also provide, uh, housing in the third district. I'm very concerned about this, uh, measure and that there's been no participation from the third or the fifth District residents. And for the rest of the city, besides North Long Beach, as far as I know, the ninth District. This would be applied across the city. And I'm concerned about the far reaching effects of this and how it would affect my property and other properties within the city and how how it would affect my life and my quality of life for my family and for my residents and my rental units. Additionally, density is a big issue and they'll make sure, as you know, it's very dense and we don't want it any denser than it is. And we also don't want this density to pervade in the fourth District, and we'd like to have that taken into consideration. And lastly, remove the language that applies to the the whole city and give an opportunity for neighborhood outreach and discussion and understanding of the. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you, Governor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I certainly appreciate the comments that folks have given out. I support this. This project was planned. I will start with based on these these comments, that this is a phased in approach. We began this process well before the Louie process conducted with the focus on North Long Beach, really addressing some longstanding issues and setting a vision for the next 30 years that pull away from motels, liquor stores and move toward healthy food and things like that. And it became a great opportunity to test out new zoning that's really creative, innovative, some and the things that they've achieved. But as a phased in approach, that means we're starting here. But if there's any additional zoning takes place in other areas of town. They'll have to go through their own planning and outreach process. So this is not affecting anything in the fifth District of the third District. But we are really excited for what it does here in the ninth District. A few more reasons why I'm excited for it is that it's anywhere or it is only north. Bobby It limits the liquor store, something that I focused on, something that our predecessors focused on, something that Councilman Alston is focused on. Eliminate it. Make it more difficult to prioritize drive thrus and motels and automotive uses. But it's now prioritized healthy food options and housing and sit down restaurants, grocery store, the medical institution, institutional uses like a new beach city college. It also encourages safe pedestrian activity that incentivizes local employment through some really innovative steps and features. It incentivizes features that minimize future greenhouse gas emissions, such as tree planting and cool roofs and solar installations and bike infrastructure. So we're really we're really proud of this. One thing I do want to mention is that there's a lot of innovation in this plant. And one issue that's really been an issue for us is the overabundance of overconcentration of off sale liquor, liquor stores. And what this does is it moves away from the formulaic, you know, entities. You know, looking at how many you have in a census tract to determine whether it's appropriate and moves to something that's more contextual and emphasizes mixed use and good design principles and things like that. So we're making decisions around around liquor that prioritizes, you know, establishing sit down restaurants as opposed to more liquor stores in North Lombard . It's it's as you mentioned, it's designed to address housing issues is incredibly important. And at the same time, it's incentivizing things that we mean fitness uses, medical uses, things like that. One thing I do want to acknowledge is together, put together. We just adopted we just voted on the design of Radar Boulevard front. That's incredibly important because that is the public right of your medians, your lighting, your pedestrian environment, your bikes and all of these things. Your signal. And then this updates the zoning priorities of Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue. So together, comprehensively, it's just that a new sort of a comprehensive new vision, RTG Boulevard, a public right away and the private the private side of the house. So that's incredibly important. I want to thank all the staff has worked on this. Christopher Koch remembers our first conversations. My first term, when we talked about doing some sort of a masterplan. He partnered with us to go to tag Early Service President's Gang for that. And I was a regional council member and I put forward $250,000 based on the initial work that we did in-house with Alisyn and Christopher with the Guiding Principles. A number of staples up at the table for that. And we're in a really good place. So I really want to thank and I want to thank all the city staff and all the community partners who contributed to this plan. And this is really important for. Thank you for both. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I see this this item, this plan is an important step and milestone for implementing a new vision for North Long Beach. We have worked for several years to get to this point. The planning process started as in early 2018. It has involved a number of community meetings, visioning exercises and different community events, including walk audits that I've participated in with the community, with community members along the corridors in a demonstrated demonstration project that actually happened in the North Village on Atlantic Avenue. So so to the point that it hasn't been a community input. These were all public meetings. They were well advertised, and we encouraged a lot of public participation in this process. The I believe that the zoning changes and recommended zoning changes before us, and this document will help the Atlantic Corridor, as well as the Artesia Corridor, facilitate the new development that will help us realize this vision. It's so important for our economic development, but our housing needs, as well as many of the points raised by Councilmember Rich, said that, you know, there is a vision, there's a clear direction in terms of where we are going. It looks like mixed use is going to be in our future, particularly along these corridors in North Long Beach. And as the staff report indicated, the new zoning calls not only address what types of uses are allowed, but for the first time it helps address the look of our corridors. This is especially relevant for a portion of Atlantic Avenue that's in the eighth District. And I want to remind everybody that this is there's two two council districts involved in this plan, a district as well as a ninth district. But the there's an area of the district that is designated as an opportunity zone. And so this type of plan only helps with investment and interest in our community. I'd like to thank the residents who participated in the planning process, as well as the development services staff who worked extensively on this effort, as well as engaging up North Long Beach residents and stakeholders. And tonight is completion of phase one of this plan. And I encourage residents to continue to be involved in Phase two, which is currently underway. I will address zoning and land uses throughout the rest of North Long Beach, and so there's opportunity still for community involvement. I support this wholeheartedly and ask for my council colleagues support as well. Great Councilman Mongo. Thank you. We did receive. Some calls on this item and an email. I wanted to just clarify for the public and have it on the public record. That. Implementation of any. Of these new zoning, these new zones that are being. Created through the vote. Tonight, would have an additional community input process in the communities where those zones would potentially. Be added currently there are no plans to add those. Anywhere else but the uptown. Area. But if I could get a confirmation from city staff that before. They would be rolled into any additional community, there would be a. Community input process? Councilmember That is correct. This is tailored for the North Palm Beach area and subsequent phases will include public comment and public meetings. Wonderful. Thank you. That was their concern. And I wanted to make sure that they knew that that was correct. We weren't able to get a hold of them before the meeting. So thank you for that. I hope they're listening. Thank you. A roll call, please. District one. I district to. I am district three i. District four. I. District five. I just got six, I think District seven. I District eight. District nine. All. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. Next. Next hearing is turning 50. I'm sorry. I'm 50. Please.

Recommendation to receive the application of Coffee House Holdings, Incorporated, dba Starbucks No. 5578, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 7565 Carson Boulevard, submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC, and direct City Manager to withdraw the protest if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_06232015_15-0546

Report from please. Recommendation to receive the application of Starbucks for an original application of an ABC license at seven 565 Carson Boulevard. Submit a public notice of protest to ABC and direct the city manager to withdraw the protest if SC up is granted. District five. Mongo. Do we have a staff report? Honorable Mayor and City Council. The application in front of you is for the issuance of a Type 41 ABC license for the Starbucks at 7565 Carson Boulevard. This application will permit the on premise sale of beer and wine. And the application does require a. Copy that has not yet been applied for. And so a protest is in place. But the police department does not anticipate any adverse effects of the approval of the application. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongeau. Thank you. It's been a great pleasure to have some additional businesses join the fifth District this year and some of them are looking to expand. I hope that my colleagues will support me on this item. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Andrew. I know if I can have everybody exiting, please, which is always we're still trying to run the meeting, so we just quiet down. Think you guys. Some renders any public comment on item number 23. Guys, please. Thank you. Any other public comment? Item 23 CNN, please cast your vote. Motion passes eight zero. Thank you. Item 13.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to modify certain building form standards in response to slot home construction. Approves Text Amendment #3 to the Denver Zoning Code to create a new Town House building form with revisions to other related building forms to address “slot home” development through new or revised zoning standards for side-by-side residential development. Amended 4-16-18 to make reference to a corrected version of the text amendment filed with the clerk. The previously filed text amendment incorrectly stated in five locations that certain dwelling units located within 20 feet of the Side Street Zone Lot Line shall be oriented to the primary street zone lot line. The language in these five sections should have stated that the dwelling units shall be oriented to the Side Street Zone Lot Line. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.

DenverCityCouncil_05072018_18-0306

11 eyes. 11 I as accountable to 91 has passed. Councilwoman Stutzman, will you please put Kels Bill 306 on the floor? Well, certainly, Mr. President, I move that council bill 306 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 306 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, members of council. My name is only spoke with CPD here to present the tax amendment to address human development comprehensively throughout the city and county of Denver. So just a quick reminder of what our slot home's it's not specific to one building form nor zone district. So this is really a comprehensive citywide issue that we've had to tackle holistically. But generally speaking, slot homes or any sort of multifamily development that is side by side with the predominant characteristic of being side facing at the street. On the slide you can see a couple of diagrams as well as images illustrating a couple of different common slot home configurations. So at a very high level, the purpose of this project was to develop changes to the Denver zoning code in a way that holistically address home development to better engage the public realm. Consider the neighborhood character to be more in context. Address the human scale minimizes vehicular auto oriented impacts of the existing design while ensuring equity flexibility and predictability. And I'll get a little bit more into each of those items. But first, I want to talk a little bit more about the process that has gotten us here today. In the fall of 2016, CPD announced that we would be taking on this tax amendment. Smaller changes were made to the zoning code in prior years that were some of the quick wins. But understanding that this building form was occurring in a variety of zoned districts and a mix of building forms, we needed to really start holistically looking at it and specifically identify what that problem was. We had heard a lot from the community as well as from council members too, that this is an ugly form. We don't like it. It's not within character of our neighborhood, but we really needed to further identify that. And so the first phase of the project was really existing conditions, analysis of studying the neighborhoods and the zoning standards that were being exploited to create this form and then really creating and crafting with our task force. That problem statement, as we mentioned, we had a task force that was really critical and crucial to guiding this process. And that task force was a diverse representation of developers who were common, who commonly developed this type of building form architects and designers, community advocates and neighborhood representatives as well as council members here. So we really had a great diverse group of people with varying opinions on what the solution should be. But we started that off by getting a solid footing of what that problem is, and then went out to the general public and had a public meeting and Council District one with great attendance. About 80 people came out to really help us craft and refine what the problem is that we were solving for that resulted in the problem ID report. And then we started moving along to evaluate different zoning tool strategies that could be used to effectively address this problem. We also looked at Peer Cities to determine what sort of tools were going to be most effective. Here we had another series of task force meetings, also started doing some additional outreach to registered neighborhood organizations, to the planning board, as well as an informational item to really kind of kick start where we were. The bulk of the work was really in this third phase where we were selecting that strategy. And what I mean by strategy is a set of zoning tools that was going to be used to address lot home development, acknowledging that that strategy was going to vary based off of neighborhood context as well as our zoned districts. So with that, we had five different task force meetings. We had another community open house as well as six R.A. meetings that we went to and then the release of the strategy report as well as an additional planning board info item and LUDI infill item. We also consulted various industry representatives that were not on the task force to give us additional external gut check to really make sure, are we closing all the loopholes that we're intending to? And also, are we still allowing for a buildable product to be completed at the end of the day? So really where we are is a culmination in this final phase and that's the adoption phase. So with that, we had our final task force meeting in which we reviewed that draft redline review of the Text Amendment, which was informed by that strategy report. We also continued to go out to the R.A. and provide additional information and feedback there. And then we also released the public review draft for over 30 days prior to that first planning board public hearing, then went to Lou de Council and are here before you tonight for consideration of that text amendment. As of tonight, we have received eight letters of support from various Arnaud's excuse me, seven letters of support from various R.A. within the city, an additional letter of support from an individual, and then a couple of other comment letters that either express explicit support or not, but rather further refinements. Some of those refinements have been integrated into the draft before you when they were consistent with the overall strategy report and those objectives. So as you can see, that was a very comprehensive process that really started out with crafting this this problem statement. And also at a high level, what we found was the problem was it wasn't engaging in the public realm as you can. See on that top right photo. The pedestrian entry was a fire access control panel, and only the fire department is going through there, not the guests or the residents of the property. There was no window transparency as art and other alternatives are being used. And then you had kind of a predominant dry vial. So you don't have that public realm engagement, nor is it in character with the neighborhood design. The building mass scale, as you can see, is out of proportion to the existing buildings in the area, very clearly oriented with predominant drive veils running through and also interrupting that pedestrian experience along the sidewalk as well as those impacts and neighbors, especially with those rooftop decks in the rear. We also as well as having that problem statement, it was important to craft criteria for successful solutions that we were constantly going back and checking ourselves on the first one really being effective. This text amendment needed to and does effectively address that problem statement for us to arbitrarily proposed changes to the zoning code that would not be in alignment with this effective statement. It was also important that this met the needs of all the stakeholders, which was why it was so critical to have such a diverse and robust task force as well as maintaining housing options. We know that side by side residential is not going anywhere any time soon. So how can we improve side by side residential to still maintain that as an appropriate housing option throughout our city while allowing for flexibility, understanding that market design demands of our market is going to change over time and we need to build in that appropriate flexibility. Contrasting with it, though, but complementary is the important aspect of predictability. It's important for developers to understand what the zoning code means in terms of what their development potential is. It's also important for property owners and neighbors to understand what can happen across the street from them, next to them to their rear. So improving the predictability of is also a key element of this process. So in terms of kind of how this played out, we evaluated that existing slot home, looked at the existing conditions and crafted that problem statement and criteria for successful solutions. And that bulk of phase two, we really evaluated a variety of different zoning tools to really determine which ones are going to be most appropriate and what districts. And then we kind of broke it out into three different solutions or strategies, starting with the mixed use zone districts and mixed use districts are AMC's aims are some districts in that kind of third category. And these are typically our most intensive mixed use. Some districts that not only allow for residential uses, but also commercial office and even light industrial uses in some cases. So what we did is we actually introduced a new building form, the townhouse building form, which I'll speak to a little bit more . Then we also made similar changes into our multi-unit zoned district, which is typically restricted to residential uses and then down to our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned district, the row house zone district. And on a walk through each of these from highest intensity zone districts to lower intensity zone district. So on the screen, here is an example of an existing slot home that could have either been built in the general building form or the shopfront building form. And through the changes proposed in this tax amendment before you, you would no longer be able to use building forms to construct side by side residential dwelling units. Instead, if you're going to be using the shopfront of the general building form, you'll need to be doing either stacked units or a mix of uses or something else that you may not be using these building forms any further for side by side residential configurations. Alternately, though, we're still allowing for you to do side by side residential, but you're going to be using a new building form and that's a townhouse building form. And as you can see, the main tool here is that dwelling units that are located near the street must be oriented to the street. So allowing for additional density to occur in the rear and all the different standards that we're using are really intended to address that problem statement and ensure that we're meeting our criteria for successful solutions. So the biggest one here is creating a new standard that requires units that are located near the street to be oriented towards the street. So it creates more of a row house appearance from the street. We've also increased our primary street setback as well as our side street setbacks previously in the general or the shopfront building form. Those were zero foot setbacks and they didn't allow for the appropriate transition of public to private space, which is more appropriate for a residential development. So we've increased those setbacks, but then also allowed for porches and canopies and other required entry features to encroach into that space and create human scaling elements that are consistent with the neighborhood character. We've also reduced the building height and so we're no longer going to be getting four storey up hearing buildings and three storey zone districts. So better aligning building height and feet with building height and stories as well as requiring entry features such as canopies or porches and increasing that transparency standard of windows required at the street level as well as revising building. New standards to eliminate loopholes and garden walls that weren't creating outcomes as intended for the build, too. So these are kind of the high level elements that are applied to the mix. You. Some districts you can see in the red line review draft of the further details. Multi-unit zoned districts include multi-unit as well as our residential office. Some districts we have two building forms that we were seeing a lot home outcomes, the first of which was in the Garden Corp building form. And as you can see, this is an example of what could have been constructed in the Garden Corp building form and with a required width of only 15 feet for that garden court, it was much more like a slot than a court yard. So you may no longer construct an outcome that might look like this, but ultimately something that looks a little bit more like this. The big items to know is that we increase that courtyard width to a minimum of either 30 feet or 33% of the zone lot with whichever is greater, adding a proportional standard that is more appropriate. We've also required landscaping in the courtyard where none was previously required. We also introduced a transparency standard where none previously existed required entry features and required residential uses to enclose that garden card. So before you could just have your garage as an enclosure, which is not traditional or in alignment with that form, and hence no residential uses need to be enclosing it. We've also limited the off street parking area to the front of the lot, so you can't have dry vales coming along the side and accessing it and creating the outcome and increase the zone lot standards to 75 feet wide or 9000 square feet to ensure that this building form is in alignment with where it could actually be built. The other building form that was problematic in the multi-unit zoned districts was apartment building form. And as you can see, you could build something like this, which is no longer going to be allowed in apartment building form. If you want to use the apartment building form, you'll need to be doing a stacked unit configuration as opposed to a side by side dwelling unit configuration. What we have here is how the new townhouse building form that you would be required to use in the multi-unit zoned district. Once again, all of these standards that we're applying here are intended to address that problem statement and be consistent with the criteria for successful solutions. Once again, we're requiring dwelling units to be oriented to the street. We've also revised the primary street and block sensitive set back in these districts to create a better transition over time. And we've also increased that side interior setback greatly. A big difference between the mixed use and the multi-unit zoned districts is that that side interior setback for dwelling units that are not oriented to the street have been increased to 12 and a half feet while still allowing for some encroachments like canopies to occur in this area. But acknowledging that these are residential zoned districts, those impacts, the neighbors are going to be greater. So that's a significant change there between the two zone districts, as well as reducing building height, requiring entry features and increasing the transparency standard with revisions to the build to standard. Our real house zone districts are our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned districts. And what we had here was existing Garden Corp building forms. Once you can see not really a garden, not really a court. And we looked at exploring and utilizing many of the tools that we use in the multi-unit zoned district. But upon further evaluation and discussion with the task force, the Garden Corp. building form really wasn't going to be an appropriate building form for our lowest intensity, multi-unit zoned districts. So ultimately, we have eliminated that garden court building format as an allowable building form in the row house zone districts as well as townhouse. And instead, if you have a large plot like this, you're going to be doing a side by side townhouse construction where no additional dwelling units are located in the rear. We are also seeing configurations like this occurring within our rowhouse zone districts and this was an exploitation of a standard that required each dwelling unit to have a street facing entrance. And as you can see, there's another set of dwelling units in the rear that are street facing entrances, but they did not create the intended outcome of a row house. So what we've required now is that each dwelling unit must be oriented to the street, and there's more dimensional standards that require each of those dwelling units to be oriented to the street, not allowing for additional dwelling units to be tucked away and located in the rear, as this is our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned district. Also, just want to speak to a couple of overall code changes that go beyond the specific zoned districts in terms of improving predictability. A lot of our intent statements were created in 2010, but our zoning code has kind of evolved and changed over time. So we really wanted to make sure that each of these building forms were adequately captured. And so changes to those intent statements have been made, as well as graphics that more accurately illustrate potential outcomes for those building forms, improving supplemental design standards and rules of measurements to have a more clear, consistent administration occur and then also eliminating loopholes. We are also seeing a lot of loopholes occurring and in smaller building forms. And so those have also been eliminated as well. And then we've also made some some improvements to improve overall flexibility by revising the vehicular dimensional standard. Previously, you needed a 23 foot wide driver, which is the same as what you might need in a parking lot for a Walmart. But realizing that these are smaller developments that's been reduced down to 20 feet. So utilizing more space more effectively, we've also made some revisions to set back encroachments to allow some additional flexibility there for building articulation and canopies and so forth. And then we've also built in flexibility to the new standard such as unit orientation. So allows for slight variations and dogs to occur, understanding that those constraints on certain zone lots might be greater than others. And then we've also introduced a new kind of incentive for building heights with the pitched roof. So now pitched roofs, instead of being measured exactly the same as flat roofs, almost have an incentive as they're offered greater height for pitches. So in terms of this tax amendment, there are three review criteria that staff evaluates us against its consistency with adopted plans, furthering the public health, safety and welfare and results in uniform regulation across zone districts. So with this, I'll be focusing on the two citywide land use plans, the first being comp plan 2000, which is further detailed in the staff report, but really talks about encouraging infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding area. And what we were finding was that homes weren't consistent with that. So we are now applying new standards that further reinforce the neighborhood character, as well as ensuring that the new Denver zoning code reinforces the quality of urban design. So by improving standards such as transparency, pedestrian entry unit orientation, these are all in alignment with the comp plan. 2000 Recommendations Blueprint Denver at a high level talks about improving compatibility to the buildings and surrounding areas. Additional tools have been introduced regarding protected districts and so forth. And then I'd even talk specifically about developing standards to regulate building dimensions as well as unit oriented. And so really in alignment with some of those strategies for Blueprint Denver Blueprint, Denver also provides recommendations for areas of stability which are most commonly mapped in mixed use and Main Street areas. And what we're wanting to do is not only maintain the existing character, but also still accommodate for some new development and redevelopment, which this text amendment does still allow for, while improving compatibility and maintaining diversity of housing types and costs by allowing for side by side residential to occur in these areas. Excuse me. And then for areas of change, we have similar types of recommendations, but also really speaks to the importance of pedestrian supportive development standards. So really focusing on enhancing those those zoning standards that are at the street to ensure that we're creating an appropriate transition from public to private space in a way that's compatible with the neighborhood and the zone district, also eliminating auto dominant standards or removing that driver from splitting down the middle of these buildings and maintaining a diversity of housing types so that CPD finds that this maximum is consistent with the city's adopted plans. We also find that it furthers the public health, safety and wellbeing welfare by providing clear, predictable zoning regulations that reinforce the desired character of the neighborhood while implementing the city's adopted plans. And that these regulations will result in uniform application for side by side residential across the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. A lot of information to get through there. I appreciate it. We do have six individuals sign up to speak this evening. So I would ask that if you signed up to speak on this this evening, if you could make your way up to the front bench so that we can get through everybody efficiently . First up, we have Heather Noyes. Thank you. My name is Heather Noise. I live at 4492 Xavier Street and I was on the task, the slot Home Task Force. And my role on the task force was to represent INC and I was very happy to do that. On March 10th, CPD came to the and presented to the delegates at INC and they voted on a motion. The delegates were presented with a motion and they voted to support this test. The slot Home Amendment 52 in support zero opposed to abstentions. And I asked tonight that you support the the amendment. I think it's fabulous. I want to say big kudos to CPD. Annalise Hawk and Mike Hughes developed, managed and facilitated a just stellar process. It was accessible, transparent, inclusive, very thorough. And but it was not easy. It was super challenging. It was contentious at times. It was tedious, as we discussed and and argued about nomenclature and inches and feet. And this truly is a compromise. I don't want anybody to think that this is a win for the neighborhoods. It is not. I think we left a lot of things on the table, especially in my role as a neighborhood advocate, and it doesn't go far enough. You may hear from developers tonight that says that that will tell you it goes too far. But I really believe that this is a long overdue course correction. And I want to thank CPD for a great job. I have two comments. A vibrant, evolving city is a result of multiple systems functioning simultaneously, and there were many comments raised by the task force, by the public, by residents, the slat homes that pertained to and actually warranted the engagement of other departments, public works, forestry and solid waste. And some of these issues remain unresolved. And I say to you that in 2018, the days of siloed planning processes should be far behind us. The second comment I have is I've had developers tell me that if there's loopholes in our zoning code, they're going to find them. They've said that to me privately. They said it to me at the slot Home Task Force. And so it leads me to believe that this isn't the last time that we're going to see building forms that subvert the intent of the zoned district. And when this happens, CPD staff should have the authority to raise a red flag and put a brake on the replication of any building form that does not meet the intent of the zoned districts. We are spending millions of dollars as a city on visioning and we need the tools. And I'm. Sorry I missed noise, but time. Itself needs the authority to stop it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris. Denver. Homeless out loud. Black Star Action Movie for Self-defense. So it's my understanding that there is a moratorium on this lot homes as of right now until November. It looks like these spot homes are not affordable by any means. Like their lowest starts at $220,000 and goes all the way up to $700,000. This is definitely not addressing the affordable housing issue that Colorado and Denver is experiencing right now. Also. These do, I would ask members of council if you do approve this was it seems like you are leaves room for. In amendments. Such as? Am I such as? Is this going to be just for ranchers or is this going to be for ownership? Is it going to be a combination of the two and also north south orientation of the slot homes? So if a developer or owner wanted to put a solar panel up, they could and. Yeah. I'm just not in agreement with this. This is not the answer to the affordable housing crisis that Denver is experiencing right now. So I would ask members of council to actually vote no on this and actually take more in-depth research and observation into the effectiveness of this lot homes. And really, who is going to occupy these slot homes? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, security grant. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Gertrude Lagarde. Grant and I live at 242 South Lincoln Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a member of an R.A. that goes from Downing to Broadway, Spear to I 25. And we already have several of these slot homes in our neighborhood, one of which was constructed before the zoning code was amended in 2010. And my experience in delivering leaflets or fliers to these slot homes has been very discouraging. It's as though they don't want us to come to their front doors because their front doors are so at least the ones that I've gone to, they never come out. They never go out their front doors because there is no real front door. It's a door down on the ground. The dust, the leaves, everything is blown around. And it's as though they really don't want to be part of the neighborhood. There is no engagement, as they say. I love this term in the public realm. I'm not good at articulating this language, but I'm hopeful that this zoning code amendment, the zoning code amendments, will make it easier for the people that live in those houses to engage with the neighborhood and for the neighborhood to engage with them. So I support the zoning code amendment, and I can't believe Annalise Hawk got through that whole thing so fast. I wondered if she was breathing. It was amazing. Thank you. Next up, Charlotte Lindenberg. Good evening, members of Council. Charlotte Winsberg. I live at 590 South Sherman Street in the West Washington Park Neighborhood Organization, which, as you probably know from the letters we've sent, supports this amendment. As good said, we just have a few of these, but we've seen how much damage they did. And I want to really applaud the task force, especially up there and CPD, for the beautiful work they did on this project. Though these new designs and shapes look as though it would be a place people would want to live, not something that they would take because it was the only thing they could get in their price range or their accessibility. The changes in the setbacks are wonderful. I'm not going to take up more, much more of your time just to say that this is an amendment that really deserves your support and perhaps maybe not only the. Poster child for unintended consequences as we go down the road. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Citigroup. Chairman Sekou Black starts a movement. Contrary to. Many popular beliefs. Organization is not opposed to folks that got money. We're not. You're not. And we believe in the freedom that people need to have in terms of movement and selecting the neighborhoods that they choose to live in according to their ability to pay to be in that neighborhood . And so we approved this because of the work that was done by the task force. And considering all of the elements that are involved in terms of making this happen without actually pitting the neighborhood against itself and acrimony where folks don't want to live next door to each other because of zoning changes and building changes and architectures and whatnot. Know me personally. And I know sense and my. Looking at that up there for half million dollars. That's ugly. That's ugly. I, I just. But who am I to tell you? Well, it looks pretty for you. And what neighborhood you want to live in. Ugly house for half a million dollars. Buy it. And congratulations on a real estate broker who can sell it. Outstanding marketing. And. Thanks the folks who participated in this because reading it on the agenda, it was kind of confusing, you know, in terms of you don't want it to be slanted to here. But it was said it was going to be over there 20 feet. And that's not right. Because supposed to be like this only. Really? And then it's like. How did that happen? Because this is a big change in terms of what was said in the text and what we're now proposing in terms of the orientation of being a primary street versus a side street. And it's like. Okay. So I think planning for catching up and making a change to that because that's what happens down here, that this is not a perfect process, it's not perfect people. And the truth is to make this thing work. And I'm close with this. This is the teamwork that we were talking about that makes the dream of this city work. And we catch it when we catch it, and we're not throwing nobody on the bus for it and we move it on down the road, because for this city, it involves everybody. No matter what your income is, no matter what your tastes are, esthetic values and whatnot. So I'm close with that group. Thank you. Thank you. Last up, Maggie Miller. Good evening. Thank you for your service to this city. My name is Maggie Miller. I live at 451 24th Street and I have served on the slot Home Task Force since January of 2017. I am here to speak to the process that led to this day and ask you to please approve amended Council Bill 18 0306. Let's see. I hate slot homes. Hate them. Have you walked down a street with slot Holmes? I know some of us have here. It feels like being in a canyon. Slight. Holmes turned their shoulders to the street. So all you see as you're walking down the street is just a big blank wall. Denver at its best is a city of neighborhoods. DENVER It's at our best. Our good neighbors to each other. Imagine yourself walking along a sidewalk in your neighborhood, or maybe the neighborhood of a friend that doesn't have slot homes. Picture yourself waving to the elderly lady on the porch, chatting with the young couple, tending plants on their front stoop, or just saying hi to the guy sitting in front of his house coming out his front door. None of this can happen with slot homes, so I'm so glad we changed this about the process. It brought different voices into the room. It was very well facilitated and structured and it was informed by really knowledgeable people. The 16 of us were a varied group. We had developers, architects, neighbors like me, city council members and more. We definitely brought her different perspectives to the table. I learned about a lot of things I had never thought about before, and I felt heard. It was incredibly well facilitated. Mike Set It Up, was our facilitator, and he did an amazing job of keeping us moving forward while still making sure that everyone had to say we refined our problem statement criteria. We had a solid foundation for productive conversations. And in one of the slides, I don't know if you noticed, but we were on a field trip and we actually got to visit real slot homes and that was a bonding process. CPD staff and again, a shout out to Annalise Hook was amazingly knowledgeable. My hat's off to them. I'm in awe of them, frankly. So I'll wrap this up by saying that this process brought a variety of people to the table. It was very well facilitated and structured. It was informed by excellent, live, knowledgeable people. And I hope that you will approve this. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council? Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering whether or not any of the city. Staff had passed on the kind of list of items that were outside your scope, but pointed to the lack of coordination or even consistency between departments that I. Think it was Heather who. Referenced in terms of forestry and conflicting requirements. So is there some follow up plan for those types of items that didn't fit this amendment? Yeah, absolutely. So this law home tax amendment was really focused solely on addressing side by side residential. And so broader items like tree lawn requirements that apply to any development was something that was a little bit beyond the scope of this project. And we did city staff work to reach out early on, especially in the process with various agency departments, letting them be made aware that this was a process that was going on that we were hearing from our task force members and members of the public that there were comments that were related to them. So they've all been forwarded on and are aware of that in terms of specific projects to move each of these items forward. I can't speak to that as that would be a little bit beyond the role of CPD. But absolutely our intent is to make sure that we're not just siloing and only looking at the impacts of this within the zoning code, but understanding broader development. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. At least can you talk just a little bit to clarify the moratorium and also the November deadline, please? Oh. Just is going to throw this up. So as Made mentioned before, there's actually been two moratoriums that council has passed related to the sex movement. One is back in 2016, and that was a moratorium on the garden court building form, which primarily addressed the garden court building form and row house. Some districts, but probably more notable is the moratorium that was passed earlier this year in March, on March 10th, I believe that was. But essentially what that created was an earlier deadline. Typically the night of the council hearing is sort of that final deadline for projects to either be submitted or approved, depending on the ordinance language. What that moratorium essentially did was create an earlier cut off date. So any project that wanted to use existing regulations and essentially create a slot home outcome needed to be submitted with a formal site development plan prior to March 14th of this year. Any of those projects have until November 10th of this year to gain approval. If a project were to come into our door today, they would not be able to use old criteria and would be needing to use the new tax amendment review criteria. We have seen people submitting concepts and staff has been reviewing those concepts under the public review draft as well. At least that was the compromise of the task force. Right, to give a little extra time to use the old criteria for the developers that were not correct. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman. I thank you, Mr. President. And Liz, thank you again for a wonderful presentation and speedy presentation. I have a question about the garden court. Can you bring up the slide of the one that has the garden in front of the buildings that shows the picture? Okay. Thank you. I was walking my neighborhood this weekend and we have some beautiful garden court areas in in my district, built in the thirties and the forties. Single family homes around a very wide garden. When I look at this. I understand that there are still going to be able to build something like that. Right. But it has to be. Is it 30 feet across instead of the 15 feet? Are they going are they going to be required to have transparency up against the. Because I notice that the ones that I have built in the thirties and forties, they don't necessarily have big wide buildings or big wide windows facing the street, although they're lovely. Are they going to be required to have that kind of transparency on the street? So these will be required to have a level of transparency. So it's not going to be as high as the townhouse building form or, say, an apartment building form. That transparency will be 30% of the building fronting the street. So it's going to be more than what is required today, which is none. But there will be a transparency requirement, and we're still wanting to engage the street with some some amount of activation. You said it would have to be 30% of the of the. Of the. What is it, the square feet, you said. So it's 30% of essentially that linear distance of the street level building that is near the the street. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. And let me say I have a question for you as well. On slide number 35. There's a statement that says, eliminate auto oriented standards. Can you just elaborate on what that means? Yeah. I mean, I see the pictures, but that doesn't really tell me what that means. And those photos are just really illustrating the areas of change within our city of Denver. Ultimately, by eliminating auto oriented uses, we're wanting to remove those auto oriented uses away from the public realm, away from that public street, and put it to the rear closer to the alley. So we're not having drive sales cutting across where people are walking and, you know, improving overall pedestrian safety, as well as not having parking areas or driveways that are really visible and predominant features from the public right of way. That's very clear. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. My question actually is for our attorneys. I'm wondering. Does is there anything that would. Prohibit vesting power and whether the director of community planning and development to step in when when a. Loophole is found. And the obvious intent of an ordinance is undermined? Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney. I would just say that the charter vests this body with the zoning powers for the city. So if there were changes, they would have to come back through this body as some sort of action. In other words, we would need to craft an ordinance giving that power to the director of CPD. Potentially. I mean, we would really have to look at what that language looked like. I would just refer that, you know, the charter really gives this. Body the power that if. There was some sort of loophole, it. You know, the the charter says that it should come back through here for some sort of zoning text amendment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Along that line, Adam, is the ability for the director of part of the director of CPD to initiate text amendments. Is that solely in the zoning in the in the ordinance or is that in charter as well? I'm gonna have to look at the zoning codes because I'm not sure the manager doesn't initiate text amendments. I think that is a council process. The manager of CBD can initiate text amendments. Can, yes. And in this case, CBD initiated this text amendment. Okay. Oh yes. That's I'm sorry. That's, that's often. The reason being is if we played that out, I guess what you, you, the manager would always have that ability to, to recognize and to sort of immediately put forward a text amendment to address, you know, a potential pitfall, sort of what we do with our text amendment process as it is. But it could be sort of closer to real time. You know, they wouldn't necessarily have the ability to stop something per se, but they could make a decision that then gets appealed to the Board of Adjustment. And during that amount of time, it certainly could come before council. It's just saying that's a possibility. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council 306 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Annalise. I've come to other looting meetings for your presentations, and you're incredible. It is so professional. Your presentation. You explained it in a way that everyone can understand. And I think you just did a really incredible job. And I think a lot of people are really happy. This is a big problem in our city. I don't have any of my neighborhood guys and I'm glad I don't because I agree with you. They're really ugly. So thank you and thank you all for serving on that task force. I know that's a big commitment to. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Girl, I should have asked you a question on how many public hearings you've spoken at and how many of these things you've been involved with. Because you you you said on a least was our analysts or I've been saying it wrong all the time is amazing. And she she is. And she was. And the and you also mentioned that CPD staff was. Yeah. It was a great adjective. Something like it wasn't quite as amazing, but it was close. So I just wanted to reiterate those sorts of things. I wish I could remember the word because in the presentation slides 20 about roughly 23 to 29 is really a quick fire going through all the changes when they're sort of stacked stacked graphics that you don't really get into. And what was in there and was evident is not I don't think not necessarily evident to everybody in the room throughout the process. But who did get discussed is sort of the totality of concerns that have been raised and CPD has been tracking and they did get some measure of addressing throughout this process. And so the comprehensiveness of this within the framework of zoning is to me amazing. And I was watching it happen as an as a member of the task force. But a lot of times I was sort of just I was struck at how how the process was working to get to get at as close to the right outcome as possible. And in some cases, a better the outcome than I thought was possible in many cases, actually. And that's a credit to both the facilitator and to an Elise's managing in guiding us through the process and also getting us all up to speed, because there was a very, very vast knowledge gap between the stakeholders that were present. And to get people that generally don't talk about these things comfortable with sharing their ideas and conveying them, and then being understood and getting developers who try and sort of, you know, nuance these things to death to get their outcomes that benefit them and have that discussion. So that we we got to this point was was impressive to observe and and just yeah as long as it did take it was I think some of you guys acknowledged it it was actually pretty quick. In some regards, it's a long time coming. But it was pretty quick in the end. And. And. You know, it's so in the end, I'm just I agree with Heather, your comments and concerns about it not going all the way. But there are certain things that fall outside of zoning that relate more to addressing the sort of final bits of concern. With respect to public realm and design guidelines and standards that I hope and I trust that that that the city is working on, not hopefully in a faster timeline than what we've seen with addressing these big picture things on onslaught homes in general. But as far as what what we what we created in 2010 and how far we could go to compromise. I am really, really impressed with your work on police and your work staff. All you guys and all the people that also you. You're probably about a third to a fourth of the different CPD staff that stepped into that room opined on different things. And I'm sure there are others that never stepped into that room that were part of this process. This was a lot of work, and you guys hit every little touch point that needed to be addressed that that fell within your bailiwick. And I look forward to sort of supporting other conversations within, you know, with respect to public works and solid waste and the city forester trying to address those through other means where we can in a case in a sort of more local based basis. But as far as a citywide effort to address this unintended consequence and the potential outcome, I think will result in sort of better public realm, better civic engagement, at least by those occupants that are on those those those units oriented towards the street and engage the public realm on a regular basis. And it will it will be a way to capture increased density still in a way that is more conducive to our the character of our of our neighborhoods. So. That that is. I don't have enough. I've already said too much. But at the same time, I just. I could go on and I won't. All night. About how well you guys did. And how happy and impressed I am with the work that you guys did. And the way you shepherd, you in particular, shepherded this entire group. And I don't feel like anybody felt like they were left behind or unhurt in this process. And so I just really appreciate it. Thank you. And thank you, councilman. Councilman do annalisa i guess everybody is just praising you tonight and i will to you. Great leadership. You provided the team, too. You know, we had just great research on what we were doing and they just provided us with such great information and ideas. And I love the the visits we made. We saw some of the ugliest homes in the world and some of the some that really worked out pretty good. So it was very interesting the way it was all handled in. And I'm sure that with all the praise you're getting and I was watching and ready to give you a raise tomorrow, I'm sure Task Force was incredible. Was absolutely incredible. Yes. From the comments. Yeah. From Heather. Maggie, you can tell how our intelligent our test workers were. They did great for representing our neighborhoods. Great. And developers were very interesting. We had a lot of challenging comments and a lot of great discussion. So I was real pleased and it was is amazing too. That hadn't been mentioned is we came up with unanimous decisions on what we proposed and what we came forward with in terms of timeliness. And and so it was a, a task force that worked well together. And, and council council should be pleased to have in council as well as with their expertize in architecture is really helpful as well. Real pleased with the professional way we things have changed the design now and really feel good about the new criteria and how it's really going to help neighborhood character and support our neighborhoods and and is really going to like have a vision. It's going to bring better intent to the zoning district. We had a real problem trying to figure out where to turn when it did match some of the building forms. And this is a really great way that this being straightened out is so, so. And one interesting thing is our family and my colleagues will appreciate this because I finally met some architects to look at our debate now, Councilman Espinosa, at the task force meeting. So but anyway, it was an incredible job. We were really pleased. We pleased to support this. And it is going to be a great addition to the zoning code. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem, I just wanted to add my appreciation as well. First to my colleagues, Councilman Nu and Councilman Espinosa, who really kind of pushed bringing this issue forward, trying to get CPD to assign staff to to work on this issue in. And Luis, you done an outstanding job along with your colleagues who were in the room today and obviously with the input from the residents and the developers coming to a place where normally this room would be packed with folks on both sides of the issue sharing their opposition or their their favor for this piece of legislation. And the fact that we pretty much had everybody in support of moving this whole thing forward speaks a lot to the process. And the fact that people really, as was stated by my colleagues, felt like they were listened to and input was incorporated into what's been brought forward to the floor of council tonight. And I just want to say thank you to all of you who were involved in making this happen. You can drive through neighborhoods across the city and see some of these sprinkled throughout. You can drive through the Sloan's Lake neighborhood and see them all lined up on certain streets where they basically have wiped out single family homes and are, you know, kind of throughout that neighborhood. And I think these changes will be really great for not just the neighborhoods that these are being placed in, but for the folks who will be living there, who will feel like they are part of the neighborhood as well. So congratulations to all of you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to congratulate a lot of the folks in the community, our staff, CPD staff, but two councilmen over there we knew and Rafael Espinoza. I know this is a this was a growing issue as a lot of head scratching. And, you know, this council has a lot of talent. And it was able to I think, you know, every every council member brings different things to the council. And this is one of those examples of what they bring in and how we were able to work with the community and with staff to create a solution where there was a lot of folks kind of scratching their heads in frustration. I think without a doubt, these slot homes were an abuse of our zoning code, plain and simple. The robbed our neighborhoods of character and the rob residents of community. So I'm glad to see that tonight. At least they'll be one measure in place to, uh, to correct an issue. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Rebecca, I've. Forgotten two very important things. I want to thank my colleagues throughout this process, recognizing the importance of this process. Because it was that recognition. Repeated questioning of of things as we went along that lent the support to Councilman New and myself throughout this process. But I also forgot to acknowledge that none of this would have happened without weighing, you know, really initiating the first the moratorium that, you know, needed to happen on garden court and then sort of creating the path, a creating a pathway for us to actually get to this task force by sort of encouraging the use of resources that were always at the ready, but that were very much in need and in so many things in this city. And so thank you, Councilman knew working with CPD director Brad Buchanan in sort of initiating this whole thing and letting it happen. I think it's clear it needed to. And and so. Thank you, councilman. You. And colleagues. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Well, seeing no other comments, I'll just add, you know, this is great because not only does it clearly meet the criteria and it's a feel good in the room with everybody supporting, but it's going to directly lead to better development in our communities, which is really important. And so I want to thank everybody who on the staff side, on the council side, on the community side, who work together to bring this forward, make it happen. I'm excited vote yesterday and I just want to give a shout out to Charlotte and 32 of my district seven residents who spent more of their time and their talent and their expertize and their knowledge advocating for their community than anybody I know. It's inspiring to me to see you out at these things time and again and at every meeting, and just you constantly fighting for our neighborhoods. And so thank you for what you do as well. With that, Madam Secretary, I think we are ready for roll call. New Ortega Sussman. Black Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. Hi. Mr. President. I am Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. Lebanese 11 I as council three or six has passed as amended, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

A MOTION requesting the executive provide an assessment report that makes recommendations on roles and responsibilities of the county and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority in responding to the regional homelessness crisis, and a motion accepting the assessment report.

KingCountyCC_09012021_2021-0289

But I will point out that Mr. Nicholson's tie is overrated and unnecessary. With that, we will move to item seven on today's agenda. Motion 2021 to 89, which would request that the executive provide an assessment report that makes recommendations on roles and responsibilities of the county, city of Seattle and King County Regional Homelessness Authority and other cities in King County in responding to the regional homelessness crisis. April Sam Saunders from Council South will provide the staff report. Misunderstood. The line is yours. Thank you. Good morning for the record. April Sanders Council Policy Staff. The materials for item seven begin on page 65 of your packet. As a reminder, on December 11th, 2019, Council passed Ordinance 19039 authorizing the executive to enter into an interlocal agreement with Seattle for the development of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. The authority has the mission to significantly decrease the incidence of homelessness throughout King County using equity and social justice principles. Additionally, on October 12th of last year, Council passed Ordinance 19179, which imposed a 1/10 of 1% sales tax for housing and related services. Since passage of the through housing sales tax, the executive has announced purchases of six hotels to house individuals experiencing chronic homelessness and of the six, three are located in Seattle and one each in Renton, Auburn and Redmond. With that background, I'll get into the legislation in front of you today. Proposed motion 2020 10289 would request the executive transmit an assessment report to the county on or before March 31st of 2022, as well as the motion accompanying the report. The report would provide a vision for and make recommendations on roles and responsibilities of various entities in responding to the homelessness crisis. The entities for which the assessment report would account are King County, the city of Seattle, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and cities represented by the Southern Cities Association. The Assessment Report would provide these recommendations for roles and responsibilities in the near term, the immediate term and the long term. In addition to recommendations on the roles and responsibilities, the assessment report would do the following. It would identify investment and funding for the care program and describe how investment in programs will align with those administered by other entities. It would describe how the entities would coordinate on capital investments in facilities and operations in and maintenance of the facilities. It would identify which, if any, recommendations should be implemented from challenge to Seattle's Chronic Homelessness The Crossroad Report. And it would describe each entity's role and response roles and responsibilities and implementing challenge the panel's recommendations. As a bit of background on these last two components of the report, the organization Challenge Seattle is an alliance of chief executive officers from 21 of the region's largest employers, including Alaska Airlines, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Costco and the Expedia Group. Challenge Seattle released a report entitled Chronic Homelessness A Crossroad, which provides recommendations on addressing homelessness. The recommendations are in the following categories emergency housing for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Individualized on demand services. A command center to support individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Utilizing real time data. Qualified. Experienced case managers. And transparency. Accountability and evaluation. The proposed motion states that the executive should consult with the City of Seattle, the Regional Homelessness Authority and the Sound Cities Association in development of the report. That brings me to the end of my staff report, and I'm happy to take any questions. Angela Bassett. Did you want to speak? Maybe if I could, Mr. Chair, just just provide a little bit additional context. First of all, I appreciate you scheduling this so quickly after introduction, and I'm not looking to move it today. There's not a rush on this. Second of all, let me see if I can undersell it a little bit. This is not intended to be, nor is it a policy motion. I'm not looking to set any new policy here with the council in this area. It is not a motion that calls for a new plan. I think we've got enough of those. And the Regional Homes Authority is going to develop kind of the regional plan. This is a very basic, at its core motion requesting kind of a status report that we took out the words plan and not looking for anything there . And it's really driven by kind of the developments in the last couple of years since we set up the Regional Homelessness Authority, which is getting going now, and major developments, including our health through housing, where we're hoping to bring on some 1600 units of a kind of a new kind of housing that we've led the effort in creating here and the hoteling programs that have kind of come out of the pandemic that the county and the city have done just cares and similar ones efforts by some of our cities, like over in Bellevue, where they're standing up the new men's shelter. And basically there's a lot of additional kind of major developments that have occurred, I think, since the regional homeless authority was envisioned. And we, of course, the county will continue to provide, I think, our behavioral health services role. So this motion and then we've had this fairly significant report from Challenge Seattle, which looks at some other jurisdictions like Bakersfield, California and San Diego and has some recommendations there. It seemed like an important report that's gotten some attention that we ought to at least consider enough in a formal way. So I guess what I'm seeking to do here, Mr. Chair, and colleagues in the motion, is say, given those things that have occurred, and particularly after we transition some of our contracts over to the Regional Homeless Authority, Homelessness Authority here toward the end of this year, what is our role as the county going to be? What are some of the other players roles? And what, if any, recommendations should we be doing out of that challenge? See, I don't report a dialog with the executive and I think we have Kelly Ryder here in a for her for comments. They have a request for some additional time, which makes sense to me. And also, if I understand it correctly, some additional scoping modification. We don't want to be recommending what other jurisdictions should be doing. I think as I understand the core of it, and that all seems fine, fine to me. And I would like a little more time, a little more time, Mr. Chair, to work on language with them that suggested that we get into amendment form and bring it back to you. So that's it. And I'm happy to answer questions about that. Or you can have staff or maybe Kelly has a comment. As writer do you have? I will take that as an invitation. As writer, if you'd like to ask for comments, you're welcome to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Kelly, writer, government relations manager for the Department of Community and Human Services. Happy to provide some brief comments here today. We think this is a reasonable request. We will be working through and over the next several months, especially as we prepare for the 2324 biennial budget process. We know that the homelessness system has always had close intersections with our mainstream systems, and so we will be doing the work to ensure that we have clarity around roles and responsibilities in the evolving work of the King and Regional Homelessness Authority. And it makes sense for us to be very transparent with you all in identifying where those are and our evolving work to ensure that we can meet the housing and homelessness needs of our region. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. Kelly, tell me the name again. What? Our program is where we're at the medical home where we put mental and physical health together. What's the name of that program? Are you thinking of the King County Integrated Care Network? Councilmember. Yes. So an integrated care network. Some of the counties are not having a lot of good success there. And so as as people are homeless, they may also have medical or mental health issues. And I want to make sure that we keep we keep that final authority even over the integrated network, because some of the counties have experience where they're not happy. But they have lost the control. So I'm very concerned about that. And then in the conversation that we had the other day, where not all of the information and a person is going into HMRC, only certain kinds of information is going into HMRC. So whatever information is not going into HMRC, we have to have a central place that you put in, you know, person X that whatever portal they came in to get services that the providers all know what those services are. So we're not being redundant and we're not getting good data. So those are my two concerns. Where's our data? If it's not integrated? HMRC and then keeping our role with Integrated Care Network are two things that I want to make sure that we are clearly on top of. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councilmember. We certainly share your interest in maintaining our role in the King County Integrated Care Network. We believe that it's an innovative and strong program to be able to address the region's behavioral health needs and maintain our ability to really find intersections with the work that we are already doing as the county and be able to leverage those Medicaid benefits. What we know is that there are folks experiencing homelessness with behavioral health challenges and behavioral health disabilities. We also know, though, that the broad number of folks experiencing behavioral health disorders are not homeless. And so we want to make sure that we have a behavioral health system that's able to address the wide ranging needs of all of our county residents, while ensuring that those specific needs of our folks experiencing homelessness are being met. And so we feel that that's a great opportunity for the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to partner with us, to be able to help inform where there may be gaps that they're identifying among our folks experiencing homelessness. We I also heard your question the other day about the data system when we're speaking about the Navigator program. We are doing some work right now, especially to figure out how we ensure that the behavioral health data system and the homelessness data system are able to inform each other while being very careful, as always, about the requirements that we have to maintain secure and private data. We're doing some work on that. We will continue to build out our ability to really understand the systems. And I think having the King County Regional Homelessness Authority really lead on how we address the needs of homeless folks and inform our mainstream systems while our mainstream systems are able to inform them, is going to be a great path forward to informing you more about that through this report. Colleagues. Other questions regarding the motion before us. Discussing. Looking forward to the continued work by Councilmember Dombrowski and everyone's otherwise on board. I'm going to put words in your mouth and see if I can get anybody to say anything. And seeing some nice things. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And if colleagues have ideas, you know, this is a very simple kind of leap motion and Malcolm, other thoughts, but that's kind of where we're headed. And Kelly signaled one other thing that I didn't mention, which in my conversation with the exac I thought are the exact branches should be clearer I thought would be helpful and that is we will be heading into the, you know, a new a new budget season next year. And this document, the report coming out of it could be helpful in kind of just setting some. Setting setting the table a little bit in this space to help us see, you know, who's doing what and where we're going to be. And so I think it will be from a timing and content perspective, could be helpful there, too. So I appreciate colleagues taking a look at it and their time on the agenda today. So quickly out of the gate, Mr. Chair. You're very welcome. We look forward to discussing it further. Madam Clerk, we didn't miss anyone in any votes today. Is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chair. Then we will move toward executive session again, as I said at the beginning of the meeting. There is no intention to take a vote after executive session, but I will come back to this zoom to reconvene and adjourn.

A proclamation honoring Michael Eugene Somma for 35 years of service to the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0613

That being said, I don't see any other council member announcements. Presentations? There are no presentations. Communications. There are no communications. We have two proclamations that are being postponed tonight. I'd like to ask either council member Sandoval or Flynn, would you be willing to put a proclamation 613 on the floor? I believe, Councilman Sandoval, you're going to do that. Yes. And. I move that proclamation. 613 be postponed to Monday, July 27. Thank you. We are going to have that adopted. And can we have a second, please? We have Councilman Flynn as our second, and that's going to move the proclamation to be postponed to Monday, July 22nd. Any comments by members of Council? Council member, Sandoval. Yeah. Thank you. So I spoke to Lieutenant Selma this afternoon. This morning. And we just felt like it was better to have a long night ahead of us and we had our these elections. So just felt it was better timing to have this two consent or two next week so we can figure out some type of celebrate celebration for him from his retirement as well. So I think you add up the support of making sure that this gets postponed. Perfect. Thank you. Seen no other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please. And just. For the. Record, we did have this motion put on the floor to first adopt the second. Of the adoption. I'm sorry. Councilman Flynn. When that. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. And so we are very welcome to postpone it to July 27th. Black. All right. CdeBaca. I like I. When I. Heard him. I think I. Him. I. Which I. Anymore. I am so. I. Torrance High. Council President. I am. I'm pleased to close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours 12 I's Proclamation. 613 has been postponed to July 27th. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Proclamation 715 on the floor?

A resolution adopting emergency rules for innovative and inclusive access to the public so that essential city business can be conducted during the declaration of local disaster. Adopts emergency rules for City Council. Councilmember Clark approved direct filing this item on 3-23-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03232020_20-0306

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Councilmember Gilmore. We also need a motion to suspend the rules of Council to allow for the introduction of a late filing. Thank you. Council President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the. Introduction of Council Resolution 20 Dash 0306 adopting emergency rules for innovative. And inclusive. Access to the public so that essential city business can be conducted during the declaration of local disaster. Thank you, Councilmember. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of council and as a reminder, this is just to introduce this item. If you would like to discuss this item once it's introduced late, then you can call it out during our recap. So seeing no comments, Madam Secretary and council members also a reminder that we need a unanimous vote for approval of this item to be introduced. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn All right. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Hines Sorry. Cashman. I can h. I. Torres, I. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting in office. Results 989 A's Council Resolution 306 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution title. A City Council direct file, a resolution adopting emergency rules for innovative and inclusive access to the public so that essential city business can be conducted during the declaration of local disaster. Thank you, Madam Secretary and Council Member Gilmore. We need another motion to suspend the rules of Council to allow for the introduction of a second late filing.

Recommendation to adopt Minute Order declaring a moratorium against the issuance of any new "exemptions" from the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for those alcohol related uses set forth in Footnote 1, subsections b through e, inclusive of Table 32-1 of the City's Zoning Code; and directing the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission to undertake a study pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.50, to determine whether or not the City's current zoning regulations related to CUP exemptions are appropriate or need further review or modification.

LongBeachCC_03172015_15-0211

Thank you. Now we're going to take 25 before moving on to the rest of the regular agenda. Item 25 Communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember, your UNGA recommendation to adopt the order declaring a moratorium against the issuance of a new exemptions from the SEAL requirement for alcohol related uses and direct the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission to undertake a study pursuant to Longreach Municipal Code to determine whether or not the city's current zoning regulations related to SIP exemptions are appropriate or need further review and or modifications. Thank you. There's a motion by Councilmember Richardson. I'll turn it over to him. Which with the second by Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So. Currently the CFP process is one that enables us to bring in uses that might have an impact on our communities, such as alcohol, trucking, things like that, and provides a public avenue for folks to vet and evaluate those impacts in in the in year over the over years of having this contemporary process . A number of exemptions to that process have come into place that have created sort of a patchwork of holes in this ACP process. So so although there are there are a number of exemptions that that might have made sense on a case by case basis. But my concern is that we haven't taken a holistic approach at these exemptions. For example, there's an exemption for a department store or florist that sells accessory sales of alcohol. So that would be an exemption if a florist were to sell hard alcohol, for example, that's exempted from our conditional use permit process to evaluate whether or not that that could potentially have an impact on the community. And the zoning code gives no specific explanation as to why these uses are not required to go through a public vetting process prior to commencing the sale of alcohol. And the code currently doesn't distinguish between the sale of beer and wine and the sale of hard alcohol, is there? Is there a specific difference between the two? So in my research and in speaking with the city manager and city attorney, I wasn't I wasn't comfortable with the explanation for these these exemptions as they are. And I'd like for us to take a look at these so that we have a fair, clean process on how we administer conditional use permit. Now, to be clear, there are a number of exemptions that make a lot of sense and that we utilize all the time. One of them one of them specifically is the one on on restaurants that serve food. That's an exemption that I'm not saying that we need to review. There's another one that's specifically related to grocery stores, specifically grocery stores. And that's something that my motion I'm asking that that not be included. What I'm talking about is everything else, all of these things. There are department stores, there are pharmacies and florists that have that are exempt from this process. And I want to hit the pause button on that exemption. For a period of three months so that our staff can take a look at it and come back with one comprehensive look at the entire exemption process. So the moratorium would be on all of those exemptions except for like grocery stores, like outright grocery stores and restaurants that serve food. The entire policy is under review, but the exemption is just for those two. So that is my motion. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Councilman Kanjorski, want to speak to your second? Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Rex Richardson for bringing this forward because I think it's a really good review to be able to look at. I think it's it's time that we give the process a little bit more in-depth of a review, and I think it's vital for certain communities. I know in the first and the ninth and some other communities that have been inundated with other issues related to violence, related to alcohol consumption, I think we just had, you know, the a good example here on our very first hearing and how it can affect the community so much. So I just want to thank the councilman for bringing this forward. And I look forward to the review and to see what it brings back to us and what we can do going forward. Thank you. Get him to go to the speakers list. Councilman Mongo. If I could ask city staff, I know that the trend is towards department stores that actually include grocery, for example. There are targets that sell. A large section of their store is actually for grocery. So what percentage of a store would need to sell grocery? And or are we saying that it's based on square footage of the store? Is it based on sales of the store because certain types of stores aren't going be able to spend? Maybe they spend 50% of their square footage on grocery, but the price of electronics far exceeds the price of grocery. And therefore the sales wouldn't support that in terms of counting of those grocery. So what what would you term as grocery? Councilwoman, I'm going to turn this over to our director of development services, Amy Bodak, who who's been working on this. Councilmember Mongo and City Council. That's clearly something that we're going to look at. But it's and there are other jurisdictions that have a higher threshold of exemption, as well as a lower threshold of exemption. But I think the issue that we're looking at is standalone grocery stores versus general merchandizing stores. That also carry groceries. So I think that's going to be the distinction that has blurred over time in our definition of a grocery store. There are certain grocery stores that are not able to get a CPA exemption because they're frankly too small. Our current regulations are at 20,000 square feet. So, for example, you know, a fresh and easy would be required to get a cup. They would not be allowed to get this exemption. So I think we need to do. Some work on the definition. Of grocery store as well as that square footage threshold. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I may go to the city attorney and then to Councilmember Andrews. Me or members of the council. Councilmember Richardson, I think if this were to pass this evening, as as the motion has been made, the moratorium would go into effect immediately. And I was wondering if the three months could be stretched to maybe four months, because since it goes into effect immediately, it'll be three meetings before the actual moratorium ordinance will come back to you and the study session two planning commission, etc.. Sure. Just to be clear, the reason I said three months is I want this I don't want this moratorium in place just for the sake of having a moratorium. I want to allow you to do this review because I think it's important. And the sooner we get this completed, the sooner we can remove that moratorium. So if you if if you guys are comfortable with four months, I'm okay with former. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Councilman Richardson, I think this is an excellent idea because the fact that first I was a little concerned because especially when you all of a sudden you are exempt the grocery stores because of fact, I think everyone that does not have a grocery store in their area, I'm sure that they would love to get one. And by you doing what you just did, I think this would be a great idea, at least gives them a possibility and understand that they could come into those neighborhoods and knowing that they wouldn't be penalized because of, you know, the liquor situation being a grocery store. So thank you very much for bringing this item to the board. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I'd actually like to ask a question of one of my colleagues on the council. It. There are often times where we can research things while the status quo is in place. I know that in other cases we've put moratoriums on and I don't know that I heard that the city staff was asking for it. But I know that Vice Mayor Lowenthal has done moratoriums in the past to do study sessions. Is there a significant benefit to doing the moratorium, or would we be able to maintain the status quo while still doing the research? So just purely from my experience in issues that we've dealt with and brought forward, the moratorium has been helpful because then there isn't a flood of applications, flood of activity. There isn't an attempt to game. The system in that short time period. And not to say that that would happen, but it does obviate the possibility of that happening. So I found it to be helpful, but that's purely from our experience. I'm from city staff. How many requests do we have pending that would be put on hold? Should we move with this tonight? How many businesses would be impacted that are currently in the that we know are coming forward with this? Right now, we have no applications on file that I'm aware of as of yesterday that would be pending. But there is an expectation of probably two coming in the next six months or so. And would they. Be exempt to the moratorium based on the conditions set forth by Councilmember Richardson? Would they be exempt from the moratorium? No, they would not be. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to thank Councilmember Richardson and Gonzales for bringing this forward. As you know, particularly in North Long Beach, the issue of over proliferation of liquor stores and liquor is is has been an issue. And, you know, we tried to address that by bringing forth the alcohol nuisance abatement order, which has been largely successful. And we did so out of response to our constituents, our constituents who are saying that there are too many liquor stores and liquor is too accessible in North Long Beach. And so this moratorium, I think, allows us in last hour to kind of recalibrate our our position and and allows us this council to take a more active role and take a closer look at such licenses. I want to say that that I do do appreciate the fact that you have exempted the grocery stores, because I think that that is a it's an obvious that, you know, you you can you can you can buy liquor in a grocery store. But, you know, you can also go there and get healthy food options like food, fruits and vegetables and and other household needs for for for consumption. And so it just makes sense and it makes it very convenient for for residents to do that. And so with that, I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you. Councilman Mango Councilmember Austin, would you be open to taking. Oh, you're not on the amendment, but perhaps coming together on a substitute motion that really goes to what you said, which is to to exempt all organizations that may bring forth a request that have healthy food choices available to them in their store. I mean, while I recognize grocery stores. Primarily sell grocery. They also sell office supplies and other things. Would you be open to the idea of exempting everyone who sells grocery? I don't think it's up to me to be open to the idea. I think we have three council members who have made a motion. I was asking if you'd support a substitute motion. I think you should. I like. I like the. I originally thought you'd made the motion when I started my sentence, so maybe I can go back on. I didn't make the motion. I, I, I was speaking in support of the existing motions. Councilmember Richardson, would you be open to that friendly amendment? I think what this does is and so my answer is no, because I think the entire policy is going to get a good work over by city staff and like we want to be intentional about like we're hitting the pause button if we say. No one's included in the in the moratorium. Then what's the point of having the moratorium? Well, you have some exemptions already. Why would it change for the percentage of grocery they sell? I don't know that like. I think there's a logical argument to a restaurant with food, right. There's a there's a number of restaurants ongoing that are located in the city. But I just can't, like, think about a florist that would need to sell. Gray Goose. I don't understand that. So let me help you with that. Actually, my family used to own a basket company, and we used to sell to florists. And so graduation is coming. And upon graduation from colleges and universities, oftentimes with your bottle of champagne, along. With an issue, there's no distinction between a hard alcohol and a soft. I've been doing a lot of research and talking about this. I would say I. I support my motion in its current form, but I'd love to continue the conversation. Our city staff is is evaluating this. I just want to warn my colleagues that I have concerns for sales in the coming months because of a moratorium, specifically the only category. Well, there's one category that's artificially inflated, but with the exception of the one category that's artificially inflated, the only other category by which we meet our sales tax revenue percentages without leakage is is liquor. And so we are going into tough budget and economic times. And so while I appreciate that, we do need to look at this and I think that it needs a very serious look. I also am concerned about the viability of some of the flower shops that have contracts with one 800 flowers or FTD or any of these organizations. People want to send out graduation things. May is coming. There are wedding gifts that come with balloons that are tied to champagne bottles and the such. And I just don't want to have a disadvantage to our Long Beach stores that have national contracts because of a short term moratorium. And so I would hope that we could look at the ordinance without burdening our grocery stores and our flower shops that have not. I have not heard a complaint yet about the matter. And that does not mean that it's not. Broken. There are still things to look at, but I would hope that we wouldn't put ourselves in a fiscal standing like that. To look at a lot. I think that as we look at it, if we find certain categories that we want a moratorium on any given Tuesday, we could bring them here. So because of that, I won't be supporting the current motion, but would be open to any of my colleagues putting in a substitute that had a little bit more fiscal. Concern in council member. I think the residents of North Long Beach in areas with significant impacts from liquor would have wished the city council would have hit the pause button many, many years ago. Okay. I'm going to the speaker's list. Councilman Gonzales. I would also agree that, you know, I think when we're looking at this, I don't think it's to be anti-business. I think it's to be pro our residents and also looking at what's best for them versus just looking at it more in a fiscal lens. And so I think that when we look at this, it's really for the impact of our communities. And so I would certainly support the the policy. But I would also ask I just want to ask Amy really quickly. So we have a couple of things we're going to be scrutinizing a little bit deeper in this. So the definition of a grocery store and what were the other did you had mentioned something else. Certainly over time, as Councilmember Richardson said, there has been a blurring of lines between a general merchandizing store like a target and a grocery store. And even the the definition of a grocery store has changed as. Smaller format neighborhood markets. Have come into play. So we do really need to look at the overall definition of what a grocery store is versus a department. Store versus a general merchandizing store. And then really try to determine what square footage is we. Should be using in applying. These exemptions. We are assuming that that there would be a willingness by the Council to support. Some exemptions for. Those uses. We're just going to try to have to find that sweet spot for you. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. Miss Bolduc, what response would you have, if any, to some of Councilmember Councilwoman Mango's concerns regarding this impacting some of the smaller alcohol vendors that might have general merchandizing attached to them? And is there something that you might be able to recommend that would hit the spirit of this agenda item, but not impact those businesses ? Well, those businesses are already in place, and so they are not actually impacted by this exemption at all. The folks that would be impacted by this ordinance or. Moratorium would be those who are planning. To come into into the the. City. We know of of two that would fit into the general grocery. Store category. We're not aware of. Any florists that. Are coming in. But we we would have had quite a. Number of concerns if the restaurants were not excluded from the moratorium. You know, that would have a debilitating. Effect on business districts. But since the current motion, as it currently stands, does not affect restaurants, we're we're pretty comfortable with the the recommendations. So it doesn't affect restaurants. And we're not going to do an exemption for grocery stores. So we're good to go. It does not affect restaurants, and we are not exempting any grocery store that currently exists. That is less than 20,000 square feet. Already has to get a copy no matter what. So we are aware of a couple of those that are coming in. They are not affected by the moratorium because they are less than. 20,000 square feet. Councilmember Richardson. And I just wanted to just underscore that point again, and I think Ms.. Bodak nailed it. Existing flaws, like, let's say Valentine's Day was coming up, those guys would not be impacted. It's literally a very narrow window of. This is in case this is so that we can hold off, hit the pause button and look at the whole policy in entirety. And we can say with certainty who gets exempt? Why is it based on square footage? Is it based on a percentage of sales? What is it? This is an opportunity to do that. But no one currently in existence is impacting. Okay. Thank you. And Councilman Mongo. Then we're going to a vote. Amy, with the two that are in the hopper, be able to apply now and then be approved upon the the conclusion of this. So I know went from three months to four months. So would they be able to apply and then wait in pending so that at the four month mark they could go through with their approvals ? Certainly we would accept the application. We would look at the rest of their application, but would not move forward at. All with any portion of their application that involved this. Exemption. That makes me more comfortable. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Please come forward. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Rick Guyton. I'm a representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324. We represent 24,000 men and women who work in the food and drug industry. And I just want to I'm here on behalf of my members who support this moratorium. We work in grocery stores, and they also live in the community. We see so many of the communities that our members live in where the communities far exceed the permits given out. And it's it's a real tragedy to see what's happening in our communities. This is a responsible thing for this council to do to go take this moratorium, look at what exists currently, what makes sense going forward. I know our members support it and we applaud this council for taking this action. Thank you. Thank you, Rick. Any of the public comment. Seeing none. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero. Next item.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute the Seventeenth Amendment to Agreement No. 28164 with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc., to extend the agreement by a period one-year and to provide funding in the amount of $5,058,676 for Fiscal Year 2020. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10082019_19-1006

And if we can just pull that item, going to hear that item right after this as well. So going here, all the CVB items together, but we're going to we're going to go to item 22. What we're what we've done, I know that we've been is we're taking item 22. I'm going to ask the clerk to read the item first. So please read the item. Report from City Manager Recommendation to execute the 17th Amendment to agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau to extend the agreement by a period one year and to provide funding in the amount of 5,058,676 for fiscal year 2020. City wide. Thank you. And then Mr. Monica. Yes. For this presentation, we'd like to turn it over to Mr. Steve Goodling to give a presentation. Great. And we're going to go ahead and do since we have two items on this. I'm going to Mr. Goodling is going to go a couple of minutes past the ten minute mark for presentation, because we're not going to hear a presentation on the consent calendar item. So we've combined it into one. So, Mr. Goodling. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. City council and also city management. Tonight, we'd like to share with you an update on where the tourism sector is. I. We commissioned Beacon Economics to do a study for us, and I love this graph. I wish it actually was my portfolio at home. I since 2002, it has grown 146% or $18 million. So it's a significant income for the city, actually. And for Vice Mayor Andrews, this is the data every year that you like, for every dollar that the CVB receives, we generate a $6 and 17 cent return. This past year, we were the fourth largest revenue tax generator for the city of Long Beach. That's a significant amount of money. In addition to the transient occupancy tax, there's also taxable sales on things that our visitors buy when they're here in the city, whether it's meals, whether it's clothing or anything else. And that's another 17 million property tax by those business owners is another 19 million for a total of $70 million in taxes back to the city. We are also the second largest sector in the industry for employment behind health care. Health care as at 19% and tourism leisure is at 13%. Pleasure. Travel was one of the areas we focus on. This past year we worked with the Academy, the Pacific, and also the Queen Mary. So we took double page ads. In the past, the aquarium would take an ad, Queen Mary would take an ad, they'd be on different pages. Now, when you go through any of these great magazines were a double track or two pages, and so Long Beach jumps out at you. In addition, we work we're working with these publications in their social media and their digital platforms as well. This is a sample of one of the ads for this past year. Our PR department has brought in over 100 and basically 140 writers this year and bloggers and digital influencers for eight millions impressions. So we've appeared in a variety of stories from L.A., L.A. Times, Orange County Weekly, USA Today and other pubs, but also a growing influence of blog sites. Our followers in Instagram, also Facebook and Twitter have grown 43%. And in just a few weeks, John Keisler is going to Qingdao. And so we created this video. If any of you know what she's saying, you win the award for speaking Mandarin. While you our champion, Tedros Rumanian, your son by the Georgian too young one for which ultimately each I'm sure you're sure about for your too that idea clergy sexual standards. You don't say something to you vetoes you hold hands up like a joystick. Hang on doing the hammer. Do the way you join simple. Yet that's how hunger challenge our strong prototype your. The utility because. Yes, you bet. Is a type of theatrical Jewish, Yiddish. Oliver, you've had me on. I should go back. And if you go with John to Hong Kong and Qingdao, you'll hear that all day long. I, having worked in Asia. I loved I loved hearing. That. So that's another part of our reach out in terms of pleasure travel. In talking with mayor former Mayor O'Neal recently, Beverly and we're talking about basically tourism, the convention business. And she made a comment which I really thought was wonderful. She said, Steve, everyone that comes to a convention is a potential visitor in the future. And that's so true. It's it's what I would call trail marketing. You get to come into our city, and every time I hear people that come into our city, they either say, Gee, Steve, I never knew or, boy, has this changed. I hear one of the other. And that's what they always say. And what's interesting is our convention business is also a generator for repeat visit. To keep us competitive and keep us at the front edge. We have to continue to differentiate ourselves. And this is where all of you are so important. This past year, CMA, a national association of meeting planners of 7000 members, has a magazine that reaches 50,000 people. They commissioned a study with Marriott and it's called The Five Future Trends of Meetings. In actuality, these trends are across the board for most industry sectors. But as it relates to us and conventions and tourism, the two that are really key to us, I believe, is orchestrated serendipity and multimodal design. Orchestrated serendipity is what Google calls human collision is where you create an environment that causes people to actually network. And that's what we've been doing at the Convention Center, because we believe that people come to conventions in conferences to network. We also create areas that they can also power down and just do their iPad or iPhone or whatever they're working on. But more importantly, to network. Multimodal design is using a space more than one way. Today's planners, today's buyers want the ability to take a space and put their own distinct impression on it. So when you walk into the convention center across from the Renaissance, this is entering in through the north side. That space off to the left is a new space. Just this past year that was created again, a great space for networking, but look to the right, look all the way down. All of that is is new. And it's an opportunity for all of our people, all over conventioneers to network in addition across from the Hyatt, this is from that lobby area coming in and during a conference. This place is packed. You're all familiar with the terrorist theater. Thank you, Mayor, for the fountains. And and Janine, also. And it's really. This space has become so hot. This past year, we had a 1000 person banquet out on the plaza. It was a software company. And they again, multi-modal design, being able to use a space more than one way. The code you're familiar with. And believe it or not, this is the fifth year of the anniversary for the Pacific Ballroom. It was an antiquated arena, rarely ever used and multi-modal design at its best. The stats, we've gone from 136 usage days to 250 days a year. You might not see people parking driving up to that arena, but that arena is being used 250 days a year. It's booked over $425 million of new business. And 30% of our conventions use that space. The antithesis of that is if we didn't have the arena, we wouldn't have 30% of those conventions. So there's 40,000 square feet gave us this additional space. And in five years, catering revenues have doubled at the building because of all these new spaces, the newest activated spaces. Many of you saw the email that just went out. This was just finished. This is the area between Bogart's and our exhibit Hall's 9000 square feet. It's great space, part of the Pacific Gallery, which is adjacent to the Pacific Ballroom now, but it's completed. It's a total of 21,000 square feet of unique, cool space. When combined with Bogart's combined with our Pacific Ballroom, the entire place becomes active. And the Ocean View Club. The third floor of the Terrace Theater is also another space that we recently activated. The views are spectacular. The angels have loved going up there and looking out and looking at our ballpark. But with that being said, I'd like to share with you. Recently we had a reception up there for Mark Taylor's farewell, and I'd like to show you what that space is like as it's active. So again, taking a page out of PCM has five steps. Multi-Modal design, activating spaces. All of you were given this. This is a copy of the White Paper that PCMag published. We were the first city in the United States to actually have a white paper printed on it and how we are actually ahead of the curve and subscribing to the five principles of the future transit meetings. This was seen by over 50,000 people. I go into that sector to lead into this. And I coming up here shortly in Chula Vista in San Diego, the port of San Diego has worked out a development plan and it's going to actually shake up business on the West Coast. This project is $1,000,000,000 project. This is the 1400 room hotel that will open up, which is almost equivalent to the amount or size of of some of our larger conventions when they come to Long Beach. And this is the plan. It's going to be up at the top. Middle section is where the resort is being built. Another hotel adjacent to it. And then right around the marina is a lot like our Rainbow Harbor and Rainbow Lagoon and more residential and office space. It will have over 400,000 square feet of space, which is identical to us. It will have 600 rooms and it's also going to be one completed, the third largest hotel in California. It will be completed by 2023 and they'll start selling this next year. What that means for us is we're going to be running into these folks as they start selling. It's owned by Marriott Corp.. Gaylord is a is basically a subset of Marriott. And so for us, the challenge is going to be competing with everything under one roof. Planners love the luxury of signing one contract, working with one general manager, working with one management team when they come to Long Beach. We have to sign on average, 4 to 8 contracts plus a convention center contract. And so as a CVB and as a quite honestly, as a tourism community and a hotel committee, we work hard to make it easy to do business with us. And that's our that is our competitive advantage. Plus everything that I shared with you earlier. I can assure you Gaylord won't look like this like we do. However, it will be a great, great competitor to us. In addition, Portland just completed a $65 million renovation with the new hotel and new Hyatt up there. And. In Sacramento. We also they're investing over $240 million. They're blowing it up. I know many of you traveled to Sacramento frequently. It too will be quite beautiful when complete it. And it's interesting. They're spending 240 million, but they're only going to get about another 20,000 square feet of exhibit space. And they're paying $50 million for a 40,000 square foot ballroom. The Pacific Ballroom cost us 10 million. And so it was quite a savings for us and quite a high impact. But once they're finished, they will be almost identical to us. In Anaheim, we have two new hotels going in for another thousand rooms right next to the convention center. And so, as you can see, we've we've built a lot of great successes. Again, being the only city that PCMag has recognized is putting us out in a white paper as being leaders in our industry with our convention center partners. But at the same token, we've had a real we have challenges coming up, and we have to keep investing into the building. So with that being said, I'd like to share this video. And then, yeah, we're finished. In Long Beach in Southern California. I can look out the windows and see palm trees, water, and the Queen Mary and I really feel like I'm in a destination is unique. It has a great young vibe. Felt like I was in a resort town, but also in a meeting location all in one. It just had a perfect dynamic. When I talk to my peers, I rave about Long Beach, great location on the waterfront, proximity of the convention center, two restaurants, easy airport access. But location, location, location. What I love about Long Beach is the fact that everything you need is right there. It's all walkable. The weather's fantastic. You love to walk around in weather like that, and there's lots of interesting things to look at while you're doing it. Entertainment, shopping, amazing food. It's just one big ball of energy and a lot of fun. Long Beach Convention Center is one of those places that makes me want to actually look forward to the meeting or event that I'm actually going to. There are numerous unique environments where attendees can gather and create their own experiences that they then will remember and take back. And that's what attending a convention is all about. If I could clone the space here and take it to other areas because we have to move around, I would do that. It is a gem. You have to try it. Turkey is especially important to planners. It makes it very simple. To plan your events. You don't have to bring in different pieces because they're all bright. They're available for you. I have to say that there's no other venue that I can think of in the U.S. that would compare to the Pacific Ballet. In about a minute, you go from being in an arena to being in a ballroom, and that's an easy thing. The Cove, this unique. Little area underneath an underpass. Believe it. Or not. There's great lighting features. I've never seen. An underpass. That actually has chandelier. Having amenities like ping pong. Tables and lounge seating and the palm trees and the environment that has been created there. Is phenomenal because it allows for great networking and it really sets them apart from the competition because when you go to another city, you have to pay somebody to put all those things in place for you. Networking. That's really important to us. And so that's one of the reasons we love Long Beach because they have all these fun and. Comfortable areas where people can sit and talk and really exchange ideas and connect. I think that Long Beach is special because of the people that are there. It's all about creating community and relationships, and Long Beach always is a welcoming city. They all know each other, they're a community, and what they. Express and what you see when you go there is. They want the business to come to Long Beach. My CEO always says, Can we pick up the Long Beach Convention Center and take. It with us wherever we go? They built Long Beach Convention Center in a way that every time you go there, there's a different experience. Long Beach is ever evolving. I think the great thing about this city is they're always thinking ahead, step ahead and thinking about innovation, step ahead and thinking about what type of venue is the venue of the future. When you go to Walter Reed, you feel the love. You feel like you want to come back there on a regular basis and it is your second home, if not your first time. Thank you for your. Thank you very. Much, Steven the team. We're going to continue real quick. We have two folks in center for public comment that are actually also part of the they want to say some remarks about the presentation. And so if I can have David Blaine's build up first and then Imran Ahmed also, please come forward. Honorable Mayor Council members, thank you for your time today. My name is David Blanchfield. I am executive vice president and group publisher of the Northstar Travel Group. I am not a resident of Long Beach or California. I come to you today from our company headquarters in Secaucus, New Jersey. But I come to recognize and report on excellence when I see it. And this is a terrific opportunity to give a shout out to to Long Beach, to the convention center and to the Visitors Bureau. My business were all about travel. I mean, we report about travel, all aspects of travel, leisure as well as corporate, as well as events and meetings, incentives and exhibitions. And that's the area that that I am responsible for. We have offices all around the United States. We also have offices in London. And we do have folks who speak Chinese. I don't offices in Shanghai and in in Singapore as well as as well as in Beijing. And, you know, for the past couple of years, you know, we have always been covering Long Beach because of the the excellence that the team here brings to the planning of of meetings and events. I was also formerly a meeting planner and an event owner and organizer and had terrific success in bringing bringing my meetings here a couple of years ago. We initiated a new program, we call it the Stella Awards North Star Stella. It's Latin for recognizing stellar work. And the process we brought to this was a very rigorous one. First was putting the nominations of visitors, bureaus and entities that provide services to tourism, putting it to a public vote over a period of time. And then after the public votes are tabulated, we then take the top players in each category, in each region, and invite a group of seven independent, experienced judges to evaluate the the entities that have been voted among the top players in the industry. And we break it up by region. Over the past three years, no other convention and Visitors Bureau has appeared in the top two other than Long Beach. And No Convention and Visitors Bureau has had both the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Convention Center winning these awards. So it's a it's a terrific, terrific a testament to the value of the services that that your city brings to to our industry. Although we are not making a public proclamation today, this is this is all somewhat embargoed because we are not officially launching these awards until November, when we publish a special issue to the tens of thousands of people who who subscribe to our magazines and get our content online. But, you know, when you're competing against the likes of the San Francisco's and the Seattle and the Los Angeles of the world in the Far East, obviously it's a terrific, terrific testament to the work of. Thank you so much, Mr. Paintsville. So I'd like to, you know, bestow these awards on Steve and the team and thanked him very much for the services they bring to the industry. Thank you very much. And Enron has come forward and its public comments. Imran Ahmed. Good afternoon, honorable mayor, esteemed council members. My slides are not here. But we have all heard of Beacon Economics in the first light that Steve Goodling showed, in which I am here to let you know honorable mention that we were able as a as as a chair of CVB. I'm letting you know that we were able to generate over $1.7 billion for the city of Long Beach and supported over 18,000 jobs for the city of Long Beach. So this is with your support that we were able to do so. So thank you so much. In addition, I would like to give out a shout out to all our CDB associates if they could please stand and remain standing. Please. Further, I would request the CDHB Board and the Executive Board to please stand and remain standing. Please. And then the convention center, Charlie Burns and his team, if he could stand with his team through. And finally, who's here to support the CVB? And that includes all our team. If you can please all the hoteliers. If you can stand and remain standing, please. And everybody. Honorable Mayor. Voila. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Let's give the entire. Team a big round of applause. Thank you. We do have we have one more member of the public wants to say that wants to make a remark. Mr. Goodhew. Europe. Nope. Okay. Oh, great. Councilmember Then let me start with the council, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I just want to give a big thank you and congratulations to everybody that's here today for this presentation. Long Beach has come a long way in the last ten years, and our hospitality industry would not be what it is without the CVB, without the work that you guys do every single day. And I want to say personally, I really appreciate it. I have seen the convention center completely transformed. I've seen it transform not only the workers there, the businesses that surround our convention center, but our entire city. Obviously, the numbers that you guys laid out are phenomenal numbers. And I want to say that I've enjoyed partnering with you guys and I really appreciate the partnership and return. I know sometimes it's been tough, but what I what I see today is a thriving tourism industry that has deep partnerships, that's going to continue to thrive even whenever our economy might do whatever it does in the next ten years. But that today we've got new hotels coming on the market in this city. Thanks to your hard work and Imron, very proud of you and your efforts at your hotel. I've always told you how much I appreciate you and really I've enjoyed getting to know you and I look forward to next year's presentation. But thank you guys so very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. Councilwoman Price. Very much. I want to share those sentiments and thank you all for being here. It's really impressive to me. Every year when we have this item, how many of you turn out to support the item? Because your work is really a year round thing, whether it's trying to support new ideas, whether it's attending the events, whether it's participating in a change in terms of messaging or themes. In terms of Steve's big ideas, you're all there 100% to give everything that you can. And we really appreciate that as a council, you and the work that you do make us look good. I mean, that's the reality, the work that you do make us look good as a city. And yes, we have great assets and assets that that have a lot of opportunities and potential in the future. But the work that you do to make the assets come alive and attractive is is really transforming the city in terms of where we're at in the tourism industry. So thank you for everything that you do. And I want to I'm glad that our hoteliers are here today because I think it's such a a necessary partnership. And to have that very positive communication with all of our tourism outlets and offerings is critical. And so I want to thank you for collaborating and working through difficult challenges and also predicting what the market will bear in the future. We've been meeting, I know, several of my colleagues and I, you know, when we're thinking about how the market is changing, for example, it's changing in every industry. We have conversations almost daily now with how the retail markets are changing as a result of online shopping. And we're trying to make adjustments. Everyone's trying to make adjustments. The Conventions and Visitor Visitors Bureau and the hoteliers work really well together to be proactive about those trends in the marketplace rather than putting it on us to come up with the solutions. You're the subject matter experts and you allow us to follow your very solid and thorough lead. So I appreciate that and I thank you for everything that you do. And I also thank you for the support that many of you give personally and as members of the CVB and the hotel industry. To the arts organizations, you do tremendous work in partnering with us to encourage and highlight all of the assets in the city. So thank you. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I know tonight first, when I came on, I thought that all these people will come into a council meeting and I knew better. Then when I heard about the CVB awards, it just the crowd that they bring in. Then I thought, I going to have one of those long, long council meetings, but now this is going to be much, much shorter. But I just wanted to say that and take a moment to take time to thank the sea. VB Of all the things that they do for the city of Long Beach, you know, under the leadership of the CEO Steve Gatlin, it has performed at the highest level in every test that he's been asked to perform. Staveley leads a team of commandments professionals that always make the city look good, and I applaud them for their achievement. Thank you, individuals again. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Steve, to the whole team, there's not much I can say that most folks have already said. You know how I feel about our convention center. Your leadership, frontline staff, the entire family. You're really part of this Long Beach tapestry. And when people come to Long Beach, you are the hospitality committee. You're the welcome committee to the hundreds of thousands and millions of individuals who come to our city. You're who they see first. And so you're incredibly important and we value you. Our city council does value. I think it's important and it's great that every year you start off and make the economic case, you make the economic case, you prove, you show every time you know the dollars and cents of why it's important to make sure that we continue to invest in our our facilities. We've transformed those facilities, invest in the arts and the performing arts that we have. So so thank you for doing that. I have to tell you, you know, it seems like so this would be the third year we've host it. So next week we'll be welcoming Legacy Cities back. And this is when a lot of our elected officials buddies come in and host and they party downtown and host a lot of sessions and meetings. And it's great to see that every time they come back, there seems to be another venue, some new space, and that's activated. So we look forward to welcoming the whole state of California, public officials, local officials across state California next week to the League of Cities. So, again, keep up the good work. We're incredibly proud and honored to serve on the city council with with partners like all of you. And we look forward to the many great things to come. Thank you. And Councilman Ringo. I want to also agree with you all your comments been said, but also the Nutter convention coming up in November, which would be the Democratic Convention, state convention here in Long Beach. And all our we will be on on on on tab to make a real good impression because we're going to get the candidates also visiting California , visiting Long Beach. And great job, Steve. Great job to convention visitors bureau, great job to our hoteliers and great job to everybody here today because I'm really looking forward to Long Beach getting placed on the map. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm just going to I want to just add first, I think, you know, Steve and Charlie, especially the two of you, are just an amazing team. And I want to start. You know, Charlie, I think you and and the SMG team just really do a great job and we're waiting now. It's SMG. Is that the right? The new name. The SMG team are doing a great job always with our facilities and our events and just we rely on you so much for for that work. And of course, to Stephen and the broader team and the board, I think our our economy in many ways is a tourism economy , especially in this part of the city and the hotels that get full and the visitors and the restaurants. And it's all part of a really great ecosystem that we've created and we're really thankful you guys do a fantastic job. And I know that the the best days for all this work are really ahead of us still. And so just thank you for the partnership. Let's give them all a round of applause for our entire CVB team. And congratulations. And with that, we have a most honor and a second for the four item 22, which is this report and this action item. So please, members cast their votes. Motion carries. Thank you. And we're going to do item number, the consent calendar, which is going to include item seven in the consent calendar, which is a CVB item which was on consent originally. So if I can have a motion in a second on consent, Mr..

Recommendation to request that the City Council: (1) receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on two appeals of the Board of Harbor Commissioners' adoption of the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the World Oil Tank Installation Project (Project) filed pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507 by Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER CA) and Long Beach residents Nicholas Garcia, Sopha Sum, and Sophall Sum, and Earthjustice, Coalition for Clean Air, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club - Angeles Chapter (collectively, "The Coalition"); and (2) adopt resolution denying the appeals and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners' adoption of the Final IS/ND for the Project.

LongBeachCC_01042022_22-0026

Sir. That concludes public comment. So we're we're going to move on now to our hearing. We were going to have a presentation that's been canceled, I think partly for pandemic reasons. But we are going to move right into hearing item 26. Madam Clerk. At 26 is report from Harbor Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on two appeals of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Adoption of the final initial study. Negative Declaration for the World Oil Tank Installation Project Fire by Save for California and the Coalition and Adobe Resolution Denying the appeals and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners adoption of the final I guess anti for the project this items requiring an oath. Please stand for those of you who are going to testify on them. 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. You may be seated. Thank you. As we as we begin, we do have a a motion that's going to be made here by the of Councilmember Ranga. And so, Councilman, did you want to move. Make them put in the motion that. That you're going to. To begin as we begin the hearing. Yes. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here. I want to first say that, as you know, we're in the middle of a COVID 19 surge due to all my current variant and various other COVID 19 positive numbers of hospitalizations. And people are getting sick even tonight. We have instituted different protocols for public participation and have limited entry to the Council chambers for public comment. Am also sure that this COVID 19 surge has also kept folks from wanting to show up and participate this evening. In the interest of fairness and to hopefully have our city in a better place with our COVID 19 positivity numbers, I would like to make a motion to continue this hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 18th, 2020, and I hope to get your support. There is a motion and a second to essentially continue this item to January the 24th, I think. Is that is that right? 18th, I'm sorry, to January 18th, that is the motion on the floor. There is a motion by Councilmember Urania and a second by Councilwoman Price. Councilman Price. To have anything to add to that? No, I support that motion and I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed on this particular appeal that I'm hoping the parties will have an opportunity to talk through before the 18th. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. City Attorney, do anything to add to that? No, no. We would continue. It to the next available date, and that is the 18th. Okay. Thank you. Before we take a vote on the continuation, actually, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Because it is a hearing. Are we not able to ask questions to help resolve those issues now? If it's not illegal. I mean, it is. It is. The motion is now at the it can be made now it can be made after the presentation by both parties. It could be made at any point during the hearing to continue it. Yeah, but generally speaking, you would decide to continue it now or let both parties present. But let me let me just add to I want to make sure that we do have a motion on the floor. So the motion on the floor is to continue. So that's unless there's a different motion, we need to vote on the motion on the floor and do public comment on that motion. Right. And I'd consider making a motion to support, but I don't know what my colleague's concerns are because I received a briefing and so I only know what I received in my briefing. And so I would be interested in knowing what my colleague's concerns are, because I think that that would help me considerably. But that's, I guess, where I was. Well, I think comes from hearing it did list his his reasons for. For the postponement. You made the motion. So I'm not sure if the council needs to restate those. I'm so sorry. Would you mind? I was in the restroom. I wasn't feeling well. Basically, as you see, we have an empty chamber. Oh, okay. There are people outside, which I feel that if we did not have this, COVID 19 would would be inside. Okay. And we'd have a good, solid hearing. Okay. That is not possible today. There are going to be some change protocols for the 18th that I think would provide a better opportunity for more participation from the public in this hearing. So that's basically putting it off two weeks and next week we have our state of the city. So the next regularly scheduled meeting will be on the 18th. And that's when I that's what I proposed. Oh, I apologize. When I was walking back in from the restroom, I thought there was a specific item that was an issue with the Declaration. I misunderstood. Thank you. Thank you for a clarification. So there is a motion in a second. Now, I know that people signed up for public comment for the hearing. Just to be clear, we can still take will still take public comment, but the public comment needs to be only on moving the item two weeks, not on the merits of the hearing, not on the merits of information as far as that relates to the hearing. So if there is public comment, it has to be only based on whether or not we are going to move the hearing to the 18th. Just to be clear and so, Madam Clerk, if there is public comment on that part of the hearing, please let me know and facilitate that. We do have some public comment. They're on the way. But I will make an announcement. It is to the the continuing of the hearing. Then make sure that anyone from the public knows what the actual public comment is. Thank you so much. Franklin Sen. Thank you. And before we get we a about it and I just want to make sure that our folks are folks are being letting folks are being told that they can only speak to the continuance, not to the merits of the hearing itself. Correct. We've told them. Everyone knows it. Okay, great. Excellent. Thank you. Please. I'm proud to say that Long Beach had a vision for the first the world's first green port. And we've got to live up to that name. The color green makes you think of words like refreshing, clean, open and honest. This isn't a tough call. It's a matter of right and wrong. Cancer causing emissions are going to increase in Long Beach because of this project. And because of that, there are to be a report that ought to be heard today. Okay. I need you to focus on whether or not the hearing should be today or not or two weeks from now. Please. Based on. Everyone who came to speak on this item is out in the hallway ready to talk now on the merits. We came here facing COVID 19 to delay our ability to speak for your State of the city. Address that already on the 11th that you requested is to further delay what needs to happen today. I respect Councilman Tauranga's call because in some ways it speaks to his embracement of a democratic process. But let's be honest. We know there's more to it than that. I came here to talk on the merits, and now I can't. And it creates an opportunity for deals to be made away from this deal. And that's the sort of shady business that we're tired of. So don't get in front of it and say, oh, we're who want to preserve the democratic process. Most of the people out there are here for this item. The public has arrived. And one of the major issues regarding this agenda, at least by the dissenters, is that the ports data did not allow for public engagement in the first place because the data is not there. So my question is, is the data going to come down the 18th? Is there going to be more data? The last thing I want to say is this. The South take one day. Our vice mayor sits on it. I think he should recuse himself from this item when it comes time for a vote. And he knows why. I'm very disappointed in what's happened. I feel like we've been shafted. I'm not happy about it and I don't like the thread of this is the democratic way to go because it's not . Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Speaker, please. I guess. I mean, the two week delay, I wanted to say that it sounds good. I think one of the, uh, I think this gives time for the city council to make, uh, some, some, uh, some questions to make some really important questions before the public. As the previous speaker just mentioned, there really wasn't much of a public process when it came before the Harbor Commission. I've seen nothing but climate denial. I just want to acknowledge the movie that came out called Don't Look Up, which was about climate and saying, Oh, look, there's a comet in the sky. The comet is symbolic of the climate crisis, and two weeks from now, the climate crisis will be that much worse. We'll be that much further into the future. So I would like at a certain point for this council to show genuine climate leadership. Garcia has mentioned running for office a wonderful, ambitious, very proud to be mayor. If you believe in a Green New Deal, this gives you two weeks to actually demonstrate that and show that you have courage in your heart to represent us in Washington. Same with you, Mr. Richardson. As mentioned, you are on the AQ, M.D. As mentioned, you also have mentioned that you would be interested in representing the citizens of Long Beach. When are we going to see a change in Long Beach? When are we going to see an acknowledgment of the crisis as the warmest December in history? A town burn down to to a crisp. On New Year's Eve, another city, another small town burned. So in two weeks from now, the climate crisis will be that much warmer. We'll be that much further into the future. And so I want you to take these two weeks to do some type of climate analysis. You know, really ask that question of staff. Has there been a thorough climate evaluation? If you look in the air, you'll find that there is no significant they say no significant difference by by adopting this project. I've mentioned climate concerns to the to the to the Harbor Commission. When there was a public comment I mentioned they referred me to this one sentence. I says no significant difference. How is that possible? I want you all to ask questions that show that you have a genuine understanding of the severity of this crisis that shows that you're connected to the community in some way to understand the health impact on the precious children on the lungs of the community. I want to see that from each one of you in two weeks. Some actual courage to pronounce. Do you have courage in you? I don't know that I've seen from anybody here on this council quite yet genuine courage. So I just want to let you all know what the public is expecting in two weeks, but yeah, sounds good. Speaker, please. Good evening. My name is John Edmund. I'm here on behalf of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, the Harbor Association, Industry and Commerce, Southeast Association, Chamber of Commerce. And Bill said, We're all here. There's a room full of people that are ready to present public testimony. You have both applicant, the applicant and the appellant in the room right now. You have staff prepared to make a staff report and you're going to punt it to the 18th when I'm pretty sure we're not going to be able to be here. And you're going to limit public speaking. I mean, this is what you guys are here for. You have a fiduciary duty to be here and to hear the issues at hand. Win, lose is your responsibility. COVID is a terrible, debilitating, terrible thing. But are you postponing anything else on the agenda today? Why this issue? Because it takes a little more time. I'm sorry. I record asking you guys to hear the people's business conduct the city government. We want the item heard. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Dave Shukla, resident of the third. I am proof positive that Councilman Ringo's reasoning is sound. I support the motion. I think, as we heard earlier, the hearing can still be had and then be continued. So you're not telling anyone to go home without being heard? There's a lot of questions I'm going to have after the hearing, and I think it would be. Advantageous for all parties, given how much COVID is already kind to constrain the process over the past year. I mean, I woke up this early to read those, you know, 600, 700 pages. It's complicated. I think you would do well to continue the hearing. Thank you. They can expect police. Good evening. My name is Khalilah Fetterman on behalf of Safer California, the appellant tonight. And we support the continuance until the 18th. To allow for public participation and for the Council to review and consider the comments that we submitted today. And we ask the Council to require any I.R. for this project. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is Carter Garage. I'm an attorney for Earthjustice representing the Coalition of Community Groups, appealing this project. I greatly appreciate Councilman Franco's concern for a public engagement, and I understand his rationale for this motion to continue the hearing. However, I'd like the Council to at least consider hearing the folks who did come out here today despite the adversity, who might not be able to make it on the 18th. I think we could have had a lot more public engagement today if there was a telephonic or online opportunity to provide verbal public comment. So I'd like the council to at least consider hearing those who are prepared to speak on the merits today, but the members of the public who could not attend in person at the 18th and we've heard the protocols will be different, but we haven't heard the details of what that would be and how much that would facilitate public comment at that time. So we'd like you to consider to make sure everyone's voices could be heard in that front. And if and if they cannot, then we would support that. We think that it should be heard today so that the folks outside are not ignored. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Madam, quick, is it more public comment on the continuance? That's in the public comment. Okay. Thank you. A couple a couple just things. First is just to also just to be clear, you know, there is a motion on the floor and a second that was made. And so that is the motion on the floor. And that's a process we're going through right now. The public comment has to be to the motion as far as additional public comment like was suggested by the gentleman that just spoke, that's not allowable in the in the scope of the way this hearing is set up. The hearing has to be done a certain way, and we have to speak to the motion that's on the floor. And so I just want to make sure that to clarify that for the for the gentleman that's here. And so the motion and a second is to continue this for two weeks on til the 18th before we take that vote. Let me go and go to Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Is this staff able to tell us how many people were signed up for public comment tonight? 820. We have. 909. Okay. Okay. And do we know if we will be virtual on the 18th? Like, I guess there's just a lot of questions. I can I can answer that question. We actually don't. So we have not received the full recommendation yet, and I have not, as the chair of the body earlier tonight, Mr. Morgan said there might be adjustments in a couple of weeks, but we don't know what those are yet. And we're waiting to hear back from the Health Department what those will be. So as soon as I know or as soon as Mr. Modica knows what those are, I think he's intending to work with the clerk to put those out there. Mr. Mark, is that correct? That's correct. So we focused on today in order to make today as safe as possible. But clearly COVID is going up. But we are looking at some alternate methods about how to do that, which could include a virtual meeting. But we've not made that decision yet, and we'll make that definitely in advance of the 18th meeting. And our current rules as a body are that if we hear an item, a person can speak to it multiple times. So if someone spoke on an item and then it was continued, they wouldn't be barred from speaking on it again. I know other bodies have it where if you speak at committee that you don't speak at the council or any of that, but we don't have that. That's correct. That's correct. We have had that type of situation come up in the past where they have one opportunity to speak. But generally speaking. You are correct. Okay. Well, I, of course, want the most public input as possible. I think we're in a tough situation to know and understand where we'll be in two weeks. And I, of course, didn't want to turn away the nine people who are here. And maybe we'll have more participation if it is online or not online or I just I just hope that we can work really hard to tell people far enough in advance what the plan is for the 18th, because it seems like there are a lot of people very concerned about this item. Those are my comments. Thank you. Ever. We have a motion to confirm your ring a second bit. Councilman Price to postpone this for two weeks. Public comment has been closed as part of this hearing. We will to take a vote on that. Mr. City Attorney, I know this is a hearing. Anything else that we need to do as far as that piece? Okay. Thank you. The motion is carried. Okay. Thank you. We're now moving on to the rest of the agenda. First up will be item number 34.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 9.16 in its entirety, relating to abatement of public nuisances caused by illegal conduct involving sale or manufacturing of controlled substances, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0546

Vote. Motion carries eight votes. Next item this is a recommendation to adopt declare an ordinance amending the municipal code regarding the abatement of public nuisance as a rental properties and related to controlled substances and manufacturing. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting. Second. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Turanga. Yes, I had a couple of questions also with the city attorney earlier today and he satisfied my my question in regards to the involvement of the property owner in this in this thing, because I'm sure that there will be some future concerns from property owners that they are having tenants evicted without their knowledge or without their support . So I think it's an opportunity to give property owners an opportunity to evict nuisances if they if it's so fun to be that way. And City Attorney Park in LA satisfied my questions regarding that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Clive Graham, and I'm the president of the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. Three, three, three, West Broadway, right across the street. First of all, Mr. Mayor, no members of the city council. Congratulations on your election. Welcome aboard. Good to have you all here. For those of you who are returning, it's good to see some familiar faces, too. Our association is a nonprofit professional association for apartment owners and managers. We are composed of over 3000 members in the 56 cities surrounding Long Beach, the Greater South Bay area. And we want to be here to help you in your jobs. And we do plan to meet with you all and get to know you personally, all the new members, and and be on your team, too. Regarding this particular ordinance. Mr. TURANGA This is nothing new to the apartment owners. This is a blessing to the apartment owners. This is why it has saved some apartment owners lives. This pilot program has taken offenders who need to be evicted, who have threatened the lives of their landlords and property owners and taken it off the back of scared landlords. And the city attorney's office has taken it on. The city of Long Beach has done a marvelous job with this over the past many years. We applaud that this item has been renewed and encourage it being continued. We do, however, request that a couple minor changes be made to it. There is in the State Assembly Assembly Bill 2485 Dickenson on the same subject. We would request that since the city ordinance is almost word for word verbatim of that bill with a couple of minor exceptions, those exceptions be included in the city ordinance. One simple one. The city ordinance calls for the notice of the tenants to be in 13 point type. The state law calls it to be an 14 point type technical problem, but a defendant could use that as a great defense and have the whole notice process thrown out because it didn't conform. Secondly, we request that paragraph 19.6030. Paragraph E include the additional language. An owner shall only be required to pay the costs or fees upon acceptance of the assignment and the filing of the action for unlawful detainer by the City Attorney. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. So I'm just curious, Mr. City Attorney, would you mind walking me through, just step by step, how something like this happens, how you use this ordinance? How this ordinance works? Yes, sir. Mayor. Members of the City Council. Thank you. As I've mentioned. The city has been. Doing this process or processing these types of evictions for over a decade. We've been participating a participating jurisdiction in evicting landlords using the unlawful detainer process. We are one of three cities that were the pilot program Long Beach, Los Angeles and Sacramento. And over the term of this pilot program, Long Beach has used this program more than any other city. We allow it allows us to file against tenants for illegal drugs and illegal weapons. The ordinance before you this evening only deals with the illegal drug component. And the goal, of course, is to eliminate nuisance and improve the community and to assist. As you mentioned, there are certain landlords maybe who are afraid of the tenant or. Other tenants who are afraid. To come forward with their complaints. As mentioned, the city attorney has to provide the landlord with 30 days notice prior to filing the legal action against the tenant, the city attorney. And we also notify and provide the tenant with the documentation supporting the eviction or the reasons for the eviction. And then the property owner may move forward after we've notified the property owner. So they have a choice that they can move forward or they can request that our office brings the unlawful detainer action, or if we don't hear from them, we can move forward and bring the action on behalf of the city to. Eliminate the nuisance at that location. So we in the last year, I think we reviewed almost 3000 police reports, and I think we caused about 280 or 290 relocations during the last year in which the records were kept. And I believe that's calendar year 12. So we have found this to be a very effective tool in working with the police department to eliminate certain problems at certain residential locations where the tenants are known to be dealing narcotics in this particular case. So we have found we can and to address the two points raised by the Speaker. The ordinance, as it's currently written, is Sunset has sunset, but it allows cities to adopt their own ordinance. We were currently or previously following authorization under the Civil Code. So the Civil Code allows us to adopt. Our own ordinance. So we don't believe, while we could certainly. Change it from a 13 point. Font to a 14 point font, we are substantially compliance. All of our other city notices are in 13 point font. That's why we went with that notice font provision. And then for the filing, we don't actually file. Until after we've completed, so there's no chance of us running afoul of the state law. In fact, if 24, I think it's 85 passes, it's currently pending. So we don't know if that ordinance is going to pass or that legislation in Sacramento will pass, but it's currently pending as indicated. So we believe this is a good opportunity for the city to maintain this program, that we have code enforcement, we work closely with code enforcement also and the police department. And we would hope you would support this. Thank you. Got somebody, Ranga? Thank you. Is there a threshold in violations that would trigger an eviction or is there a low tolerance or no tolerance? So whatever on this, whatever others. May are members of the council. That's an excellent question. There is a a balancing test. If you will, on the eviction of the offense. We as I said, we reviewed almost 3000 police reports that were submitted for potential action under this program. We only have one attorney handling it. So we do try and take the most egregious cases and deal with those as fast as we can. But there is a a balancing test so that if there is if they're cooking it on the stove, it's pretty obvious everyone in the house knows what's going on in the house. And so we would we would move that forward to evict if it's something that's hidden in one of the children's backpacks in a bedroom where there wasn't any a notice and the parent has that person leave the house. You know, that's another that's the opposite in a situation where there maybe wasn't notice and then we would not move forward with that. So we do look at each and every case as an individual case and depends on the facts and the circumstances, a situation that we can feel, that we can go to court with the officer's police report and that officer's testimony in order to withstand the scrutiny of the court. Thank you. Q Mustache. Thank you. Concern over a price hike. I'm fully supportive of this this item. I want to commend our city attorney's office. And I'm sad to hear that we only have one deputy city attorney working on this, because when it comes to quality of life issues, if you live in an apartment building with a drug dealer that is sharing space with your child, that is the worst condition to live in. So and for the landlord and for anyone else who is involved with with a an environment where there is drug dealing and drug possession going on, it's it's a really terrible way to live. So I support our city's efforts to do everything that we can. I absolutely would support a zero tolerance, but I understand that because of staffing, we can't go after every single situation that comes up. But I certainly think we need to be aggressive. And I had no idea that our city was working for so many years on this effort. So I commend you for that and I fully support this item. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Also, I want to I also want to voice our support. We were lucky enough to utilize this at a particular instance in our district, and it was a lifesaver to the family and the community. Drugs are not welcome in our community, especially in these kind of situations. So thank you. Thank you. We've had public comment as well as council comment. There's a motion on the floor, so please, members, cast your vote. A motion carries eight votes. Okay. Moving on to the next item. It's a recommendation to amend the municipal code relating to the distribution of handbills or other printed materials or written matters of merchandise. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; extending for six months a moratorium established by Ordinance 125764, and extended by Ordinances 126006, 126090, and 126241, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and/or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use, or change a principal or accessory use, for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in Section 23.84A.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120080

Agenda Item one Council Bill 120080 an ordinance relating to land use and zoning extending for six months. A moratorium established by ordinance 125764 and extended by ordinances 12006126090 and 126241 on the filing, acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change in principal or accessory use for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in sections 23.8 for 8.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, I will move to pass Council Bill 120080. Is there a second? Second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded and I am assuming that Councilmember wise, you are going to report out on this item, is that correct? It is. All right. I'm going to I'm going to hand it over to you. Thank you. Council president, as I shared this morning and I've been sharing for probably the last two years, as you know, Councilmember Strauss is not here today. So I will speak to this item since we've been working on this. We've introduced legislation that would create a long term resolution to the issue by establishing a manufactured home park overlay to preserve the last two existing manufac manufactured home parks in Seattle. Both are located in District five. This that legislation this legislation is currently on hold pending a challenge to its SIPA determination. The current moratorium is set to expire on July 10th. We hope to extend this moratorium for the final day, for the final time today, to allow for the CPO appeal to be resolved in for counsel to consider our legislation to preserve these parks for the long term. And we've obviously been in discussions with legal on this as well. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Carry no additional comments on the bill. Will the quick please call the vote on the passage of the bill? Whereas I. Lewis. Hi. Morales. As. Mascara. I. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Council President Gonzales was. I. Seven and seven unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code. Amends the Zoning Code with multiple substantive, clarification, and usability amendments in response to customer and community feedback, industry changes, and other factors. Amended 5-14-18 to fix a misprint in the bill by including the Code Effective Date in Section 3 as similarly cited throughout the remainder of the bill. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-10-18.

DenverCityCouncil_05212018_18-0323

Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must director comments to council members and refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual personal attacks. All right, Councilman Cashman, when you put Council Bill 323 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move the council bill 18, dash 323, be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. All right. It has been moved. And second, in a public hearing for three June 233 23 is now open. May we have the staff report? Sara. Good evening. I'm Sara White with CPD here to present the staff report for the 2018 Text Amendment Bundle. So as you may be familiar with our bundles of the past, the text amendment bundle is part of our effort to keep these zoning code modern, clear, user friendly and updated, and for us to be able to respond to requests for changes to the zoning code. So city staff periodically reviews the code and prioritizes updates in response to customer and community feedback, industry changes and other factors. And we we try to do these bundles of tax amendments roughly annually. So the most previous bundle was adopted last spring, in April of 2017. So the bundle is intended to implement several of the comprehensive 2000 plan goals to ensure that the zoning code is flexible and accommodates the current future land use needs. It encourages quality infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, establishes development standards that encourage positive change and diversity while protecting character and identifying community design and development issues and target specific concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So the bundle allows us to respond to these types of requests as we as we get them, and try to keep the zoning code updated in an annual fashion. So the process so far, we started the scoping of this text amendment last summer and really research and drafted throughout the summer and fall and then started some targeted stakeholder outreach in late 2017, early 2018. So even before a public review draft was available, we did want to start the conversation with stakeholders who may be impacted by some of the changes so that we could have the conversation, get the feedback, make any changes that were necessary as a result of that conversation. We also presented to the Agency Zoning and Planning Committee for an info item in late January, and then on February 12th was when we released the full public red line and included the full text of the changes and a summary in more plain English. Since these bundles tend to be a little difficult to wrap your heads around, this one in particular includes over 80 items that was on our text amendment list. And then when that was released, there was also notice sent to all RINO's and council members. As well. We did offer text amendment briefings to all council members during this time. On February 21st, we had an info item at planning board and then we also had an info item at Luti on March 6th. And then March 16th, we had our planning board hearing. So for planning board and for city council, we have six letters of comment for the bundle. One was in support of our mis informed changes that are proposed as part of the mixed use two storey districts. One was in opposition to those same changes, saying that they were inappropriate to restrict commercial properties. One was asking for restrictions on the location of many storage facilities, particularly close to downtown, which is a topic that this bundle is addressing. One was commenting on the proposed step back that is part of the two and a half story building forms with low sloped roofs. This was a comment planning board as well. Generally, some concerns with the number we were proposing to step back to be addressed at one with generally various comments about all of the changes and then an additional letter that was submitted at Planning Board from the Vision Zero Coalition in support of the proposed drive thru restrictions. At Planning Board. Planning board voted 7 to 1 to recommend approval with the following conditions. The first condition was that the draft continue to be edited for clarity, and then the next the conditions two and three, where staff recommended conditions. So number two was that we clarify the applicability of some of the lighting standard changes and to remove changes to the maximum height for all fixtures. So these were some things that were in the early drafts as part of the lighting changes that as we talked more through them with our internal departments, particularly development services, some concerns were brought about about how we might implement some of those and in terms of inspections and that sort of thing. So we clarified the applicability of what types of projects would be subject to these new changes. Number three was that staff removes changes to the side interior setbacks for the max aims to ax districts adjacent to protected districts. So those of you who are moody and had individual briefings may remember that one of the changes we're proposing is to increase the rear setback for our Amex to ex districts. And as part of that, we also made a slight change to the side interior setback and we realized that that was actually inconsistent with the intent of what we were proposing to do. So we are leaving the side interior setback as is in the code currently, but still proposing the increased rear setback. And then number four was a condition that planning board added, and it was a result of a lot of conversation about the comments, whether the step back for the two and a half storey districts was appropriate to be applied at 25 feet or if there was a different number. So Planning Board added the condition that staff further examine and consider in future changes regarding possible unintended consequences of urban house ten foot step back about 25 feet, and possible unintended consequences of low sloped roof definition and complexity of compounded slopes. So the one vote of opposition from planning board was due to the fact that the Planning Board member did not agree with adding the fourth condition. It was not that he disagreed with the content of the bundle. So we had three speakers at Planning Board, two internally from the city, one from Denver Environmental Health and one from the Vision Zero Coalition, both speaking in support of the drive through restrictions and how they relate to pedestrian safety and actually asking for them to be expanded in the future. And then the member that also wrote the letter that's included in your packet spoke about the concerns with the loss of roof definition and the if the step back was proposed at the correct number. And as you see in your packet, he wrote a follow up letter after planning board that conceded that the 25 foot was was an appropriate number to apply the step back at. After Planning Board. A City Council had the Luti committee on April 10th, which was a consent agenda item. First reading was the 19th and we are at our public hearing tonight. Just a reminder that the bundle is proposed to have a roughly six month grace period for projects that have been submitted before the effective date to align with the end of the slot home's grace period. Which is why I say roughly six months since that Holmes was adopted about two weeks ago, and we wanted to align the end of the grace period with their grace period so that our development services staff didn't have to juggle multiple deadlines. And the reason for the grace period is similar to Slot Holmes in that there would be some pretty significant impacts to projects that have already put a lot of time and effort and investment into submittals. And we wanted to give them some time to finish up. So because of the process that we've had so far and the fact that we had individual council briefings and we did have an info item for the committee, I'm not going to go into the details of all 80 items that are proposed as part of the bundle . Those were detailed in your packet. But what I am going to do tonight is I'm going to go through some of the changes that have occurred since you would have heard about it at a briefing or luti. So we continued to correct any errors and translations, continue to improve graphics, cross-references, clarifications, all of those things that the bundle is great for related to the many storage and drive through restrictions in SMEs and downtown zone districts and near rail station. So this is not something that has changed. So we did decide to continue to propose that mini storage be not allowed within a quarter mile of rail unless you're in an industrial zone district and four drive thrus within a quarter mile of rail to not be allowed unless you're in a suburban zone district with some additional restrictions. I just wanted to highlight this because this topic by far has gotten the most conversation out of anything in the bundle. And we've heard a lot of this is great. It should go further. We should apply it to more areas of the city. But we've also heard some this might be a little bit of an overstep. We want to make sure that we're supporting our density and our small units and giving them places to store their stuff. So we really think that the proposal, as is in the bundle, is a really good first step for treating these. We have heard a lot that we'd like that there are people who would like to see this potentially expanded to transit corridors or all corridors or all mixed use zoning, which is a really large impact on the city transit corridors. The reason that we didn't include them as part of this is because there's there's a lot less policy surrounding our transit corridors right now. There's a lot of planning going on, particularly with the Denver Moves plan. So as as that infrastructure fills in and as planning and policy kind of is solidified around those areas, I think there's definitely room to consider something further. But for now we are remaining with the rail station, quarter mile buffer and the downtown zone district changes. As I mentioned earlier, we are still proposing to increase the rear setback in our EMS and IMAX to ex districts when they're adjacent to protected districts. And a reminder, the reason for this is because these zone districts are intended to be embedded in residential areas, surrounded by urban houses and duplexes, that they really should reflect that character that they're intended to be placed in and not be allowed to build to the zero line and have a really large, hulking structure. And so, as I said, there was just a minor change that was proposed in addition to the rear setback for the side interior setback, we had proposed to increase that. But then we when we looked at it again, we realized that that was actually inconsistent with the urban House standards, which is what we were basing it off of. So we decided to keep that that standard at five feet. And then some more of the little shifts that we've done. We are still adding some standards to parking lot lighting. We're adding maximum illumination levels for certain uses, we're adding uniformity ratios for safety. Some of the things that we have changed a little bit since we talked with you earlier was some additional clarification on what projects would be applicable to these changes. So basically that projects that are submitted from here on out will be required to comply with these and not necessarily projects that are already built because that would be really difficult for our inspections to enforce. And then we had also proposed a mounting height limitation for fixtures. There is already mounting height limitation for freestanding lights in the zoning code, and we were proposing to apply that to all lights. But we realize that that could have some unintended consequences. It would prevent someone from having a patio light on their third floor apartment, that sort of thing. So that's something that we'd like to look at a little further. This is an additional topic that we've had a lot of conversation about through this bundle process. And again, this is kind of a first step for some lighting changes to our code. Our code doesn't have a lot of lighting standards right now. So we want to kind of start with the worst of it and continue to evaluate that through feature bundle changes and such. And then for the two and a half story forms of the low sloped roof, we are proposing a ten foot step back above 25 feet to essentially break up the mass of a building from the street. So you probably are aware that our two and a half story building form can result in something that really appears to be three stories, which is really out of context with a lot of what's built in the neighborhoods. So this step back above 25 feet is intended to make the building appear to be more consistent with generally the two stories that it's it's built around. This is what Planning Board had a lot of discussion about, based on Mr. Farley's comment, asking whether the 25 feet was the right standard and if there are other things that we hadn't considered as part of this. So we did study that number more, and we did come to the conclusion that 25 feet is the appropriate height to apply to step back at. And we also got the follow up letter from Mr. Farley agreeing, but we did actually use the unintended consequences portion of the Planning Board recommendation to consider and add the addition of an administrative adjustment for historic structures for this step back. So in our code, we already have allowed administrative adjustments for bulk and height for historic structures. And since this is a bulk related item, it was brought to our attention by the Curtis Park neighborhood that this could have some pretty large effects on the historic character by requiring the step back. So because in historic districts, there is an additional level of review, there's the design standards, there's L.D. Derby or LPC that has to make these decisions. We were comfortable adding an administrative adjustment that would allow, with the approval of the Landmark Commission, to get out of the step back in historic districts or historic structures. So moving on to the criteria that we use to address text amendments. The first is consistency with the city's adopted plans and policies. The first is comprehensive plan 2000, which I went over a little earlier, how the reason the bundle is consistent with adopt a plan, including requiring infill development to be consistent. We've done a lot in this bundle about consistent infill and bulk and mass. And then blueprint Denver. We have language in there that says amendments are recommended to implement adopted plans and improve compatibility with existing plans, as well as revise standards to make existing zone districts more compatible, which is what a lot of these mass and form changes are doing. It furthers the public health, safety and general welfare by providing clarity and predictability, facilitating planned and desired private enterprise and redevelopment. And it continues to implement adopted plans through regulatory changes. And it results in regulations that are uniform. The amendments regulations are uniform in their application to buildings and land uses within each zone district citywide, and it improves greater consistency in zoning regulations and removes conflicting provisions, which improves our ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. So with that I o staff does recommend that the City Council approve the text mama 2018 bundle. I'm happy to answer any questions and talk about any of the topics in the bundle, especially since we didn't go into the details in the staff report. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Sarah. All right. We have three speakers this evening and asked them to come to the front. We have John Noble, Jesse Paris and chairman say COO. Joe, your first 3 minutes. Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street. First, I just want to say these these bundles are one of my favorite things as a zoning geek, because I get exposed to so many of the the things that end up needing tweaked, whether I hear about it through neighborhood organizations or comes through planning board or hear about something go through going through the board of adjustment for zoning appeals that it's always great when it's some time later, it takes a little bit of time. You see a fixed proposal that's been studied and carefully considered and you say, Oh, that's great. I knew that didn't work right. I was carrying that around with me and now I know it's getting solved. John Haden, president of Curtis Park Neighbors, sent a letter to council copying CPD last week, thanking CPD for the work on one piece here, which is the change to the administrative adjustment table. And he asked that I speak on on behalf of Curtis Park neighbors tonight as an advisory board member just conveying our thanks Curtis Park and perhaps other historic neighborhoods from the same era tend to be tend to have houses that are narrow and tall. And this new upper storey step back for low sloped roofs like Italianate structures would require them would actually prevent them from being as tall as they normally are. When we have infill in our neighborhood, that infill should fit in. If if a house is built strictly to the zoning code, it would look quite small compared to the historic context. Today we depend entirely on administrative adjustment, which is a great little escape clause in the zoning code that says the zoning administrator may, within certain limits, allow some dimensions to be exceeded or modified in order to fit the context better. If it's beyond that limited allowance, it needs to go for variance but within within bounds. And that works very, very well. We go through a landmark review because it is a landmark district and then whatever administrative adjustments are needed have never been denied. This new measurement was not available for administrative adjustment, so that that meant that any infill housing in Curtis Park that is as tall as our normal housing is or is our context would have to go all the way for a variance, which is an expensive, lengthy and uncertain process. And when we made that case to CPD, they knew exactly what we were talking about. They never react quickly. They want to always want to go away. Study came back within a few days and said, okay, this narrow allowance on the administrative adjustment table where you're in a landmark district and Landmark has reviewed it is the minimum necessary to to meet your concerns. And in fact, it is. So thank you to Sarah and thank you to Kyle Dalton and Jennifer Capito. We're thrilled to see this go forward. All right. Thank you, Mr. Noble. Jesse Pierce, you're up 3 minutes. Good evening, members of the Council. When I was in Paris, my 2842 Josephine Street and Brookes, District nine. My question is I'm neither for I'm neither for nor against this. I just need clarification on what is a protected district. Is that the same thing as a historical district? What is urban house standards? And is this in any way going to increase the already gentrification that is going on in the Curtis Park neighborhood? It seems like you guys have just given leeway to gentrification in historically black and brown communities. I just need clarification that this building bundle is not going to. Facilitate that further. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Chairman Seiko, 6 minutes. Okay. Here we go. My San Francisco to organize a black star action movement. Social change agency. Voice for the poor. Working poor. Homeless senior citizens and youth. This bundle. To. Pull all of these seemingly minor pieces. There are connected to each other. Is a. Good idea. Answers. Anytime you can find common ground with 80 different minor entities. And combined into one big thing. Is part of administration. And of course, a lot of talk about means and explanations that we don't have to go through here in this body today because the work has been done by planning. But now let's look at pulling the layers back. Of The Onion to get to the core about what is really driving this. And what are the values behind this theme that allows us to miss the first four trees? I mean, we got trees. It. And it's a big thing. But what's really driving this thing? What's really driving? And that becomes a question for the people, because when you do this bundling thing, when you combine all of these things that you do early in the meetings into one vote and in that one vote, there are hundreds of millions of dollars down taxpayers money. And they're watching this on television because it means you organize at a time where a rush hour traffic, Jack, they can't come down it. So they get it after the fact. And so one of the things we do with this process is to allow it to become a educational process for the people who can be at the meeting for further review. Understanding that there's a time frame that folks got 30, 60 days, whatever that is, to actually implement a change. Now for vulnerable communities. That's not possible because the people are caught up, especially the folks that I represent, and to day to day survival. How am I going to pay my rent? What am I going to do about my kids going to school hungry? How am I going to deal with this thing when the food bank is gone and ain't nothing to eat? Transportation crazy. I don't have that amount of money to ride bus, so I got to figure out skills I can walk to where I got to go. So caught up in that minutia. So that we don't have the time to look at the overview of the map. What are they planning for you now that's going to impact your future? And an outreach doesn't include the future for education processes and to gain them into a better position of being great citizens in a great city. You had no outreach. Two high school's student council. Great way to educate them about what we can really do to you. So the outreach has to be expanded into student government zones and universities and colleges who are preparing themselves to be a part of this, not in it, because using it to our nose and to do, but the people of the future, the youth are not included in the outreach, so why not invite them to the meeting or had the meeting at a high school where they're at? How about a meeting, too, on a college campus where they're at C? And now we're talking about expanding democracy and getting more folks involved in the participation of the future because it's the students then the youth, which are the future right now and their voices need to be done right now. So they understand what is like an industrial. See as you blow past it on the leak there. But none of that. And changing from this to that, they don't even have don't even know what this is right now. But we missed a golden opportunity to prepare the future leadership through our outreach that can be expanded. See. Also, the youth has to be included in this statement because they're the ones who are going to be sent up here. Because at one point you always used. Yeah, but you learn about this in your daughter. How about if she knew this now? What kind of adult citizens would that be? Outstanding. So in this process of having to work to make the dream work, the dream is about now and it's about the future. And it's about the children. It's about increasing this empty chamber full of kids who want to come down here and learn how to do this thing. On the taxpayers dollars because they are the taxpayers that are going to be paying for the future. Things that are happening at least we can do is educate them now in the state. So thank you, Mr. Cobb. Thank you. This concludes our three speakers for this evening. Are there any questions by members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a question about the two and a half stories step back. And what I'm trying to understand is if that is only applicable to the residential zones. Is it specific to historic districts or is it how just help me understand how broadly that is applied. Sure. So it is applicable to all of our two and a half story residential building forms. Generally in our mixed use districts, we don't have the two and a half story building forms because the height limits are higher. So it's going to be your urban house, your duplex, your two and a half story row house across board. Okay. So where the code? Formerly allowed like half of a third story. Does this remove that? Help me understand. What that. Sure. So I'll clarify what the half story is, because it's not really a half story. Essentially what it is, is it's a third story that's allowed to be no greater than 75% of the floor below it. And what that was intended to do, I may have slide here. So this slide, this image on this slide on the top is from the zoning code. And it was really what the half storey was intended to do. When you have the traditional house with the sloped roof and it's two stories, you have that space under the sloped roof that's technically would be considered a third story and we wanted to allow it to be used as livable space. So we called about a half story when it's really 75% of the floor below. It's a third story. And you can see this is a photo example of infill that has used that and you can see it's generally pretty in scale what's surrounding. But essentially what's been happening is people take that allowance and when you use a flat roof form or as we're redefining in the bundle, low slope and you push it to the front of the building, it really looks like a full three stories and you can see it towering over the surrounding infill development. So what this is intended to do is to push back that third story. We haven't made any changes to the allowance of how much of it, but it's possible that there will be less allow for a allowed floor area if they can't get that full 75% after having to step it back ten feet from the front of the building. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa. Do you want to take a stab at explaining what a protected district is? Sure. So a protected district is essentially in practice, a low scale residential district. We have a definition in the code. It's got a list of all of our zone districts that are considered protected districts. It's all of our single unit districts, all of our two unit districts. I think all of our House districts and one multi-unit district, EMU, two and a half. And what that means is when you have a mixed use zone district adjacent to something that's considered a protected district, things that are built on that lot have to comply with additional standards. Usually it's additional setbacks or additional bulk plan, that sort of thing, to protect the character of the low scale residential that it's adjacent to. But the disk we're only talking about the mapped district, the physical map district. It doesn't it's it doesn't matter whether or not the building is a low scale residential building. That's correct. All right. Hope that helps. Thanks. Thank you. No further questions. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, this concludes the public hearing of 323 comments by members of council. That assessment. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank the CPD and the planning board for the work that you did on this bundle. It well, it is a lot of things. It really dives into things that we have had some concerns about that we hear about at committee, that we hear about from neighbors who are worried about construction going on next door. Thanks for the explanation of the 2.5 because I too was thinking it's really 75% of the top. But if they can't get the ten foot setback, it may not be 75% of the top of it. Right. Okay. And also four in, you know, increasing the setbacks. But but especially for the storage units, mini storage. And I think I have to thank my fellow councilwoman, Kendra Black, who also brought this forward, said this is a very good move, I think, to help us with getting activation around areas of transit and Main Street. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilwoman Black. I want to thank Sara. You were really great with the Todd. Limiting the storage and the drive thrus. I wanted. To go a little further, but I acknowledge it's a good first. Step. And I appreciate you reaching out to the Storage Unit Association. We met with them and they were okay with it and the drive thru people never got back to us, so I really appreciate it. My district has five light rail stations and a. Lot of storage. Facilities and we don't want to have any more near a light rail station. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilman Black Espinosa. Councilman. Is there a drive through association? I also want to thank you again, Sarah, and staff for another text amendment. It's always nice to see these changes. I don't think I geek out as much as Joel does, but it is fun to see incremental change to our zoning code. The one thing that I you made it very clear that you're you're cognizant that there might be unintended consequences and you're sort of recognizing that there's still the ability for things you haven't considered to come about. And I think in an earlier presentation that sort of opined where I saw sort of something breaking down the so I'm going to go back to something I said I think two or three meetings ago, which is, is if staff is is seeing that speak up and let the zoning administrator know that there is this repeated incidents happening that may not warrant a meeting, may rise to an occasion where you're not following the usual text amendment, but then bringing it to Brad Buchanan and having him move forward with a quick change. It'll still be a public process. We will still have the ability to discuss it, but let's not wait for a repeated sort of habitual pattern to form and and get so deliberative in. If we're already recognizing that one change we've made has unintended consequences, that could be addressed maybe by coupling some form standard with a use exception or something like that, you know. So that's all. Just wanted to make sure that I'm probably going to keep hitting that point. Time and time again now, because it's sort of my one thing is how do we more rapidly address things that go south when when we know better? So that's it. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, CPD, for for putting this forward. You know, I think you guys are starting to adjust to the many issues that we're seeing all over the city and really appreciate that everyone does love speed and we want this to be faster. But at the same time and I don't want to say but we want it faster, we want more speed. Let's just leave the period there. I will also say that I recognized the macro changes that were happening about this. The city and these unintended consequences have happened in my district. They've happened in other districts. And and I understand those are sometimes irreversible. And so I appreciate it. But as long as we can figure out how to turn a little faster on some of these things, it will be very helpful. The folks you see up here are on the front lines of dealing with a lot of our land use issues. And and we're getting we have a lot of ideas and so we want to see those things move. But thank you for your hard work and know it's very deliberative and we appreciate it. With that. Madam Secretary, it's been moved to a roll call. Black clerk. All right. ESPINOSA Hi. Flynn Hi. Cashman I can eat. LOPEZ All right. Ortega I. SUSMAN Mr. President, I promise. What? No, we're good. Okay. Please close the voting. US results. Tonight. Ten Eyes Proclamation 323 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. On Monday, June 18, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 365. Change the zoning classification of 3880 Holly Street in Northeast Park Hill Erekat Public Hearing of Council Bill for 22 Changing the zoning classification of 421 West Fourth Avenue and Baker and

A proclamation Recognizing the essential service provided by the RTD Transit Drivers and Proclaiming March 18 National Driver Appreciation Day.

DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0305

They're moving on. We don't have anybody else in the queue. And so tonight there are no presentations, there are no communications. We have two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0305? Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 22 305. Recognizing the essential service provided by RTD transit drivers in proclaiming March 18th as National Driver Appreciation Day, we're. Whereas RTD transit operators safely transport passengers to places and destinations they need to go, such as school work, health care. And. Whereas, RTD transit operators continued to provide front line essential services to our community during COVID 19 pandemic, often putting their own health and welfare at risk. Whereas transit operators are called on to demonstrate patience, empathy, humor and understanding to create a safe and welcoming environment. And we're as RTD transit operators travel 135,495 miles per day, over 143 fixed routes, including bus, rail, free mall ride and free metro ride. And we're as RTD transit operators contribute to a healthier environment because public transportation reduces the number of people driving single occupancy vehicles. And. WHEREAS, transit operators are an essential part of the city's efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions. And. Whereas, RTD bus drivers must drive a £28,000 vehicle in traffic conditions that are unforgiving to even cars to ensure customer and pedestrian safety. And. WHEREAS, RTD rail operators are trained with skills to operate millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment to ensure the safety of thousands of customers. And. Whereas, Transit Operators merit appreciation and respect on Transit Driver Appreciation Day and throughout the year. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. That's number one, section one. The Denver City Council recognizes the hard work and commitment of RTD transit drivers. Section two The Denver City Council invites the public to recognize transit operators by thanking them on March 18. Section three that March 18, 2020 to be recognized as National Transit Driver Appreciation Day. Section four that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to RTD and the Amalgamated Transit Union. Local 1001. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of Proclamation 20 20305. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. My office was contacted by a resident that lives in the Globeville neighborhood. Her name is Jenny Santos, and she had asked if I would be willing to bring this proclamation forward. And I know that during COVID, many of our drivers were those frontline workers who were expected to show up to work, and they were moving other workers in our city who were also expected to show up to work that are transit dependent and neither had access to facemasks. Many, many people struggle to have access to those in the early days. It was mostly our medical professionals who were able to get the N95 masks and they were putting themselves at risk during that time. I know a number of them were impacted with COVID as well, and I just want our bus drivers to know that your your work was seen and it was appreciated by all of us, and especially those people who relied on those busses to show up to their bus stop and get them to work when they were expected to show up to their job. So I hope that all of my colleagues will join me tonight in supporting this proclamation being adopted and that we can officially thank them for for the hard work that they do day in and day out, but especially during COVID. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I want to join Councilwoman Ortega in thanking our bus operators and light rail operators who work through the pandemic. Councilwoman is absolutely correct. Very difficult job under difficult circumstances during the pandemic. My older son is one of those frontline workers who had to rely on transit all through the pandemic and the shutdowns, where we were all trying to work from home and trying to find ways to accommodate these folks had to be out in the field. I just wanted to recognize not by name because I don't want to get him in trouble with RTD in case this was against the rules. But a few years ago, I was on my way to an event that you and I took light rail to the Evans Station and over the Route 21 and on the way back to the light rail station afterward, this fellow, he just loved his job so much. It was right after Valentine's Day, and he had two pictures of him and his wife at a Valentine's Day dinner the week before. And he had I'm looking at the picture here. He had taped them to the rail around the fare box and on the PA system. He not only announced every stop, but he announced what amenities could be reached by each stop. You know, where the coffee shops were, where the grocery stores were at each stop along the way and in between. He went on and on and on about how much he loved his wife and how much he loved his job. And and he also when we got to Evans Light Rail Station, he told us all about the event coming up later that week. That was the grand opening of the new right light rail line in Aurora, which was the our line was going to have the grand opening to work through such a difficult job where you have to come in sometimes at 430 in the morning or earlier, work half your day and then sit in the break room at the at the ops center, at the light rail center down on Malattie, and then go to work in the evening rush hour and only then go home and go to bed and get up again. These are very difficult jobs and they're very necessary jobs. And I want to express my support for all the members of EDU Local 1001 who work at RTD. And and I urge people they're looking for new operators, mechanics, light rail. If you're interested, check it out. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kinney. Thank you, Council President. And thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward. So many unsung heroes. We've talked a lot about grocery workers. And so I'm glad we're acknowledging the transit workers as well. I, too, is going to add a shout out to the Amalgamated Transit Union. We try not to use acronyms up here, but this union represents many of these drivers, not quite all of them. I know that. Smart Local nine. I believe I represent some of the train drivers, but together these unions and any others that I might have missed are really important because they help to represent the interests of the workers and to help the agency solve problems. Right now, labor unions are sitting at the table with employers trying to solve the driver shortage, thinking about ways to change the structure of the contract or the job. And that type of problem solving is really helpful for us in the public sector. And so thank you to the drivers who together make up those unions. Right. The union isn't something outside them. It's it's where the workers come together to have their problem solving and their voices heard. And so very grateful for all of those workers. And thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Council Member Kenney each and I'll add my sincere thanks to our partners at RTD. Always going above and beyond the call of duty and very, very committed to their jobs. And Councilmember Flynn, it sounded like you got a little above and beyond the call of duty. And that's beautiful. It's wonderful to see that dedication. And and so. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer I. Torres High School. Black. I see tobacco I. Talk I. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Kenny, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 Hours. 12 eyes Proclamation 20 2-305 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the Proclamation Acceptance Council member Ortega and we'll go ahead and start that. If you'd like to welcome up who's going to accept the proclamation? Thank you, Madam President. We are being joined by Michael Ford, who is our TV's chief operating officer, as well as Lance Logging Horn, who is the ETU Amalgamated Transit Union president. And if you all can come to the podium. Please go ahead with any remarks that you might have. We just ask that you pull the mic up so that we can hear you. Okay. Well, thank you. Everyone. The job does not typically get this kind of recognition. And I can tell you. I will share it. With each and every one of my members. I would also. Like to just point out that what we focus. On the operators, the. Happy faces most of the time at the front line. It's also very important to remember that we have mechanics and people who clean the bus. So it's really transit workers, we like to say, but we certainly appreciate the recognition. I'd also like to just mention you also pointed out there are some other unions. We have another. ATU union. And that 1772 does service for RTD as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just would also want to acknowledge and thank you. And obviously, last as mentioned, there are a lot of other E2 employees as well that we'd like to just acknowledge as well. But we really appreciate the recognition. It's really important and they do a tremendous job. So thank you again for everything that you are standing for here today. Appreciate that. Thank you. And I would just ask that you not leave until after we read the next proclamation, because I have a copy of the same proclamation to give you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you very much. And again, we honor all of the transit workers who help make sure that folks can move around our city safely. Councilmember Ortega, will you go ahead and please read your second proclamation tonight?

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the Official Budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021, creating and establishing the funds of the Municipal Government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said fiscal year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 am. on October 1, 2020, read and adopt as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-20-0037)

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0876

The item, the final budget item, please. Or management recommendation to declare the appropriations ordinance for FY 21 as an emergency ordinance read and adopted is read and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Exhibit 817. There's a motion by council to replace Roll Call vote. District one. I just talked to an. AI. District for. High. Five. AI District six. AI District seven. AI District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Okay. Thank you. And then finally we have we're going out of 16, which are the upward 20 point adjustments post-budget. We can read that please. Indication from financial management a recommendation to approve the fy21 time departmental and fund budget appropriations adjustments to help mitigate the F1 20 financial shortfall citywide. Kind of emotion in a second. Please. In need emotion in a second place. Most of my counsel has spoken about Councilmember Orson Roll Call vote. Well, is there any public comment on this? No. Right.

A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver PFS, LLC for outcome payments for a social impact bond project. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a social impact bond contract with Denver PFS, LLC for five years and six months and a maximum payment of $11,571,000 for outcome payments related to permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals who have been identified as high utilizers of safety net services (FINAN-201523939-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-16-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 1-12-16.

DenverCityCouncil_01252016_16-0015

integrating it into the rest of our programs. Kind of like trying to repair a moving car as it's going down the highway. I think we should pull over and make this program part of our ongoing workshops. We're having another meeting just on Wednesday, this in two days to discuss our homelessness programs. I'd like to see this fit into a system of programs that lend equity to our neighborhoods, where this particular program will be sending homeless, chronically homeless, almost exclusively from the downtown core. We already have homelessness and homeless people living along Sanderson Gulch, Bear Creek and the other neighborhoods. And it's inequitable to those neighborhoods to disperse the homeless into those neighborhoods without designing a program for the people who are already there. We've been told that we can't have geographic preferences for the housing under the Fair Housing Act, and I understand that. But for the housing that's being built in my district, we already have a geographic preference and that's been de facto constructed by how the tenants will be selected for this. The tenants are being selected from the chronic high end users. In other words, those who are being arrested the most, in detox the most, and costing us the most money under the philosophy with which I agree, under the philosophy that if we house them, they will cost us less. And this program simply borrows money from the private sector to be repaid with those savings. But I do want to point out that we have a geographic preference, because all of the effort or most of the effort to identify the people who will be on this list has gone into the downtown core, where, of course, that's where most of the homeless are. I acknowledge that we don't have as many in my district as we do downtown. I just want make sure that they're being taken care of. Mental Health Center of Denver, a very fine outfit. Doing great work is going to build 60 units at Federal and Iowa. But because all 60 units are part of this program, no one from my district currently there will be eligible for one of these likely will be eligible for any of these units. I've talked with them each CD and I see some of the folks in the audience and they've expressed agreement that this would be a good thing to do, but they just don't have a way to do it. I think, you know, you can work out anything if you really put your mind to it. In the North Colorado station where the Coalition for the Homeless is building the 100 units, 20 of which are for this program, they had no problem dedicating some of the units outside of the social impact bond program. And so I would like to I would like to put the brakes on it and and find a way that we can accommodate some of the folks in my district. The fact is, on the very vacant site where I made a CD while build these 60 units, there was a homeless camp. And those people were evicted. Now, when I worked at RTD on the airport train project, if we had to acquire a residential property, we had a legal obligation to find a place for those people to live, and we had to compensate them. And here we're evicting homeless people from the site of a homeless facility where they won't have any chance to get into that homeless facility. I do want to give a shout out to the Coalition for the Homeless, because through my outreach to them, they have proposed to me a program where they will do more outreach in southwest Denver. Mr. President, they have agreed to come down twice a month to do street outreach in Sanderson Gulch and perhaps in other areas, but mostly around where this is going to be going to be built. I also want to point out that. We're saying the repayment of these bonds, which, by the way, they're not bonds. As we understand bonds, we're borrowing money from private investors, banks and foundations, and we're going to repay them from the savings. This is what we're told, repay them from the savings that we experience by not by not being in the jail as much or Denver general as much. But that's not what we're doing. This contract, the mechanism for repayment in this contract does not come from the savings, from the jail, from less money we're spending at the jail or at the detox center. It's going to come from a general fund appropriation that we have already made. And the amounts that we're going to repay them already are fixed in the contract, for example, if they reach the minimum of 20% fewer jail days. We will pay Denver first to the vendor on this. We will be paying them the equivalent of about $1,066 a day. Per tenant. I don't think that a person in the county jail costs us $1,066 a day. If they reach the maximum repayment level of 65% fewer days in jail, we will be paying them the equivalent of 6670 $5 per person per day, $169,000 a day. If all 250 tenants in this program don't go to jail that day. I don't think we're saving $169,000. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to have. I think we need an independent auditor to track the success or the level of success of this program. I do believe we will save money doing this. We are not privatizing these services, by the way. We already do these services. We deliver these services privately. We have contracts, numerous contracts with the Coalition for the Homeless, with them, each CD with Saint Francis Center. We already have our services delivered by the private sector. What's different here is we're borrowing the money upfront from lenders and allegedly repaying them from the savings. But as I've demonstrated in the contract, we literally are not repaying them from the savings. If we believe this program saves taxpayers money, we should fund it upfront and realize that savings ourselves. If we repay the investors, the money that we say we've saved, then we haven't saved the taxpayers any money. We've just given it to the investors. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman knew you had a question? Yes. Mental Health Center of Denver. Representative here. There are councilmen. Why don't you ask your question? We'll make sure we get the right people up there. But we do have representatives from both the organizations. Right. Right. Well, I think it's extremely important. I think we learned from our retreat on homelessness that you've got to get the homeless off the street in order to provide services effectively and to to be able to hopefully break that cycle of homelessness. So it's hard for me to disagree with with taking homeless off the street. You know, I do worry a little bit about the the the individuals we're dealing with and what services will be provided at the facility. So. So, I guess, Kyra, I just want to clarify, maybe, you know, a couple of questions again that we've had before. Again, the services. There will be provided. Mental health services, drug addiction services, job training services. Will they be provided at the facility? That where the where the homeless will be housed. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council thank so much Kerry Kennedy and the Chief Financial Officer for the city. And I think your question is probably most appropriately addressed to John Providence, the head of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, who will actually be providing services at the facilities themselves. If you would like, Mr. President, I'm happy to give some remarks about the program in general, or I can ask John to come up to address the question. Well, I only have John answer the question, and then if there's if there needs to be more, you certainly can be able to do that. Thank you. Hi, John. John, thank you for coming up. Jump. John Kavinsky, the president of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Mr. President, Councilman knew this social impact bond program targets 250 chronically homeless individuals who are currently on the streets. There's no differentiation in terms of which of these individuals will go into the new developments that the coalition is building or that the mental health center of Denver is building. So there's a total of 160 dedicated units, and the rest will be housed in scattered site housing throughout the city. So your question as to whether this the services will be provided on site or off site? The answer is yes. They'll be provided in both locations. It'll be determined by the needs of the individual resident, and it will be done in accordance with the individualized treatment plan. This developed in conjunction with that individual. So whether the services mean the core of the assertive, modified, assertive community treatment approach is that it's based on the needs of a particular resident, that the team is mobilized to be able to provide whatever services the individual needs and be responsive to that on a 24 seven basis. But the way that those services are provided, if it's job training, not necessarily best provided in the home, but rather in a location that the individual is introduced to the services from outreach to engagement, getting them housed and keeping them housed is the core of the services that will be provided where the individuals are by a trained team. But the individualized services will be provided through a range of mechanisms throughout the community. And you you've done this effectively with your current programs, right? We've been doing this housing first. We have 360 people currently in housing throughout the city, in both housing that's owned by private landlords that we support through grants and other services, as well as housing that we own and manage. And we have a 95% success rate and keep keeping these individuals in housing, even though they've have a history of about eight years of homelessness prior to entering the housing. So you have a disruptive or abusive person that is in the group there. How will you be able to handle that individual? Are we excluding for the program and and take another candidate to take his place? All right. So both the goals of this social impact bond program is to keep people housed. We work as hard as we can to encourage the individual to change the behavior that might jeopardize their continued housing. Many times that will require that we relocate that individual to another housing unit. That may be more appropriate to what they need. And so but in continuing to house them, continuing to engage, continuing to counsel them and how they can change their lives in response to issues that might jeopardize their housing, that's the key to the engagement. The key to the success of the program. If we have that continuing engagement, working with folks, helping them from where they are to where they want to become, where they want to go, we find that that's the most successful approach for this population. Will you be providing 24 hour, seven day a week supervision at the sites? So on the fixed sites that we we manage, we do have an on site managers and we will have 24 hour staffing to be able to ensure that the property is well maintained and well managed. When we rely upon private landlords to provide the housing, we rely upon their own management and supervision of those facilities. We provide the services, they provide the housing. What about transportation to services? Will you be able to provide transportation to make sure they get to the services offsite? Yes, we have a fleet of vehicles that we use to engage in to move people, get them to appointments. We have case managers whose job it is to do that. Many times they will transport individuals in their own vehicles, but we have vans available and will be assigned to each of the housing developments that we have in this program. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you. Had a question about selection, Carrie. Can you. Selection of the candidates to go after the housing. Q Tell me a little bit more how they will be selected again. Sure, I'm happy to do that. I may call Tyler up to address that question as well. But I just wanted to make a point on your last question. From the city's perspective, we only pay if the program is successful. So the outcome payments you will make, the city will make going forward. Well, you'll only make those payments if these folks are stably housed for long periods of time. And if they stay out of jail, the the investors are at risk of losing their principal of losing the funding they are going to put in to provide these services if they aren't successful at accomplishing those objectives. So the providers have some discretion here and how they work with these individuals, but the incentive is in the right place. The incentive is to help the individual heal, to stabilize them, to make sure they don't cycle back through the criminal justice system. And that to me, is is a really important component and why using social impact bond financing makes so much success because that incentive is placed in the right place for the providers now. To your question about how individuals are selected, the eligible population for social impact bond financing to cover supportive housing is individuals who have are homeless and have been arrested at least eight times over the last three years. What we know is we have more than 250 individuals who are going to fit that criteria. And yet this funding provides new supportive housing units for up to four 250 individuals. So there will be more people who fit that eligibility criteria who won't be selected. This will be a lottery. It will be a randomized trial in order to to have these individuals moved into housing. And long term, hopefully, if this program demonstrates and it will have one of the most robust evaluations ever done on permanent supportive housing , if it shows that it's successful and individuals can be served better through supportive housing at less cost than the taxpayers are currently spending on them through the criminal justice system. Then, of course, the city could expand the program to serve more individuals. I think we're all impressed with the financial arrangement, and I think we're hoping for a great success. I think hope it will be a great success. Let me ask David Broadwell question, please. David, as we're selecting the candidates to go out to the homes, you know, and the city is is assuming that responsive was selected these folks and and we won't have we have any liability for for these individuals if they cause to have disruptive behavior and in cause any incidents to cause bodily harm to anyone. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I'm going to defer this question to the attorneys in the room who are actually staffing the contract because there may be special provisions in the contract that are directly related to the answer to your question. So I see general burn mobilizing in the back there. Sorry. It was crowded when I walked in. Amgen Wellborn with the city attorney's office and I helped draft the contract with Tyler and his team. I don't think we're concerned about being liable for the actions of a participant in a. Program that. We are funding. We're not funding the providers directly, frankly. And the this contract is between City and Denver, which is the intermediary, which is contracting with the providers and contracting with the investors. That being said, there is indemnification language in the in the contract. So to the extent that we're sued, we're all going to be in the mix. But we feel confident that if we are sued by a property owner or someone else who's affected by the the folks in the program that we are, that we won't be found liable. So with the proper supervision, that should minimize any liability. That's right. And we I mean, we can't do anything about someone trying to sue us. Right. I mean. But and the other the other aspect of. This is that, of course, we're not liable for torts under the Governmental Immunity Act. So and there wouldn't be a contract claim between those folks. So it would be the claim would be attenuated, I guess I would say at this point, not not knowing how that might come about. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Sure. Thank you much. Councilman Brooks. Sorry. Just debating with my fellow council member over here. I just I want to make two quick points because, you know, I think I think we're deep in finances and I'm don't go back to finances. But here's the reality to Councilman Flynn's point, that we can delay this because it's not going to impact anyone. It will impact eight individuals this week if we delay this. Eight individuals who are on the street this week will not have a place to stay if we do not execute this contract. 25 in the next couple of weeks. 250 in the next year. And so that's the reality of what we're dealing with. And I'm so passionate about this because we've been dealing with this for the last four years, and we finally have data driven results and a program that Clinton Global Initiative praised this for. And all these cities have talked about, we want to implement this in our city as well. And it's because we have finite resources and we have a real challenge addressing issues in our city, and we are trying to address those issues. And every time we come up with some complex financing, we have these issues. And so I'm going to I'm going to have Tyler, if you can answer this question for me, because I actually want you to respond to Kevin Flynn's question about the 9.6 million, if you can give me that deal so quickly. Thank you, sir. So in the slide presentation, we we got the total investment amount of your housing stability payment at approximately $8.6 million, and that is including housing stability in jail. Bad days, correct? Tell me that is not including Denver cares. That is not including Denver health as well. There's other cost that the. There's other costs that the taxpayer of Denver incurs. Correct. Thank you. Council President Councilman Brooks. So when we look at kind of what are we paying for certain outcomes, we're actually factoring in kind of projected savings to the different institutions. So looking at detox, looking at arrest costs, looking at court costs, all of those different costs that go into different incidents. So if a person's arrested, they might be booked in and that's a specific cost, and then they might go to court at a specific cost and then they might go to jail. That's another specific cost. When we were looking at measures to actually monitor performance and for the city to pay out on, we picked the two measures housing stability and jail bed reductions. Housing stability is is really and John is a better person to really address this than anyone is really an indicator of whether a housing program is doing well. Are the individuals that you want to house actually staying housed? And studies have really shown that a person stays housed longer. They're less likely to be engaged in a lot of other systems and then in jail that day reduction. Well, it's not accounting just for the cost of what is a jail bad day. It's looking at all of those arrests and criminal justice costs as we're putting them together. So as we see tangible reductions in interactions with the criminal justice system, we're seeing projected benefits across the entire system. So so just let me ask my question again. I appreciate the explanation. Is the 8.6, including everything that a person would incur in the cost for a taxpayer, is paying for them? No. So we were being very conservative and only looking at Denver Health and Hospital because that's where kind of the direct connection between the city and kind of a hospital is. We did not look at the other hospitals in the area where we know individuals might go as well as we did not look at sign of kind of what is the cost of specific homeless outreach police officers. And we did not also look at ambulatory care. So when looking at national studies, usually they the cost of an individual not in supportive housing is closer to 40 or above $40,000 per year, and we estimate it here to be about 29,000. Great. You know, just the crux of some of my colleagues argument is we we don't want corporate interests profiting off of, you know, individuals in in the community. And so I completely understand that. But just your numbers showed us that there is much more costs out there. And what you were showing was condensed costs off of the data that you've been collecting over a while. And just to that point, specifically, the reason why you do pay for success contracts is because the city only wants to pay for outcomes. So if no outcomes are met, so if no one stayed stably housed, then no. We saw no reduction in jail that days and the services in Colorado coalition would still be paid for, but the city wouldn't make any payments, so the lenders or investors in this transaction wouldn't see any dollars at all on the higher end if we start to see increased outcomes. So increase outcomes that lead to benefit to the city. Yes, there is a higher rate of return and actually as you see a lot of the investors that are included as part of this project, a lot of them are foundations that are doing this out of what's called program related investments, which is actually a federal law that says it has to be below market rate of return. And then our largest investor on this has actually created an agreement under the learning loan conditions that any returns over 3% would actually be shared with the provider so made CD and CCH themselves. So we're not really talking about investors who are really trying to make quite a bit of money for themselves off of this transaction. Last question, how long have you been working on this project? I always say that I'm three years into a one year fellowship. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Brooks, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I will pick up where my colleague left off on the savings question, and then I have some some comments and responses on the bigger picture questions that my colleague raised. But so I heard one very big clarification, which is that you can't just compare the price, the cost of what we are paying per day for staying housed with the cost of what you would have spent in a night in jail. We're including the cost of the night in jail, the cost of the court, the cost of all kinds of other things. Another thing, though, that I just want to clarify is it sounds like my colleague just divided, you know, the total payment by the number of nights, but you don't get paid till there's already 365 nights of being housed. So, in fact, you'd have to divide what we're paying overall, not by one night, but by that first 365 days. So the actual amount per night that you stay housed in year two includes having stayed housed for an entire year prior to that. So I just want to clarify that I'm doing I'm thinking about the math correctly. You can't you can't ignore that there's 365 days that precede the first night of payment. So I think there's a couple of things that I think with the math, it was probably, I think, trying to take we're. Building these into two outcomes one, jail that day reductions in housing stability. And I think it was trying to look more at jail day day reduction. So I'm not sure how those calculations came out. I think it might have been trying to look at what you would be paid for a certain percentage threshold and then dividing that. I think maybe by what we've seen in jail, bad days among the population looking backwards on housing stability because we want to pay for success. We have a threshold that in order for anyone to be eligible for any days to be eligible for payment, an individual has to be stable house for at least 365 days. Right. Thank you very much for that clarification. I want to talk for a minute about this concept of savings, because I think this is really important for the public. Two things. One is that we have an overall annual growth in costs that occur even if you don't serve a single additional person. Right. So it costs more every year to light a building. It costs more every year to provide health care for employees, all the things that we pay for. Those costs go up over time. We also then in Denver have population growth. Right. So so even if, you know, it costs more to serve the same number of people. So you have a cost curve that looks like this and then you have more people coming in. So you have a cost curve that looks like this. One of the questions that my colleague has asked is, well, this isn't really savings because we're not actually cutting the jail budget. We're not actually cutting the hospital budget. Right. Can you talk for a minute about the idea of changing the curve of cost increase versus OC? Yes, we're not cutting the budget, but it would have grown by this much. Can you just talk a little bit about what savings means in this context? Because because I think people are thinking, oh, the jail budget is, you know, $40 million this year and with this program, it'll be 39 million. And that's that's not really I don't think what you're proposing. Yeah. Councilwoman, it's a great question. And if Denver's population was staying static, if it was going to be exactly the same over the next five years and the demographics weren't going to change then, yes, you could look at translating these savings into line item budget reductions. These 250 individuals right now living on Denver's streets are spending 14,000 nights in Denver's jail. They're being arrested over 2200, over 1500 times, 2200 visits to detox. So a lot of costs for Denver taxpayers, over $7 million a year for Denver taxpayers for these 250 individuals. And if we weren't seeing a growing population, then that would be real savings. If you cut the number of detox days in half, if you cut the number of jail beds and half, you cut the number of E.R. visits in half. It would be real savings to Denver taxpayers. You would be able to reduce budgets by that amount. But we are growing. To your point, we're adding 10,000 people a year right now to Denver's population. So there's pressure on Denver jail to provide additional beds for additional people who are being arrested. There's pressure on all of these systems. So in essence, what you're doing is you're freeing up capacity. What we know about this population of chronically homeless individuals is that they aren't being well served in the criminal justice system. These individuals are being arrested for public nuisance, for public alcohol consumption, for panhandling, for trespassing. And so it's really not the best use of Denver's taxpayers money for those individuals to be spending 60 or 70 or 100 nights a year in the Denver jail. It's much more effective to free up that jail bad day for somebody who needs to be in jail. So the saving comes in the form of cost avoidance. And if if it's okay, Mr. President, I just want to jump back on the on the previous question related to the rates of return for these private investors. These are primarily philanthropic investors. And I just wanted folks to understand that baseline that if less than 75%, 75% of these individuals are housed over a long period of time, meaning they're in their housing for more than a year, the investors start to lose money. And if we don't actually see jail bad day reductions of more than 30%, then the investors start to lose money. If we see what we're expecting to see based on national outcomes, study for this population being moved out of the criminal justice system and into supportive housing, that would mean 83% of them are stably housed and experience a 40% reduction in the nights they spend in the Denver jail. The return that investors will receive is 3.4%. That is before the commitment that Tyler just announced, which I think we want to take a minute and recognize the significance of the largest investor in this project has said they won't actually keep any returns over 3% even . Best case scenario, they won't keep anything over 3%. They're going to return it back to the Coalition for the Homeless and MHC to continue to serve this population. So just a couple of comments to close it out. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me the questions. You know, having started my second term, I remember a time on this council when our employees were furloughed. Our libraries were closed several days a week, and we were laying off police officers and other critical safety personnel. It's very easy to today imagine that we could just pay for this program out of our budget because we are in such good economic times as a city. But the truth is that we very recently were not. And unfortunately, history tells us that economic cycles will come and go again. And so I think this is a really critical program to understand this model, to test it, to see if it works because these resources might not be available in future budget years. I hope that we continue steadily to invest in the kind of preventative services we're doing here, but I don't want that to be the only way that those preventative services get provided. And so I am glad to see additional capital coming from the community. And one really important fact which Carrie didn't mention is that if these individuals succeed at a very high rate, we will both pay back those investors and spend less than we would have on the services. So there are dollars savings to the city. And the best case scenario and that's really important. So so that's how I feel about the dollars and the money. And I. My colleague raising some really important questions. I want to just acknowledge the concerns that Councilman Flynn raised about the overall system, though. I think, you know, we have spent a number of committee meetings as a council recently, and I'm very proud of this council. The level of knowledge that people want to have about housing and homelessness has has really been, I think, a testament to how important this issue is for the folks who serve up here. It's become very clear that we have gaps. We do not have an individual in a job title that is specifically responsible for setting goals, for supportive housing, for homeless individuals and getting them into it. We have pieces of programs spread across several departments. We have good intentions. We have providers who sometimes build that housing and they come to us and they propose good projects, but we are simply not leading consistently in a systematic way. And I think that that's become very apparent. And so this project is coming forward in a bit of a piecemeal fashion because we haven't figured out that big system. But I don't believe you start progress to complete that system. I believe you continue this progress. You ensure that these services are provided and then you work simultaneously to improve that system and fill that gap. That's what I hope we come out of our conversation on Wednesday when we meet as a council to follow up on the homeless retreat. I hope that we set a high expectation that we work closely with the department to say that this needs to be a systematic and integrated piece of what we do going forward. And I think the same can be said about the concerns you raised about outreach and how we reach individuals who might be homeless in other parts of the community. I expressed that, you know, we've talked a lot about jail nights and savings, but the individuals we're talking about are among the most vulnerable and they're likely to die on the streets. That's why morally it's okay to prioritize them for housing. It's not really about the rate of return. It's about the fact that these individuals are most likely to die. We know that. We survey them. And so morally it is okay and it is appropriate for us to focus really quickly on getting them into housing as the first individuals in the door. But Councilman Flynn, you are so right to say that the other individuals in different neighborhoods who may not get arrested as often and who may not come to light because they try hard to stay out of the light, we have an obligation to them. So I do think that another thing we as a council can have an impact on is we can talk about how that outreach occurs. You know, we've already, I think, started a conversation to say, how is it that outreach thinks about being more holistic, about covering the entire city? I'm so glad the coalition is going to spend time in your district. I think we need to continue to push for that throughout the city. It may mean fewer contacts in our because you have to drive further to get to people under a gulch or under a bridge. That's okay. That's okay. If we sacrifice perhaps some numbers to reach new individuals we haven't been talking to as much and we have to talk about that as a council. But I also do not believe that you stop this project from going forward to do that. This is a both and this is do this project and have much higher standards, invest much more strategic resources and do a more systematic job going forward. And I will be at the front of the line advocating for that along with you, Councilman Flynn, you are right on. I appreciate the time you took to show me your district and the ways that this project may impact and and could interact with your community. And so so I think that I've already heard some of that commitment from this council, and I am hopeful we do continue to push those envelopes, both with the administration as well as sometimes with our service providers. If that's what's needed, it may take resources and I think that that's something we're all coming to terms with. But I am very proud to support this project tonight. I believe the things that we will learn and the lives that we will save will make some of the challenges and some of the unknowns worthwhile. So thank you for the team for bringing it forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to say a few thoughts because I don't want my vote to be misconstrued as somehow being non compassionate or not wanting to support what I think is actually a very clever idea in a way, to sort of really incentivize and fuel additional focus and resources. But I have a problem with bottom line, and that's where this all ends for me, which is the structure in the bricks and mortar. There's a huge chunk of public subsidy and in the rental of that unit, there's a huge chunk of public subsidy. And then we're going to put this money in this fund. I mean, it's set aside in this well, we're going to do this contract. I'll get my terms right. We're going to write this contract to deliver these services, not unlike the way we deliver a lot of services through contracts. But this one has this incentive, this sort of carrot on the end, which is doing has the potential for doing really good. But if we're worried about how our fiscal future is on a. Five year trial. If this is wildly successful, we're going to pay significantly more out of our general fund or out of it. Kerry Correct me if my terms are wrong, but we're going to pay significantly more to the people we're contracting with for having done a good job when what we are committing to is that eight plus million dollars. So we will be on the hook potentially for that amount unless they underperform. And and so. My actually. So there. Well, no, we're actually on the hook for those varying amounts. I should correct that. So if they underperform. Yeah, we safe. But why not if we think that they're going to actually perform? Because that's what the modeling shows that they're going to perform. Why not contract out directly with these service providers for the $8 million rather than have the potential to be on the hook for 11 plus million dollars over the course of five years? We have the money set aside as the city three some odd million dollars we will be continuing to set aside so that we can cover these payments in case they are on track. So we we are making the commitment to the funds. What we're not doing is doing it. We're we're doing it in this sort of distorted way. And I would rather us, as the city sort of take on this responsibility wholeheartedly. And if we have the ability and the will to commit to $11 million, then let's commit to $11 million right now and get that stuff done. That's and that's where why I'm going to be voting against this. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Kerry in Tyler for answering many of the questions that I had after this came to committee. I think he received several pages of questions from a number of us, and I appreciate the time you took to sit down with me and walk through just how this is going to work. So, first of all, I want to ask, do we have any idea what percentage of these folks we're talking about are men versus women? And so we don't have an exact percentage on that right now. But typically it's been around 75% men. But we have seen a rise in women that are part of the population as well. And will the development be coed to the fixed site? Yeah, they're independent units. So and I'm happy to provide John if he wants to talk about how they do units more, but it would be more coed. I'd like to ask John, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So one of the issues that I've struggled with is the fact that as a city, we're not like other cities that have centralized intake where, you know, you're you're able to take all of the different people that we're talking about in and really identify and prioritize the folks who truly are the chronic homeless frequent fliers that go through our jail system, as well as the hospital in detox. And I'm I'm familiar with the fact that you have a separate system from the homeless management information system that other providers have. So how how do you see in your mind the prioritization happening when you have your list of people who your organization deals with on a daily basis, whether they come through the clinic or street outreach workers, versus folks that may be referred to you from street outreach workers, from a different agency. Councilwoman Ortega threw the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative Initiative MDH. There is a coordinated assessment and housing placement process where individuals are assessed using a national tool called the Vulnerability Index or the vice. That version for short and those that score over ten on that scale are judged to be in need of permanent supportive housing. There are. That instrument has been given now to over 2000 individuals throughout the metro Denver area, and people are prioritized based on the time in which they have completed that measure and the how high they score on that scale with those with high level of vulnerability being health, mental health, addictions, service interactions with the police and jail . Moving them higher on that scale, we will have a side by side process for the social impact bond and individuals will have to complete the vice cadet as they are referred through this process. And those who are judged in the end, not in the control group and the treatment group will be prioritized for. Housing through that process. Recognizing that because of the vulnerability and because of the high service utilization and the cost to the city, that the housing resources that are being brought to bear for this project will be matched with those individuals. So who's got that master list? I guess that's what I'm struggling with. I know that through our Crime Control Commission, they've got a list of the frequent fliers that go through the jail system. You all have, along with other service providers, have lists of individuals who have received various services there in the homeless management information system. So help me understand how the to interface with one another and ensure that it truly is the the chronic homeless the frequent fliers that we are going to get into these units because I'm. I was around when we did our first round of homeless housing and we said the very same thing. I worked at Denver Human Services when we came before City Council and we said, we're going to reduce costs. We're going to be able to show that we're going to save the city money. And we did not have the right tracking system that ensured we were targeting the right people. It was based on which street outreach workers were able to identify. People that were willing to go into housing, they weren't necessarily are chronic homeless, which is what we were originally trying to do. So this is where I want to make sure we get this part right. I think what we're doing is critically important and this is something that we talked about doing after we passed the camping dancing, we were committed to ensuring that we were going to have some permanent housing and, you know, wrapped around with the support services, which I'm very familiar with your programs, John. I know you guys have done an outstanding job. Keep people in their units. Folks are now back in the workforce. They're, you know, they've moved out of units. But but I'm I'm just struggling with the initial intake process and how we ensure that we are targeting, if you will, the right individuals that we want to prevent from dying in the streets. So it's important to understand the context. So I mentioned the vice, but that assessment has been given to over 2000 individuals throughout the metro Denver area. And this instrument is targeted to single individuals as opposed to families. Over half have been judged in need of permanent supportive housing, not just affordable housing within that group less. Only about 100 have actually been housed over the last two years. So we have a very critical shortage of available, permanent supportive housing. This project will create and leverage 250 units of housing, both physical through these facilities and housing assistance to allow individuals to move into private landlord housing. And we will be targeting those who are frequent users of the system. So there are currently two lists. There is an overlap of that list. But through this process, those who are referred from the Crime Prevention and Control Commission will be merged with the Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement List. By virtue of their referral and prioritization into the treatment group. They will rise to the top of the list and therefore be prioritized to the limited housing resources available. And that's coordinated with the list through MDH II. That's correct. Okay. And that's a seven county metro list, not just a Denver list. So we're extracting out Denver people. Correct? Correct. Okay. The last question that I wanted to ask you is. I can remember when the Housing First Units your first project opened, we were looking at roughly 15,000 a person to house them with the wraparound services. Is the escalated cost a result of primarily land land prices in the city and how we have seen them escalate because we're now talking about 29,000 a year to house an individual with support services. Yeah, I think the 29,000 figure is the unintended cost of emergency services that could be avoided by providing the housing supportive housing. The actual service costs associated with supportive housing is averages about $10,500 per person. The actual cost of housing, either the rental assistance to allow someone to rent an apartment in the community or the housing that is made available by the construction of these new housing units will cost an average of about about $800 a month. So almost 10,000. So the true cost are separate, but you will have a net savings when you compare the cost of doing nothing versus the cost of this best practice. Of providing permanent supportive housing. And these are, in fact, units that already have low income tax credits and other subsidies that allow you to write down the cost of the unit to be able to bring the price down to that 800 a month. That's right. And in this project is leverage leveraging that resource from from the Section eight program administered from the Denver Housing Authority and from the Colorado Division of Housing. So these are costs that will not be bear borne by the investors or by the city, but are being leveraged through this project from other resources. So as soon as this passes City Council, how quickly would we see folks housed in the scattered site units? If this passes city council tonight, we would begin to house people tomorrow. Oh. And it's 20 units that she would be providing to individuals through these social impact bonds. Correct. A total of 165. Over the in the immediate units that would be available. Immediately there. There are nine that will be released immediately, another 25 that will be available at the end of next week. And you have a project that's coming online. How how quickly will that project be available? So the as soon as the building department gives us a certificate of occupancy, we understand there's some scheduling issues around that. We'll be able to begin moving people in the next day. When we opened the Start Street Lofts a year and a half ago. It took just three weeks to move 100 or 75 individuals into that housing. And it wasn't because we couldn't find the individuals, but it just took that much time to get them leased up. Do you have a hard time finding the individuals? Now we have many more individuals than we have housing resources for. All right. How can you stand that? I guess? I mean, when somebody has been identified as one of the individuals, they've been through the process and then it's time to actually get them into their unit. Is it is it difficult finding them to let them know their unit is now available? You know, because of the great outreach work that our street outward workers do, and if you haven't had a chance to visit with them and to go out and outreach, these folks know just about everyone who is on this list. And so the trigger will be that they will be a recent interaction with a police outreach officer or or a citation. And that will then focus the attention to be able to immediately outreach, get them connected to that housing resource. Thank you, John. Mr. President, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I do concur with my colleague, Councilman Flynn, that when we are building units in neighborhoods that have homelessness, we should be setting aside a percentage of those units to be able to serve those folks who are also chronic homeless individuals. I often talk about a woman that I see on a regular basis who actually lives under a bridge at Sloan's Lake, who is one of these individuals and I don't know her frequency with the jail system. I would imagine she's probably been in and out of the hospital on on many occasions. But this is an example of somebody who is more than likely going to die on the streets. Who I would want to see be served in a project in her neighborhood rather than say she's got to just get put on some wait list that has to wait for some of the other units that we're going to learn about later this week when we meet and talk about how we're trying to address some of our other low income housing needs, which will also serve homeless individuals as well. I think this is an important program. I will be supporting it tonight and I think it is important that we always get our questions answered, that we know exactly what we're voting for, what the financial implications are to the taxpayers. And I'm just looking forward to seeing some of these people who. Have been in and out of our hospital system, in and out of our jail system that hopefully can get their lives back on track. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I have tremendous respect for my for my colleague, Councilman Flynn, when it comes to this issue, especially when there is a. New tool. As untested in this city. But. Here's where I absolutely concur with my colleague. We've talked about this in the past. And as the Sanderson Apartments. And as we look at creating units all over the city, we want to see that all over the city. Number one, I want to see that all over the city. Second, because it works when you are able to contact the individuals who are either at risk of being homeless or are indeed homeless in those areas and be able to create a priority and to create that that that place in that geographic area, it's important. It's important to realize that we have a lot of homeless folks who are not necessarily under a bridge, but they're in a backyard. In a shed, in a garage, in an alley, in a gulch throughout West Denver. You do see a lot of it. There's ways that we can go about by doing this. You know, it was, I think, in August when I visited in Los Angeles and really had an opportunity to really to meet with the L.A. Homeless Authority, L.A. County Homeless Authority out there, and to really understand and see how just how much Skid Row has grown. It's no longer the row. It's the whole area. Right. And one of the things that really caught me is when they said, you know, the worst mistake we made was to centralize the services. Right? When all we did was concentrate here, when we should have gone back and we should have developed these units all throughout the city and these projects all throughout city. And we should have made sure in order for prevent for us to prevent this from happening, we had a we should have priority prioritized those folks and that or those areas. We're also going to come into the center and the city core seeking refuge. And I think that's one of the things that we've got to be mindful of. So I in that aspect, I absolutely concur. The other thing is that. I don't. I think that this is a great opportunity and I know are then Deputy Mayor Herron and. Treasurer. Kerry Kennedy had briefed me at length about how this may be a revolutionary idea. Right. And it's another tool. Now, I don't agree with some of the policies and policies in particular, you know, a couple that we have on the books that regarding homelessness. But I do believe and using the tools that that we have to be able to help resolve this issue. Now, at the end of the day, I think the best tool is paying somebody a living wage and giving them access to health care and creating affordable in affordable units and really, really creating that opportunity. That's how you solve a lot of the issues on the front end. And some of the same people who come to us and talk about some of these other policies are reluctant to do that. However, I think that we have an opportunity right here. Another tool in the toolbox that we can use with this now is. You know, is it untested? Probably. But do we have an opportunity to try this as a city innovated? Absolutely. And I don't want to fear passing this opportunity up, because we just kind of fear the change of it because it's something new. And I know that's not why my colleague is is concerned about it. But I actually I want to see this move forward because I'm very curious to see how this works. Right. And not just in theory, on paper, but in our community and in our city. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill, if it passes, will not solve the problem of homelessness. Our Department of Public Works is looking at beginning a program called Vision Zero that aims to bring auto related deaths in Denver to zero. It's a great program. I look forward to its implementation in 2015. 60 people died from auto related accidents in the city and county of Denver. Shortly before Christmas, a bunch of us were on the front steps of the city and county building while the names were out of the 129 people, homeless people who died on the street in 2015. I'm preparing in our committee of the whole dealing with homelessness to offer the idea that we have a Vision Zero type of program aimed at ending homeless deaths on the street. I share Councilman Flynn's concerns in a number of areas. I think this program needs to have rigid auditing to be sure that the numbers justify what we're doing. But I also think this may be a good beginning, looking at the population, as Councilwoman Coolidge mentioned, as being in such jeopardy of being some of those names that get read out each year. I think this this program may help to drop that number. So I'll look forward to supporting this bill this evening. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief or just some final remarks. Considering all the comments that were made from colleagues, I. I really don't have any doubt that this will be a success. I really don't. I based on all the briefings I have had, I think it's going to work. And that's why I would concur with Councilman Espinosa. I think it's going to be successful. We ought to fund it ourselves. Instead of re paying back investors. In fact, for an $8.6 million investment from the lenders, if this is as successful as the contract anticipates, we would repay over the five years $11.6 million. That's a 34% rate of return over the five years. I think that's money we could well use delivering the services ourself. I have that much faith in it. I've seen Housing First. I believe that people will be arrested less than if they remain on the street. And that's why I think that this this is going to be a successful program. But I want to remind my colleagues that the savings that we are imputing is an arithmetic average. There are fixed costs at the detox center at Denver, at Denver Health, at the county jail. There are fixed costs that don't go away. Whether these 250 people are not arrested at all or not. I want to remind my colleagues that we're not actually saving the taxpayers any money until and unless we literally spend less money than we otherwise would have. Even granting that there's a natural councilwoman candidate, even in granting that there's a natural growth in other people, etc.. We are not saving the taxpayers money unless and until we literally spend less money than we would have. And I don't see us under these contracts spending less money. I can't support tonight program going forward like this without an overall fabric defined for me and for the other district council members for their neighborhoods as to how how this program will not this program, but how the rest of our programs will serve the homeless in my district. Literally, literally, we evicted five homeless people from mental health centers property last fall who had set up a camp there. And they're living somewhere now, still in my district until we find a way to serve the people already in the neighborhood where we're moving the folks from the core. I can't support this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no more comments. We're voting on 15 and 16 together in a block. Madam Secretary, roll call. FLYNN Now. Gilmore I. Cashman I can. Lopez All right. Knew Ortega. Black Brooks Clark. Espinosa No, Mr. President. I. Victoria Police Force heavily announced the results. Ten ice, two days. In ice two days. Resolutions 15 and 16 have been adopted in a block. All right. The next one, I believe, Madam Secretary, 927 Councilman, New Cavaney, what would you like for us to do with this? You said the question is, please. Go right ahead. Just not sure who's here about the handles, the transportation discussion. Do we have someone in the audience for 920? Okay. I think Brian. Miller is making his way up. Go ahead. Go ahead, Wayne. Good evening, Mr. President. City council members. I'm Ron Mitchell from Human Services. Right. Very, very impressed with the transportation services like Salvation Army. Get out to the Peoria Center and just wanted to ask a little question of how is the transportation services going to work with this new program for this next year, especially when we're losing the the shelter in Peoria is another host. So for this particular contract. This will provide up to 40 over. 1400 trips a year. It breaks down to about $415 per round trip. The there are several pickup points within the city of Denver, more of the downtown area. And it goes out to these outlying areas where might be rec centers, for example, that might house as overflow shelters for the homeless. My answering your question. Will they be picking up. Will be helping transportation say rescue mission. Salvation Army. The main areas of where our homeless reside. Yes. What they do is a there's a pick up time of about 7:00 and then in the morning they pick them up and they return them to those same locations. We just finished this lengthy discussion about getting the homeless off the street. And this is this transportation to me is very critical to get them to the shelters off the street. So this will be an improvement of the services we're proposing offering. This contract has actually been in effect since October of 2013, and it was it was a through an RFP from 2012. It was expanded last year as a result of wanting to begin to cover the summer months as well as the winter months. So overall, this is definitely an improvement over what we have historically had. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman there. Any other questions? 927 Madam Secretary, that was all the resolutions. We've got one bill for introduction, I believe it was 17. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us? There was just a couple of questions. Is Jeff Steinberg in the audience? Jeff, would you mind coming forward? This acquisition of property that's north of National Western and Japan. I had a chance to talk this afternoon. A couple of questions that I didn't get a chance to ask you are, first of all, is is the building currently occupied with a business, an operating business? I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of Real Estate. The answer to that question is, yes, there are businesses. In that operation. Do we know how many jobs will be displaced as a result of this acquisition? There won't be any jobs that are displaced. The businesses that are there will continue to be there for an interim period of time. The major tenant is a company called Boulder Meats, and they're seeking to find a larger location because they're expanding their operations. Okay. So that was my primary concern was just trying to figure out you were able to address a lot of my questions related to some of the, you know, the the terms of the agreement, the price that we're paying, you know, the condition of the land that we're going to get it in.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 32-1 of Chapter 21.32, Table 33-2 of Chapter 21.33, and Table 41-C of Chapter 21.44, all related to zoning code regulations, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0924

Next hearing item is item 18 report from Development Services recommendation to receive the supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from secure. Declare Ordinance Amending Title 2021 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to modify allowed and conditionally allowed commercial and industrial uses. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance to the California Coastal Commission citywide. I can't go on staff and staff. You guys can just zoom. We have this information. Can you zoom through this, please? Sure. Oscar. Christopher, if you could, go ahead. So I think 19 is on the screen instead of 18. So this item relates to what we call omnibus updates to the zoning code. We have an overall program to update the zoning code and replace outdated provisions. But events occurred to change a little bit of what those provisions would be. So last year, at a date that's in the PowerPoint, I don't have Councilman Richardson asked staff to report back on that. There we go. April 9th, 2019, to report back on incentives and other provisions we could do to provide urgent care and medical services. We followed that into the omnibus program that we already talked about. Then with that work well underway, COVID hit earlier this year and we really looked at sort of the economic impacts of that and made some additional changes that are all packaged together in one item in front of city council today. So we have certain uses in the zoning code that require special approvals. What we wanted to do is still provide the community the assurance that there will be a review of those uses, but save those applicants at least $1,000 and a month, a process which we think is very important as we try to get businesses reopened and refill storefronts where businesses may have gone out of business. There's this that same approach we took in 2019 with reforms to the cannabis regulations and these clarify and incentivize medical use as per city council direction. So I'm doing the zoom through. We made changes to the industrial use table to make it easier to open businesses, including minor auto repair, tire sales, motorcycle and jet ski sales, which no one on staff was or why that required a special approval. But we're going to make it a little bit easier for those businesses and also to make some changes for religious uses that may expand, which was just a problem in the code. Private schools like industrial art schools, appliance repair, which is something you need in times of economic distress. You might have something repaired instead of replaced. And then we get into the medical world making sure that we actually allow hospitals in our zoning code, which we, of course, have the hospitals in the city. But it's not clear under the zoning code how a new one would open. So we address that as well as other uses such as urgent care. The biggest change is to slightly modify the parking requirements for medical uses to match those of retail. This is important because a retailer that went out of business could become a chiropractor or a dentist or urgent care center. And if dentists went out of business, that could become a retailer providing greater flexibility in the built environment. So that was as quick as I could do it. We recommend that you approve the ordinance in front of you. The Planning Commission enthusiastically supported this ordinance, and we know that it'll be important to serving residents needs for medical services, as well as goods and services related to the uses covered in this ordinance. I'm glad to answer any questions and we have additional staff on the web meeting. Thank you. I have a motion, a councilman's and the second by Councilmember Richardson. Is there any public comment on this council comment? Is there any public comment on this, Mr. Clark? Yes, we have. And control. Hello again for the record. And Control. Hello. And Cantwell. And I'd like to address Change five, which will modify the parking for urgent care centers and other medical places from five per thousand to 4000. I'm puzzled as to where you think people are going to park when they have a medical alert emergency and trying to get to urgent care. This. Oh. Seems like a very. Stupid way. To modify. Parking. There should be more parking. Available if you have an emergency. And they're trying to get to urgent care. I'd like an explanation. I know I won't get one, but I can't imagine why you would. Take out parking for urgent care. I guess you expect people to ride their bicycles or take the bus if they're sick. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Dave Shukla. Hello. Last coming for me tonight. But for the record, I do support N22. But on this item I support it as well and I appreciate it, you know, pretty detailed but brief presentation. Question How is the same city on the same day? Can have this item right after the previous? I mean, look at the difference here. I mean, look at I mean, one is so clearly tied to what we're actually dealing with and one is just, you know, furthering it, frankly. I mean, we got to decide what kind of city we're going to be, what kind of people we're going to be. I mean, you know, I learn something every time I you know, this is central to me. I don't always agree with it, but I mean, I learn something every single time. Well, we might benefit from some fun. Something found in thinking, you know, next budget, see how we're actually going to achieve the third century in the city. Thank you. Thank you that concludes public. It also and have any comment on your first. No customer, Richardson. Any clients? Yes, Mr. Mayor. So. So, first, I want to thank staff for putting this together. It's actually pretty, pretty innovative. The approach that you took, the direction is that that we we brought in city council last year was the we, you know, looked at some issues and we put up some maps that showed that north west in north east Long Beach, basically districts nine, eight, five really had a lack of urgent care centers, hospitals and other things. And those happened to be the same areas that don't have rail. So, you know, have some transit issues. And what ultimately that means is it creates a higher reliance on emergency rooms for non-life-threatening care and that at times can overwhelm wait times at our emergency department. So we so we asked you to look at some creative ways to create incentives that take or look at the barriers that keep urgent care centers, medical facilities from locating in these areas. And I'm proud I'm glad I'm glad to see what you came back with. It's a whole package of incentives, not just parking, but but other incentives as well around the, you know, taking away conditional use permit, going down the AUP. All these things will make it easier for us to locate our medical facilities. I'm proud to say that one, you know, there is actually interest in a new medical clinic with with Blue Shield is looking at utilizing some of these additional clinical amendments in North Lombard. So that so this is exactly what we were looking for a year ago. So so thanks to city staff for doing this, I know we're kind of moving quickly, but this is something important to note. And I wanted to say thank you for that and look forward to, you know, what what what turns out. Okay. Thank you very much. Country and good evening. Comments or no? Okay, then let's get real. I think. I think that's why Richardson set it up. Thank you. Okay. Real cover, please. District one. I high. District two. Hi. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. High District seven. District seven. District. District nine. I. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.95, related to third-party food delivery service fees; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) (Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0005)

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0054

Thank you very much. Moving on, we have I think we've got four or five kind of second readings of ordinances. So why don't we go ahead and get through these rather quickly? I 22 please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code or related to third party food delivery service fees, and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately read and adopted as read citywide. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Check out a motion by Sunday House second by country ranger. I don't think there's any public comment. Roll call vote. District one, district two. I. District three. I. District four. District five, i. District six. He. I. District seven. By. District eight. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Murphy offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Stephen Graham III in City Council effective January 22, 2022.

BostonCC_01262022_2022-0211

I'd say. Warren. Yes, Mr. President. Docket number 00210 has received a unanimous vote. And last but not least, docket number 0211. Counsel of Flynn for Counsel to Murphy. Madam Clerk, please take a roll call vote. Thank you. Docket 0211. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Bach. Yes. Council blocking. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandes. Anderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Anderson? Yes. Council clarity. Yes. That's the clarity of Council Flynn. Yes. Counsel frame. Yes, Counselor. Counsel. Larry. Yes. Counsel. Louisiana. Yes. Answer Louisiana. Yes. Counsel me here. Yes. Here you have counsel Murphy. Yes. Counselor Murphy. Yes. And counsel the world? Yes. Counsel. War. Yes, Mr. President. Docket number 0211 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. We're moving on to late files. I am and I am informed that there are zero way file matters. We're going on tour, we're going on to green shoots. Any anyone wishing to remove the matter from the green sheets may do so at this time. We will move on to the consent agenda. We now moving on to the consent agenda? I have been informed by the clerk that there are zero additions to the consent agenda. The Chair moves for adoption of the consent consent agenda.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 735 North Milwaukee Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-28-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0003

We have three public hearings tonight for those who are participating in-person when called upon. Please come to the podium and on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down for those who are participating virtually. When called upon, please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you were promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. Will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual protests. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must draw up their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Judge your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega. Will you please put Council Bill two to death 0003 on the floor for final passage. Yes, Madam President. I move that. Council Bill 20 2-0003 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22-0003 is open. May we have that report, please? Good afternoon, members of City Council. Madam President, my name is Frank Bruni, filled with CPD, and I'm here today to present you the rezoning for 735 North Milwaukee Street. Subject property is located in Council District ten. In the Congress Park neighborhood. And the request is to rezone through a district that will allow for an 80 you in the rear of the property. All other forms of your standard will remain the same. The property is currently zoned U.S. and the request to rezone to U.S. U.S. one, which requires a minimum lot size of 5500 square feet and allows for a detached U in the rear of the property. The site is 6250 square feet and the current land use for the site is single unit residential and it is totally surrounded by other residential uses. The property is within the Crown View plane that allows for heights up to 125 feet in this location. So building on neighbor, you should not be a problem. My apologies. The star is not where it should be. The subject property is also within the Seventh Avenue Historic District. Therefore, any additions or alterations to the structure would require a review by Denver Landmarks Preservation. As shown on these photos, the character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. The subject property can be seen in the bottom right image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously in December 25, and to date, staff has received one letter in support of the rezoning stating how to use our creative way to help provide affordable units in communities and staff. Also received two letters of opposition from the public. The letters. These two letters express concerns with a potential increase in population density, the scale of a two storey AEW preservation of historic character and decreasing property values. On the first point, I would like to mention that Denver's zoning code and associated licensing regulations allows the resident of a primary dwelling unit to conduct a short term rental , either in the primary dwelling unit or in a legally permitted accessory dwelling unit. This basically means that a resident in a primary structure can apply for a short term rental license as long as they live in the property. Not not allowing for an you won't prevent an applicant from getting a short term rental license. On the second and third point, voicing concerns over the scale of the two stories to you and preservation of historic character. City rules limit the size of an EU so that they are always smaller, an accessory accessory to the main house and don't overwhelm or shadow neighboring houses. Many Denver neighborhoods already allow free to use. For example, carriage houses are commonly featured in historic neighborhoods. The site is located within the East Seventh Avenue Historic District CBD stuff in coordination with Landmarks Preservation Commission Reform Design Review for all projects that are required. Building permits for properties located in designated historic districts. This review ensures that exterior alterations preserve the property's key historic character defining features and qualities. If the site is to be stone and a need to use proposal, it would be subject to review by Landmark Preservation Commission. Now in the final point, voice in the letters about the concern on decreasing property values, we have not seen any data. That proves that property. Values decrease way to use our build. Now moving on to Denver's zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the request map amendment amendment is consistent with five material. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to his rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the East Central Area Plan. As stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals in the Comprehensive Plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in Denver and the future places map designates a US low residential place type. This place type. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Milwaukee Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% growth and employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And then finally, the final plan, the East Central Area Plan was adopted by City Council in 2020 and applies to its subject property. The plan includes general recommendations and neighborhood specific recommendations and utilizes the same context and place framework as Blueprint. Denver. The subject property is designated urban low residential, the same as in Denver. The land use and build form section includes specific recommendations on rezoning. Reduce Tragedy. See recommends implementing adopted city waste policy in Blueprint Denver to diversify housing choice through expansion of its use throughout all residential areas, while also addressing context and sensitive data design and removing barriers to a two year construction. It goes further in saying that any use should be allowed in all residential forms. The proposed amendment is consistent with the East Central Area Plans, concert context and place designation and would allow for an accessory dwelling unit that is appropriate for this location in the neighborhood, making it consistent with the plan. Stuff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will also further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is to see the adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing U.S., you see some districts the city has adopted the comprehensive plan in Denver and the East Central Area Plan stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context, residential district and the U.S. You see one swing district . Without requirements, approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening on this hearing. We have Jesse Paris. I'm getting word from our producers that you're not accepting. It looks like you're in now. Okay. There we go. We're going to go ahead and get you cued up, Jesse. There's also a long black noose. And I'll be in November and 2023 when Barack's rezoning the mines. I supported 80 units. I supported the city council at large in 2019. I got almost 15,000 votes with no money, so I continue to support them in 2022. I just wanted to know what this used going to be used for and is it going to be used for aides and family members or. It was going to be. So it's on. So please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Build 20 2-0003. All right. I'm not seeing any questions from members of council. The sorry, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-0003 Council Member Hines Thank you. Council President I this is in my district. I want to thank CPD for the presentation. When I was a candidate for office, I heard a lot about housing density. I know that there were some fliers that were sent out that were saying that I supported 80 plus story buildings everywhere. I think one of the allegations was specifically in Congress Park. We're in a housing crisis. We do need more density, but we don't need 80 plus story buildings everywhere. I see accessory dwelling units in a beautiful neighborhood of Congress Park as one way for for congress park to add a little bit of gentle density to our city . And as long as we all do our part that in in context with the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that that we can move forward to tackle some of our affordable housing challenges. So while I don't think the 80 plus storey building makes a lot of sense in in most of our city, particularly in Congress Park, an accessory dwelling unit makes a whole lot of sense. And in addition to that, this meets the five criteria. So I would encourage a yes vote for my colleagues. I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines and I do agree with you as well. The rezoning criteria have been met and we'll be supporting this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0003. CdeBaca. Hi. All. Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Black eye. Clark. All right. Flynn. All right. Herndon. Ah. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 2-0003 has passed. Thank you, friend. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP CM21-078 and award contracts to Long Beach Immigrants’ Rights Coalition of Long Beach, CA, St. Mary Medical Center of Long Beach, CA, and Centro CHA, of Long Beach, CA, for Community Connector Services under the Long Beach Justice Fund, and to Immigrant Defenders Law Center, of Los Angeles, CA, for Legal Services under the Long Beach Justice Fund, in an annual aggregate amount not to exceed $275,000, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for one additional one-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager, and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary subsequent amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02152022_22-0169

Thank you. I think we pulled item with it. Three councilwoman in the house, remember? So it's good to hear a update on that from staff, please. We'll have Theresa Chandler, the deputy city manager, provide a brief staff report for this item. Thank you. I can't even get a good evening, everybody. So last year's budget process, city council allocated an additional $300,000 in structural funding towards the Long Beach Justice Fund. The item before you item number three is to approve contracts for the legal services provider and community connectors to support the continued operation of the Long Beach. Just fine. So we're going to continue to utilize immigrant defenders, also known as MDA as our legal services provider. They're responsible for providing direct representation for individuals who live and work in Long Beach and are facing removal or deportation. The legal services provider provider will adhere to the universal representation model by which representation is offered to as many clients as funding will be allowed without qualifying based on the merits of the case. In response to the challenges posed by COVID 19 for fiscal year 21, the Long Beach Justice Fund Oversight Committee recommended adding a community connection services component to the Justice Fund. Furthermore, the city manager will allocate funding to three organizations Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, St Mary Medical Center and Central Park to serve as community connectors. The Community Community Connectors will be responsible for connecting community members to the Justice Fund, legal service provider to MTF, to provide outreach and education, to provide referrals to community services, and to serve as liaisons with clients and their families. These four organizations will work, collaborate, collaborate collaboratively. Use me to affect how we implement the justice plan going forward. And that concludes my report, and I'm available for questions. Thank you. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Motion by councilman's and day house and a second move, Ashley Richardson. Is there any public comment? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine. They should clear. Your time starts now. Sorry. I forgot. Lower, man. See no other. That concludes public comment. Roll call vote please. Council women's today has. Casual Women's Day has. High. Councilwoman Allen. All right. Councilwoman Price. Hi, Councilman Sabina. Hi, Councilwoman Mango. Okay. Councilwoman Sara. Hi. Councilmember Oranga, I. Councilman Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried. You bet. Concludes the consent calendar. We will now do. Or to charter or to commission items. So let's go and do item number eight, please.

A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. concerning design and construction services for Peña Boulevard at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. for $93,479,841.20 and through 05-30-22 to perform design and construction services for Peña Boulevard Phase 1 including widening and reconstructing both inbound and outbound Peña Boulevard, and reconstructing portions of Jackson Gap Road and the Jackson Gap interchange at Denver International Airport (201628522). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza postponed this item at the 7-8-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 7-15-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0586

I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1313 ays Resolution 540 has been adopted. Congratulations, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Under resolutions, you called out 586. Madam Secretary, if you can put that on our screens, and what would you like to do with this one? I just have some questions, Mr. President. Go ahead. Well, first, I want to thank people and even in the team at the The Denver Streets Partnership for reminding us in view of the passage of a blueprint, Denver in the comprehensive plan recently the importance that as we're considering any substantial road widening projects, that we be sure to ask the questions that as this was being designed or conceived, that alternative forms of mobility were considered and included to the greatest extent possible. As this airport Pioneer Boulevard widening project is the first major road widening to come up since that passage. We thought it was more than appropriate to to ask some questions. I appreciate both the Street's partnership bringing it up, the airport's willingness to engage not just tonight in questions, but in an ongoing basis and answering these. So I guess. Thank you, Rachel. Stepping up. The first thing I would ask is how can you say that this project does support the goals in the new Blueprint Denver plan, as well as Denver's Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate fatal and traffic fatalities and injuries. Sure. So thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you also to Denver Streets Partnership and all of the advocacy organizations that are out there elevating this conversation. I think it's an important one and it's one that the airport is very committed to. So we look forward to engaging in the conversation in terms of blueprint. Denver We've encouraged mode shift at the airport for a long time. We invested $350 million into the transit center for the A-line. We built out, gave $30 million to build out 61st and pioneer. That being said, we can always do better. We have plans to build out a bike network, and that's part of Suzuki's work on a done real estate strategic development plan. We also are promoting a walkable, transit oriented development at 61st and pinion as recently as a few weeks ago, are pushing the developers there to truly make it a dense, walkable, bikeable transit hub at that station and were among the major partners, along with Sierra and RTD, to create mobility next partnership and collaborate around connectivity and embracing the advancement of the next generation of mobility. So in everything we do, including this project, we're looking with an eye towards mobility and transit development and connectivity at the airport. Great. Thank you. So we discussed earlier that at this point in time, it doesn't sound like, again, has a specific goals for ride share, shift and reduction of trips and single occupancy vehicle is then willing to commit to working towards establishing such a goal for reducing SUV mode share in line with Blueprint. Absolutely. I think we're we're always committed to engaging that conversation. Quite frankly, the more people that choose alternative modes of travel out to the airport benefits not just the city, but the airport as well. As part of this project we have we are building out the ride share lot, so creating a designated lot for Taxi Uber, Lyft , and that will include electrification of that lot so that folks that have electric vehicles and are doing Uber and Lyft have the ability to charge out there. That being said, we we recognize we can do better and in the ways in which that we can engage these advocacy groups. RTC Dot. Dr. COG in evaluating new and creative solutions around getting people out of single occupancy vehicles. We are committed to that partnership and committed to meeting with those organizations. Okay, Mr. President, I have some additional questions, but I believe some of my colleagues do as well, so I'll defer. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa. Hi, Rachel. For the public, can you explain where phase one, where phase one, this phase one project of Pena Boulevard is? Sure. So phase one of this Pioneer Boulevard design build project runs from Jackson Gap to the terminal. And Jackson Gap is essentially the last overpass or approximately. Yes, that crosses Pena Boulevard to the western, you know, the proper terminal. You know, we have a congestion problem in lots of parts of the city. When does it get bumper to bumper in that section of the highway? So what time of day or. What sort of congestion problem do we have there? So we I don't know if this helps answer your question. In 2017, we had a traffic study that was done that takes into account ridership at the line bus travel and evaluates past traffic on Pioneer Boulevard and then evaluates Dr. Cods, Dr. Cox Transit Use Study and then projects out to future traffic and existing traffic on Pioneer . We've also done our own internal studies on traffic apnea. We're about to hit around 70 million passengers flying out of the airport every year, and that's definitely putting some pressure on the infrastructure on Pioneer. So when we had our briefing, I'd ask the question, how much of that traffic, that 70 million passenger load originates in Denver? I don't know that there's a way for us. Do you mean Denver as opposed to Aurora or Commerce City or Brighton? I don't know if there's a way for us to track that. How about that goes that traverses phase one of Penn Yan Boulevard. That. I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're traveling out of Denver, you're either taking the airline or you're traversing that section of Montana. 70 million people, there are some that are coming into the airport via airplane and then leaving our airport by airplane. Okay. Original trips. Yeah. So is your question tonight from here. I'm going to. Look back to my team to see if. My understanding is 60% of 70 million. So it was originally projected that 40% would be originating in Denver. 65%, about 65% or 70 million. And my math is not great on the spot. So whatever number that. Is. And the other question I had that didn't have an answer was what is the design load for the commuter rail for the airline to how many what what number of passengers originating passengers could and workers could do the rail? What's the capacity of that rail? That's a great question. I do know that RTD has planned for future expansion of the number of cars that are on each truck. I don't know off the top of my head what our TDS projected a full maxed out capacity of the airline once they add in all the cars is. So I actually have the old vision zero letter and it was funny that I came across it as I'm cleaning out my desk, which talks about hires. I mean, very clearly states high speed skill. Obviously we don't have a lot of pedestrian traffic traversing the road out there, but we do we don't have a lot of congestion like we do at other airports where you're just you're in a in a crawl as you approach. So what I've been struggling with this entire time is you recall in our briefing is what is the problem that $93 million worth of money needs to be? Because if the city is using the congestion argument as a mode shift, you know, argument in the city, why would widening the road, expediting the ease of travel via vehicle encourage greater use of the A-line? If you go on the line right now, there's not one, but there's one trough where the train runs and there's a whole nother trough there to essentially expand the capacity. Why aren't we using why? Why couldn't you? Is there some federal prohibition that prevents you from partnering with RTD to either reduce the cost of those trips, to encourage more people and more families to get out of their car and not pay for overnight parking, but to take the train ? Was that part of your analysis and why did that fail? So I think there are a couple questions for me to respond to. Their first, a big part there is congestion. So just because somebody hasn't anecdotally experienced it on their trip out to the airport, there are certainly times when Panya is backed up and is very heavy from a congestion standpoint. That being said, a large part of this project has to do with operational safety and traffic flow that involves the turnaround. Right now, if you've ever done, you know, the loop to come pick somebody up, there's a situation where you're having to cross multiple lanes of traffic and it's from a vehicle safety standpoint, it's not great. And a large part of this project addresses that issue in terms of partnering with our TD to increase capacity of the line. You talked about a little bit about dollars. And so I want to take this moment to say the FAA won't allow us to they allowed us to build the transit center. They allowed us to invest in 61st, and now we can't put further dollars into build out of the airline. So that's something that we the airports federally prohibited from doing at this point in terms of encouraging ridership. We are advocating every single day. We're working closely with Councilwoman Gilmer mayor's office, with RTD, with Dr. COG in figuring out ways to reduce, especially employees. We have 35,000 people working out at the airport, especially in encouraging them to use our TD and figuring out what those barriers are to ridership and how we might be able to act as an advocate and a partner in reducing those barriers. Thank you. I am deeply concerned that the airport is once again maybe missing the big picture here, which is that you're expanding and widening and fixing the area closest to the airport, which would somehow encourage more traffic, but that the bulk of our congestion problems on PIA are actually from I-70 to Jackson Gap. But you're doing you're spending $93 million on the on the part. That's not that. So and the $93 million, as I said, it includes an Uber and Lyft and Taxi lot with an associated building. It includes changing the interchange at Jackson Gap and includes rerouting traffic to and from the airport, including one lane that's dedicated for bus travel into the airport. And so it's not I think calling it simply a widening project is just. Join us. You understand encouraging Uber and Lyft and simplifying that again is counterproductive to the investment that you have already made at Penn Station and at the transit center. I think our goal is to encourage multiple different forms of transportation. I think Uber and Lyft offer a great opportunity, especially if you're using a carpool option within Uber and Lyft to reduce traffic counts and to encourage multiple forms of transportation access to the airport. But neither one of those companies provide the same level of worker protection as are organized labor in the taxi companies. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Rachel, could you talk a little bit more about the I guess, the research or when, you know, there's a phase two that's associated, assuming that this gets through, but that split between tourism or, you know, folks that are actually Denver residents or Colorado residents, that transit might work for them. Could you talk a little bit about did you have those those splits so that we could get a better idea of what the congestion might be looking forward? Because we know that it's congested at certain times of the day. But as you continue to uptick on your passenger counts, we might very well get to a place where it's bumper to bumper congestion. No, I think that's a great point. And it's really important when we're making any sort of decision at the airport, especially one of this magnitude or future decisions, long pina that we're equipped with as much information and data as possible. So I think leading up to this, we have done a number of studies in terms of traffic on PDA, including studies with surrounding jurisdictions to look at which traffic counts are originating at the airport or traveling to the airport and which are merely passing through, which I think will only increase as neighborhoods around the airport build out . That's something we're we're constantly studying. We're also studying, like I said, how our employees are getting to work and what works best for them. And I think that'll be a really big component as the airport grows and our employee base grows is really encouraging. Figuring out, like I said, what the barrier to transit or car sharing or Vanderpool may be for our employees and what the airport can leverage to remove those barriers. And then my last question regarding this phase one, I you know, Councilman Espinosa touched on it a little bit, but I want you to be very clear so that there is no mistake. You know, talk a little bit about the FAA and the restrictions around a diversion of revenue. Sure. So all the commercial airports in the United States are built with federal dollars. And so the FAA has strict requirements on what we can and cannot use airport dollars for. As those of you on council are very familiar with, but I know this is new to a lot of members of the public. The airport is an enterprise fund within the city and county of Denver and airport dollars have to go to airport uses. Any use outside of airport use is barred by the FAA. So those include community benefits. Those include any other type of investment within the city. I think sometimes folks look at investment at the airport and wonder, why can't that money go downtown or go to different communities? And it's because the federal government, through the FAA, prohibits use of any revenue for airport revenue being diverted to other uses. Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman, if you're okay, I'd like to ask a few before I get back to. Okay. I want to first thank Denver Street's partnership for for pushing this issue and shining a light on this. I think we're all adjusting to having new plan and new blueprint. And what does that mean and how do we look and having a new way of talking about growth and talking about our roads in particular. And so I also want to thank you guys for being willing to engage in this conversation, especially because Panya is a street like no other in the city and county of Denver that it falls under. It really is seen by the federal government as your driveway, not as a city street in the way that many of us think about it. But at the same time, every, you know, car trip that uses pioneer originates or ends somewhere in our street network. And as we are trying to provide real alternatives and options for people to choose, it's a key component for that. So it's an interesting balancing act that we're doing here. But in my conversations with the partnership and with the community, there are some things that I think are important to get on the record that hopefully are easy things to commit to, or maybe not, but like to ask them and see if, you know, don't need to get in deep. But just some things that maybe you can commit to that I think will help them representing the mobility community feel better about projects moving forward beyond this one. So can you guys commit to studying how to accommodate future travel demand through non-core modes and doing some real deep dove studying into how to do that? Absolutely. And then real estate, which is a division of the airport, is actually in the process of undergoing a transportation study starting now that will evaluate. They are very committed to modern multimodal transportation as we look at building out more parts of the airport land. And so I think we can absolutely commit to to studying those options. And how about committing to I think part of the frustration was a feeling that there wasn't a lot of engagement and transparency within, again, this world of all the different worlds that you guys operate in. And so can you make a commitment to greater transparency, engagement of the community in developing the plans, especially these plans when it comes to mobility that do impact the. Rest of our street. Grid and the broader community? Absolutely. I said to Councilman Cashman earlier today, I think a commitment to further public engagement is always a great thing. You know, we sort of had our heads on this project deep into the workforce component and thought through the mobility and transit conversation, but didn't engage that conversation early on. And this was a great reminder, to be sure to loop in all stakeholders early in the process. And the Denver Streets Partnership, who represent a broad slice of our community. Can you commit specifically to working to with them to ensure that multimodal transportation is adequately incorporated into future plans for transportation infrastructure. At the airport? Yes. So we we have been and will continue to be committed to forward thinking when it comes to transportation and mobility options. We're working on a number of initiatives right now, and I always love smart people in the room as we try to tackle tackle those issues at the airport and as a city, we encourage, you know , Dan is very committed to these issues. It's a it's a priority of ours to be advancing transit and multimodal options at the airport. And, you know, we encourage, you know, other agencies, other projects to be pushing this issue as well, to be, like you said, in line with Blueprint Denver and what it calls for. Great and change. Back to something that you talked about a couple of times, this Uber Lyft taxi kind of infrastructure. But as I think has been pointed out, not every ride in a car share is the same. I can call a car share and I can write all by myself. That's the same as a single occupancy vehicle, even though there's two of us in there. But a lot of the technology is moving towards a pooling where you ride with multiple people, which is a carpool of sorts, and does require fewer cars to move more people. Do you currently collect data from those companies on what percent of rides to the airport are pooled rides and carpool versus essentially an SUV ride share? And if you don't, can you commit to attempting to work with the companies to get some data on that, to really understand if we're building out infrastructure that further encourages that mode ? Should that mode be really classified as savvy travel or as pool travel? Sure. So we do collect data today from the ride share companies. I will say that I do think as somebody who was car less for six or seven years of the past decade, that while I may have taken an Uber out to the airport prior to the airline being built, that option, while it was a single occupancy vehicle ride for me out there, allowed me in every other commute in the city to not be in a car. So I think we can collect that data. It doesn't tell the full, full picture. And like I said earlier, I think having a wide menu of options for how you can get to and from the airport really encourages, you know, all these goals that we're talking about. Great. And I apologize. A bunch of people have gotten in line. I thought it was just Councilman Cashman I was going to when I got done. So I'm going to get to a few other people. But I will also say that as someone who has converted and exclusively uses the train to get to the airport, which is a phenomenal asset that we have, that I thank you for your investment in that infrastructure and share a little bit of the fear that as we look at other investments, that we don't do something that leads to a reduction of service, that we're doing things that lead to better service in that line, because I think it's an amazing way to get people to and from the airport. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Mr. President, I wanted to bring a few things out to light. Just briefly, Rachel. It's true, isn't it, that the airport, when it built a transit station for the airline, built the platform for the ultimate build out of eight cars? That's correct. So the airport did prepare for the ultimate build out already? We did. And we also built future proofed that stop so that there could be a people mover attached to their on the east entry on the east side as well. I don't know how you're going to get through the that the Xbox there but that's that's a whole other story. But the fact is that RTD is already running its MAX service to the airport. Is that not true? Because they are. They have started four car trains in within the past six months. The trains that run throughout the day are four car trains, not the two car trains that they open with. That is true. Correct. Okay. And the fact is that RTD built all the other station platforms along the line only to accommodate for cars. They did not build to eight car platforms. That's a great question for our team. And I know you're the resident outdoor expert. So I. I worked on the I worked on the project and yes, we built only four, four car platforms. It will take years before the airline is ready to handle eight car trains, but the airport already is preparing for that. The only other thing I wanted to bring out is that you mention a dedicated bus lane as part of this expansion. And I want to remind folks that expanding the highway is not just for single occupant vehicles. Busses use that. Not everybody that rides RTD rides the train. The the train, as I mentioned in our hour memorial. I'm sorry, in our testimonial. Councilman Lopez. Pardon me. Is the east is the east corridor and it serves from Union Station to the airport. But for folks going to from Boulder or from Commerce City, the A-line is probably not their transit of choice if they were to take transit. So we need to have that roadway prepared to accommodate multiple, multiple modes. And I would dare guess I don't have the figures, but I would dare to assert with the privilege of taking it back if somebody proved me wrong that Panya Boulevard is probably one of the most heavily mowed, split or mode shared streets in the metropolitan area. When you talk about the mountain shuttles, you have a ski area shuttles, the hotel shuttles, even the rental bus shuttles that only go to Jackson Gap. So expanding that roadway does help preserve the efficiency of our of our other modes other than single occupant vehicles. All that is true, correct? All of that is true. Okay. That's why. Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks. You know what? I had a whole diatribe that I was going to try and get to. Council President, you got into most of the details that I want to do. And Rachel and I got a chance to talk earlier today. And and I would just say it was just an opportunity missed in committee when we were discussing this about outreach, about an analysis when we're talking about these type of things. And that's why we're here today. And I think if we can get to some of those commitments in the future, I think we're going to have a total different, you know, outcome, especially when it comes here to the floor. I think for for anyone in Denver who is just thinking that we're going to widen roads without an analysis of a multi-modal approach. Those days are gone. And so that's what we're we're doing and that's what you're hearing from the community. And I'm glad that where we are changing kind of the way we do business in the city. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Rachel, I just wanted to ask a question about the area from Jackson Gap to I-70. That's a whole separate project that she has partnered with Dan on looking at how to address non airport traffic. Can you just sort of give us an update of number one where that's at in the process? And number two, that that will include an environmental impact statement, which is a whole community input process. That's part of that. Church. Hey, Councilman George Merritt with the airport. Thanks a lot. It's a great question. And your you're about on it. So now it's going back to Councilman Espinoza's question about why we're doing this part now versus the other part and to diversion of revenue in 2010, during a letter exchange that had to do with Tower Road on ramp going towards I-70. The FAA wrote us a letter and said a couple of things. One, you need to expand Panya Boulevard. Two, because now so much local traffic uses that you're no longer allowed to pay for it because it's a division of revenue. So we spent several years doing this analysis, and in 2016 we did a big lobbying effort. And what we worked out with the FAA was that from we basically. Bifurcated Penn Boulevard and from 472 I-70. We are now they have allowed us to pay for about 75% of the expansion and maintenance on that section of the highway. Pro-rated to our traffic on the road. So about 25% roughly. If you spread it out from 470 down, the. I-70. Is commuter traffic. This goes back to Penn Boulevard being, frankly, a unique roadway across the country. So we will at some point. Need some. Other funding to fill that 25% gap, be that highway grant, be that, you know, some other form of revenue. The FAA has said you can't pay for 100% of that. So that's where our partnership with Sit were with sit on. And Dr. Carr will come in when it comes time to do that. We first have to fill in that 25% gap for us to do that funding. We can pay for 100% of the work from 470 into the terminal because if you're that far down Penn Boulevard, you're coming to the airport and we can. Pay for 100% of that. Do we have Adams County committing to participate in that cost sharing with. You know, we passed. The hat and we you're not going to believe it. But it was a little a little reluctant to come forward with some with which. We know what percentage of that traffic comes back and forth from. ADAMS Our partners, you know, we serve the state of Colorado in the metro area, and that's that's part of the region. You know, we want to be driving this conversation not only in Denver. Right. But we are let's I mean, recognize where we are. We want to be able to to to help facilitate a conversation about mobility across the region. We are, you know, on the other side of a 25 square mile. Wildlife refuge from. Denver. And, you know, we are in a neighborhood with surrounded by Aurora and Commerce City and Brighton and Adams County. So, you know something. There. So the bottom line is we're not there yet in terms of having funding, being ready with any kind of project that is anywhere near an environmental impact statement for any potential expansion of Penn Boulevard from 472 I-70. We're not there. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Cashman, thank you for your patience. Do you have anything you'd like to propose? Yeah, just one last question. And if the people coming to and from the airport don't just come from the metro area, but all over the region, are you working with the mountain towns, I mean, other communities this spring shy and on how we might better utilize mass transit to to to and from those destinations. That's a great question. I don't know historically what the airport has done. I can say that is part of our conversation with RTD and Dr. COG in terms of how we're moving employees. We ran the zip codes for everybody that works at the airport to try and figure out where folks are coming from and what might be the best tool for them to get to and from the airport. And there are actually a lot of people that work at the airport that live up in the mountains, that live in Wyoming. And that opened the door to, you know, not only are there employees, but there are travelers, to your point, that may need different options . And we've been having that conversation with Dr. COG, who actually has a lot of programs for getting folks from those areas to the airport. And so we're in ongoing conversations with Dr. COG about what the right fit for each community might be. Okay. And in full disclosure, you have agreed Dan has agreed to an ongoing substantive dialog with with the Street's partnership to continue digging into these critical issues of mobility. Absolutely. You know, Denver. Values our Denver Street Partnership's values. We think we're very much aligned. And and as I said, we welcome the opportunity to have more creative, smart people in the room as we try to tackle what are sometimes difficult and complex issues around mobility. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.55, and repealing Section 5.55.090, relating to Covid-19 worker recall, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0235

Thank you. Next up is the ordinance number 19. Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to COVID 19 worker recall. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. We have a motion by Vice to be represented a second by Councilmember Ranga. Is there any public comment on this? If there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine if dialing in by phone. Our first speaker is Veronica Lagunas. The photos in. No matter. What. Afternoon, everyone on. You know, ration. Whatever. The failure of. The sun is very bright, but the animal connections are going to. Be. Inoperable. What about. This? Yeah, well, I won't use the radio. My name is Veronica Laguna. I am a member of the Union Continua. Feel good. You are a long way to that and I feel that. During the pandemic, the city of Long Beach was the first one to guarantee continued. I feel like it's all a bit of a Hegarty. I look at Bill. Are to making sure that all workers from the hotel industry and janitorial services continue to. At the hearing. I got to ask you about the traversal. That's what it gets that I don't know if. They had the guarantee to going back to work in case the buildings were closed down or the hotels were closed down. Go ahead. Continue with. So I'm okay with that. If someone got a different area than being a reporter. So we knew that our jobs, we knew that our jobs were guaranteed, were safe, and our security was also safe. Continuing. In this moment, both every moment that bear that egg, that straw Trevor who compromised Trevor but his been. And so at that time we understood that the Syrians language sent a very clear message, making it very clear that our jobs and our safety and security were not going to be compromised. Oh, definitely. Mozart, likely. Yeah, I love Nembutal. They'll come in there, they can, they'll start using. I said it's a little bit of my name. So now we ask you a city council and city mayor to help us police make this law a permanent law. Can I tell you then? I said if I could pull them off the use of a handful of partners to give them a strava math hour. I almost l'économie almost like weather bike. And to make sure that we can come back to work being sure that our jobs are secure, safe, particularly now knowing that the economy is very weak and that we need to recover. Thank you very much. That's it. That concludes our comment for this item. Thank you very much. And then with your roll call vote, please. District one. My district to my district three i. District four. I. District five. District five. District six, i. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. High emotion is. Key, but it's well. Received. Motion is carried. Thank you. Let's do the final audience of the night, which is audience 16. And then we'll go back to the I did a comment, general public comment and the rest of the agenda. Madam Kirk, can you read item 16?

A bill for an ordinance enacting a new article XI, chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring unit owners’ associations to notify homeowners of certain rights when initiating a foreclosure action and consolidating existing notice and disclosure duties for tenant rights. For an ordinance enacting a new article XI, chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring unit owners’ associations to notify homeowners of certain rights when initiating a foreclosure action and consolidating existing notice and disclosure duties for tenant rights. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-27-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0617

Final consideration of Council Bill 22 dust 590 has been postponed until after the hearing on Council Bill 22. That's 589 this evening. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? I wanted to offer a comment around the foreclosure notice bill that my office and I worked on, along with community members in the Green Valley Ranch neighborhood, where we found out in early February that there were approximately 50 homes that were slated for foreclosure due to a very aggressive homeowners association. And I want to thank our different city agencies, our housing office host, the Office of Financial Empowerment and Protection, the multiple nonprofits throughout the city that acted as housing counselors . And so back to our attorney and then also the attorney general's office who helped us collect additional information and then our colleagues at the state House. The House Bill 22, Dash 1137, allowed a narrow window of opportunity for us to legislate and to require that, if any A wants to start foreclosure proceedings, they must first at least 30 days prior to that, they must first make sure that they are providing that homeowner with their rights and resources so they can be assured that they will know how to mitigate any possible foreclosure and stay in their homes. And so I would ask my colleagues for their support on that this evening. And that. Oh, we've got Councilmember Kinney. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ted. Thank you. Council President. I first just wanted to thank you. You have been just a fierce champion for not just the residents of your own district, but honestly, for residents across the state who might be experiencing these things in your advocacy for the state Bill. And I'm really excited to support this local bill that you brought forward. One piece that is related to the fight that has been happening in Green Valley Ranch is that some of those foreclosures began with things as simple as not bringing in your trash and recycling bins. And that was something that Councilman Gilmore and host and supportive advocates helped to dig up and bring light to. And I'm very proud of, in addition to voting for this bill tonight, providing those residents that advance notice. There is also a provision on the bill we just voted for, I think 685, the solid waste bill that prohibits H0 A's from charging any penalties at all for use of our right of way that we don't ourselves have penalties for. So it is not any more if this, you know, the prior bill that we voted on, if that bill goes into effect, it would reinforce the fact that we cannot even start the penalty or find process for bins in the right of way, much less have those fines or penalties start to compound to the point where they get to a foreclosure. So for those following that issue, wanted you to know that there was also something that we could do on this issue in that other bill. So together, trying to help to protect more of those homeowners from unconscionable fees or penalties, fines or penalties, plus from, you know, not having enough information about what's happening to them when this property starts to get these notices. So, again, thank you very much for this bill tonight and just wanted to draw that little connection to the prior bill. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Kenny. An important line to draw where we're trying to work together on mitigating any negative effects through fines and fees for homeowners. And so appreciate your partnership as well. Councilmember Canete seen no other folks in the queue for the recap. That includes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Black, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 20 2-074 220 2-0630 20 2-640 20 2-064 120 2-066 420 2-066 520 2-066 622 yes 055 720 2-055 820 2-063 520 2-263 620 2-065 220 2-2065 820 2-066 120 2-066 220 2-066 320 2-068 420 2-068 720 2-062 920 2-063 920 2-064 720 2-060 920 2-0670 20 2-067 120 2-067 220 2071 920 2-0720 20 2-036 920 2-0370 20 2-051 820 2-065 320 2-067 320 2067 420 2-067 520 2-067 620 2-054 920 2-0550 20 2-056 920 2-064 820 2-055 520 2-057 120 2-062 520 2-059 120 2-059 220 2-059 320 2-059 420 2-059 520 2-059 620 2-059 720 2059 820 2-054 822. Dash 0617. All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. And it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Pounds. I can eat. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Black eye. CdeBaca. Clark. I Flynn. High. Herndon. I Cashman. Ortega. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The proclamation and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-0471 Changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University are required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-0475 Changing the

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4891 Lincoln Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (urban edge, single-unit to urban, single-unit), located at 4891 Lincoln Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-23-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06032019_19-0352

you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 352 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 344 website 352 series of 2019 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second in the public hearing for council bill 352 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Tourism, Sara with community planning and development. This is a rezoning of 4891 Lincoln Street. It is a proposal to rezone from urban single unit D to urban single unit C one. And the purpose of this is to allow an accessory dwelling unit. So the property is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It is in an urban context intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods. It would allow urban house accessory dwelling unit building forms at a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet, with an 80 unit maximum height of 24 feet on a lot. That is about 5500 square feet as a minimum lot size. So existing zoning to the north east and south is single unit. To the west is industrial mixed use three. There is one single family home on the property and it is surrounded on three sides by well, actually on all sides by single family homes. And these pictures give you an idea of the context. Most of the homes are single storey. So that is the scale of the neighborhood, the process. The initial information notice went out in December of last year and then an informational notice of a revised application in February of this year. And then Planning Board was duly posted for their hearing of April 3rd, where they unanimously recommended approval and then Land Use Committee in April on April 23rd. And then, of course, the hearing tonight and this hearing has been properly posted. There are no letters, comment letters received on this application. So, you know, the criteria, the plans that apply are Plan 2040, Blueprint, Denver 2019, Housing and Inclusive. Denver and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan of 2014 Plan goals are met by allowing us talking about creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, ensuring neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types, encouraging quality infill development that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and promoting infill development where infrastructure is already in place. Blueprint Denver This is within the urban context and the that's described as one and two unit residential with some embedded multi-unit and commercial areas within a regular grid pattern. And then the future place type is residential low, which is single and two unit residential up to two and a half stories. And then Lincoln Street is a residential collector in this area, primarily residential. And then collectors collect all the local traffic and move it to our more major arterial streets. 49th Avenue is an on designated local street with high property access. So the growth area strategy for this property is all other areas of the city, which is our lowest anticipated to see about 20% of housing growth and 10% of new employment growth. Housing and inclusive. Denver does talk about expanding our regulations for affordable and mixed income housing and does specifically talk about the development of accessory dwelling units in both their recommendations. Two and one promoting programs that help households maintain existing homes. The city and its partners should target existing homeowner rehabilitation programs to residents in vulnerable neighborhoods, promoting financial literacy, education and for prospective and existing homeowners to promote the development of accessory dwelling units. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan in 2014 did talk about a strong Globeville, where it's good for residents, businesses and industry all equitably having their needs met . There were two new land use concepts developed in the plan industrial mixed use and single family with accessory dwelling unit. Those were added to the Blueprint concept list and this did also update the blueprint area of change map. So in Globeville, the plan talks about balancing the needs of residents, commerce and industry, and does talk about allowing accessory dwelling units. And improving housing with a broad range of housing types, including accessory dwelling units. The concept land use for the property in the Globeville plan is single family with Adu, and the height recommendation is two and a half stories. And then in strategies, the the neighborhood was discussed, moving the neighborhood from urban edge to an urban context. And that is a recommendation that the plan made. That's why we're going this applicant is applying for an urban context zone district rather than an urban edge and then just tailoring the minimum lot sizes to the those you find in the neighborhood, which is that 5500 square feet. So all of these like the you the 5500 square feet and the single unit with the ADU, all of them are entailed in the you assume zone district that the applicant's applying for. So staff believes that this does conform with the adopted plans that by using a standard zoned district we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations by implementing our plans and allowing some redevelopment. We are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstance in this case is that property maintained its chapter well is a changed condition in that. The. Well, we're implementing the neighborhood plan. I'm sorry. I've lost my train of thought. So we were adopt and we're implementing a city adopted plan since the zoning code was adopted in 2010. Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. And with that, staff believes all of the criteria are met. This is consistent with the urban context characterized characterized by single in two unit small scale multi-unit and commercial areas embedded in the neighborhoods and with the intent of the single unit zone district to protect our neighborhoods, existing neighborhoods with the urban house form and that 5500 minimum lot size that the plan calls for. So with that staff recommends approval. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So when I call you up, please come up to the podium. First up, Brad Tomczak. And. But I'm just here to answer questions on the architect, on the project and support the client. You want to give your name officially for the record. Brad Thomas, 62. Jasmine Street is my personal residence. 3220 2000 is my business. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. But they're kind of like. We're on just two pairs represented for Denver Homicide now, black socks, a moment for self-defense and positive action camera for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for our large this past May 2019 election. I was originally against this because I thought it was just going to be more gentrification, more ethnic cleansing, more displacement as usual. But I'm in favor of a use just like other forms of attainable housing. And I was just over in this neighborhood earlier campaigning for Candi for District nine. So on. The further consideration. I am actually in favor of this. I think it would be a good addition to the neighborhood and it would actually get some people housed. I wanted to ask the owner who exactly was going to be staying here, how many people were going to be staying here, and what the and my level of things are going to be written or who was going to actually sell it to potential buyers. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Steffan Evans. Oh, you mean. As my name is. Well, my name is back. The Jovicic. And. Represent the Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. This process that we're doing with these zoning changes. Continues to be happenstance. And the time has come for us to have a process where we can really sit down city council and look at how we can get this thing done citywide. Have a plan city wide for how we do this thing as opposed to piecemeal in this thing as we go and business days as usual and things slip under. The radar screen. And in that rezoning process, what we really need to look at in terms of these comprehensive plans is the comprehensive outcome of the plan. What are we seeking to look at and how do we want these neighborhoods to look? Now we are. In a housing crisis. Yes, we are. And we cannot afford to respond to the fear of the crisis because of the expediency. Of what we're seeking to achieve, what we need. Is rezoning reprioritise in terms of how we're going to impact the crisis, especially among poor people who cannot afford to be engaged in the process. The outcome, which we would suggest we see, is to make a dent in the poverty by creating housing that poor people can own so that they have something to pass on to the next generation of homeless folks. And we're actually beginning to look at solving the problems as opposed to. Looking good, as if we're trying to solve the problem. And the truth is we're making it worse because we're never going to get to the fundamental issue that's involved, which is poverty . Poverty. That's what we have run a rapid that's what's leading to the homelessness and the 1 to 3 ABC. And we have the housing that can that's available that can be dealt with. We've got the cut to the real estate deal on the 20,000 luxury apartments that are being held for price gouging to see how far we can go with this type. And so we got to cut a deal, a win win deal. The developers get what they get. We need what we get. And now we have housing to transfer people out from outside. And we do not. I'm sorry, but your time is up. No squatter camps. Thank you very. Much. Allowable. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Kathmandu tourism as of course, I was involved with a area rezoning at one time and where properties where the rezoning was being kept and the property owners were given the opportunity to opt into to the new zoning from their own specialized zoning. You know, and I keep thinking, looking at this area, too, and I think this is maybe the second property, individual property we've done with 80 years, which everybody's in favor of. I didn't know whether CBD or are you considering any kind of opportunity in an area that may be advantageous for 80 years to for property owners to opt into their zoning, whether they want to do it a view or not, but it allows them the opportunity to do that. There would be voluntary, not mandatory. Well, you know, Blueprint does talk about this on a citywide basis. But as of now, there is no initiative in CBD to do this on a wider basis. Okay. Thank you. I think it's a great opportunity for you to use. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn. Thank you. Hi, Theresa. Could you talk a little bit more about the justifying circumstances and citywide changes? Generally citywide? What do we look for? This is an application to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a small lot in Globeville. Right. And what is the citywide change that says, you know what that means, we should have an 80. You hear. That? It's not citywide change that this one is based on. It's based on the adoption of the. Plan. Local plan. Okay. I was just going off the presentation. That's yes. And we are recognizing. Six citywide plans, but the code does allow for adoption of a newer plan since the to 2020 ten zoning code. Okay. And this was 2014 was. 2014. Plan. Okay. The presentation also said it was met by recognizing citywide changes and I just wondered what those were. So I guess I was. Primarily. Experiencing so many citywide changes. Are real. It's a global kind of change that's occurring in the city. I just don't want to get to the point where the fact that, hey, things are changing in a city can be used to justify anything. No. All right. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Asked a similar question on a similar rezoning. Under the new adopted plans. So this parcel, this one zoned lot, will now have that ability for 80 years. It is in and it is in the growth strategy. It's in the 10% a residential capture. How is CPD looking at the they looking at citywide that 10%? So if we were to say somehow map this entire neighborhood to capture Adus and all properties were to get 80 use. That's way more than 10% for this local area. But is that if if Kevin Flynn's district also has the same yellow coloring and it's part of the 10% does that is that what balances it out or what is the general vicinity that we're working with so that we know going forward? I'm I think we've quantified the 10% that I've read in the blueprint, but I'm still reading from print, to tell you the truth. It is fairly new, but I would say that it's sort of it's a replacement for our areas of change, in our areas of stability, where we expect to see the most growth or the least growth. And the the light yellow is where we expect to see the least growth. Yeah. Because it's a relative thing. Relative term contemplated is the amount of use contemplated in the Globeville. Elyria. No, and. No. They just decided that they wanted to use in the residential portions of the neighborhood, which, if we go back to that map, is colored yellow on their map. And they decided they wanted a new concept land use, which was single family with an accessory dwelling unit for their area. So 100% saturation would be consistent with their plan. Yes. Okay. But not consistent with the. Not necessarily with blueprint. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable 352 is closed. Other comments by any members of Council Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be supporting this rezoning. I think it matches right up with the plan, the global plan that we put together in 1990. Wow. In 2000. 1855 when I first came on city council in 2015 when we approved this, and this aligns with the context and with our criteria that we meet to make these decisions. But I will say this I have reason properties to make sure that they are enough to use in in guidance for affordable housing. And to answer your question, councilman, new I think blanket rezonings for a to use especially in these neighborhoods will be pretty dangerous if we're not careful to make sure that it's not an outright rezoning so folks can take advantage of, you know, just the development opportunity. But we need to figure out an incentive for affordable housing at some point. And so we've had many conversations with folks in CPD. What we're doing in the Swansea neighborhood was encouraging and incentivizing all of those units that we did with an 80. You will be use for those who have displaced because of because of I-70 and working with the global Elyria, Swansea Coalition and brother's redevelopment for those. And so it would be great if we can come together as a council CPD to come up with an incentive for affordable housing to use. Then I think I would be supportive of a blanket rezoning, I should say an overlay of global area Swansea to allow folks to go in and build out a to use. We're seeing these same things happen in the whole neighborhood and you know the rise in land value it it makes it an opportune time for an investor to come together, build a build a home and just put an edu on there without any kind of incentive to to keep it affordable. So that's just my thought on that. Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Neal. Yeah, I agree. I'll support this as well and I love to use it, but I agree with you. I'll talk about a voluntary. I would try to do a mandatory area rezoning. It has to be property owners opting in to from the experience I had. So I think it's an opportunity in the future and may be really studied. So thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. You seeing no other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks I. Black Eye. Espinosa. I Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew, Mr. President. All right, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and note the results. 11 Nice Lebanese Council Bill 352 has passed. Guzman-Lopez Would you please put Council Bill 380 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council vote three zero.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use; and, adopt resolution ordering the vacation of the alley west of Cedar Avenue between La Reina Way and 7th Street. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03142017_17-0172

So, Madam Clerk, hearing number one. Here, item one is a report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, concludes a public hearing find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use and a resolution ordering the vacation of the alley west of Cedar Avenue between La Reyna Way and Seventh Street, District one. Staff, please. Yes. The presentation will be given by Sean Crombie, our Deputy Director of Public Works. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council. Item one on the agenda is a continuation in a process to vacate property located off of Marina and Cedar. Vacation of property has. It's a multiple step process and this this. Property, like any property going through vacation, has gone through through those steps. This property was found to be compliant with the general plan, the vacation. The Planning Commission heard and approve that item on December 1st, 2016. It also came before this. Council on February 7th with multiple actions. First to deal with California Environmental Quality Act and then to. Set a. Public hearing for tonight. One of the the boarding property owners requested that this item be continued until May 16th because they couldn't be here. And so it's our recommendation that we that we do that. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes, I just on behalf of Councilwoman Lina Gonzalez and the residents would like to make the motion that we continue till May 16th, which is the earliest date that was available for this hearing. Okay. Thank you. With that, there's any comment on the hearing. The postponement of the hearing. Please come forward. This is a public comment on the postponement of the hearing. I live in that area. I don't I've never heard of this before. I don't know what vacation means. Does that mean abandon it? To vacate it and between. Between Cedar and Laredo. I heard between Marina and Dana. That's on Cedar, that's on Main Street. And they did. Is that what it is? No. So just to explain that work and so we're not going to actually hear the item today. It's the motion is just to postpone it for another day, but just for your own, so that, you know, they're looking at possibly vacating an alley west of Cedar. No, not cedar itself, but an alley. And so that discussion about whether or not vacating it, which essentially means not using the alley, so it would go to another use and Mr. Crumby would use would be in this case. The property was previously used as an alley. And what this would do is. We find. That the the property is not needed for public benefit and a return it to the private property owners. So currently it's fenced off. And it's not being used for anything other than growing weeds and. Collecting trash. This would allow the property owners that are there to incorporate it into their properties and use it. So I think. That just completed last year in order to turn it into a recreation area and put park benches in it and and so at a very large cost. So this would this would. Border that property. That's not our property currently. It's fenced. Off. You cannot get access to it. But behind the. Fences. Weeds are growing and trash fills in there and. It's serves no purpose. Currently it's on Marina way. Yes. And so it will do it so, ma'am. So because today's and actually we're not doing the hearing. Oh, I understand. Yeah. So I will. Because I own property, right? Absolutely. So we're going to do is we're going to have someone as soon as this hearing votes over is going to come chat with you from the first council district. And we're going to get you the information. And then when this comes back, we'll make sure that you're here for the hearing. Okay. Absolutely. And so there's a motion in a second to postpone the hearing at the request of the the person making the hearing request. Any other public comment on postponing the hearing? Seeing nonmembers, please cast your votes. Bush and Kerry's.

On the message and order, referred on January 26, 2022, Docket #0160, authorizing the City of Boston (the “City”) to accept and expend the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in the form of a grant ( the “Grant Payment”), awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury, to be administered by the City’s Chief Financial Officer/Collector-Treasurer. The Grant Payment is made from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund in the Treasury of the United States established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0160

. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Talking 0 to 2 530 to create will be placed on file. Matters recently heard for possible action. Mr. Clarke, please read docket 0160. Number 0160. Message In order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $5 million in the form of a grant. The grant payment awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the city's chief financial officer. Collect the Treasurer. The grant payment is made from the coronavirus, state and local fiscal recovery from fund in the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 90 901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The chair recognizes council block chair of Boston's COVID 19 Recovery Council. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you to all the councilors who came to our hearing yesterday. We had nearly the whole council at our consideration of this docket. I do just want to draw the council's attention to the fact that there's a committee report that's in your inbox and that's been filed on this. So folks will take a look at that, just to say that this is a $5 Million appropriation out of city ARCA funds by the administration to replenish the Small Business Relief Fund 2.0. And as we heard yesterday at the hearing from Chief Segundo and from Deputy Chief Lori Mercola and director of Small Business Natalia, or through which we have had a lot of success in distributing funds through a number of different small business funds since spring 2020. At the start of the pandemic, the department's distributed almost $30 million in funds, and this SBIR 2.0 has so far given out $8 million in grants to 628 businesses. But since September 2021, as funds have been depleted. And so this $5 million would replenish the funds just to start allocating money to further businesses, many of whom have, like I said, already applied and have their applications waiting. And so we heard from the administration both about the breakdown of the grants they've given so far, the fact that these funds would be prioritizing the three areas that have come under the city's vaccine mandate. So restaurants, arts and entertainment and gyms and sports facilities. And and it was good to hear from them about sort of all the different outreach aspects that the department done. The applications being available, 11 languages, the kind of various ways in which we tried to lower the threshold for relief. And also the department's work to try to make sure that the folks applying for these funds also know about their eligibility for and are pointing towards the state grants being funded through the American Rescue Plan because the state's amount of funding is greater than ours. And so we want to make sure that our Boston based businesses are getting as much support as possible. There were great questions from councilors focused on eligibility, accountability, making sure that this these funds are being equitably distributed, making sure that we're sort of checking our own data, figuring out when we see discrepancies, what the source of that is. The department did report that they intend to have a public facing dashboard shortly. And then there are a number of questions that council has asked on that accountability front that I think we'll get to expect more data back from the department soon. One of the things that we also flagged in the conversation was that. This this committee is planning on having substantial further conversations about the bigger picture of Africa and that we're not intending to sort of grants it all out in small chunks like this. However, the administration's made a case for this 5 million, and I think we all, as councilors are hearing from small businesses every day who just need help and support and relief right now yesterday. And so with that in mind, Mr. President, I am recommending today that this docket 0160 pass. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Bach. Does anyone else would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Please. Please raise your hand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Bach, the chair. The chair of the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 Recovery seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0160. Mr. Clerk, can you please do a roll call vote? Lucky number 0160. Consular Royal yes. Consular oh yes. Council a baker. Yes. Not so Baker yes. Consular bar. Yes. Consular but yes. Consular Braden. Yes. Not celebrating. Yes. Consular Edwards. Yes. Nuncio Edwards yes. Consular Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Consular Fernandez Anderson yes. Council clarity. Yes. Not so clarity as consular Flynn yes. Consulate Flynn. Yes. Council Area. Yes. Council Area. Yes. Consular legitimate. Yes. Until the region. Yes. Councilor. Me here? Yes. Councilor. Me here? Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. That's a murphy. Yes. In Council world. Yes. So? Well, yes. Talking numbers 0160 received unanimous approval. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Moving on to motions, orders, resolutions. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0239, please.

A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Western Stock Show Association for allowing the City to use the National Western Hall of Education for people experiencing homelessness. Amends a license agreement with the Western Stock Show Association by adding $835,000 for a new total of $1,685,000 and one month for a new end date of 8-15-20 to license the National Western Complex Hall of Education for use as a men’s auxiliary shelter due to the COVID-19 pandemic (FINAN-202055360-03). Councilmember Black approved filing this item on 7-23-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07272020_20-0749

Absolutely. Yep. Okay. Perfect, Councilman. Thank you, Madam President. Just a quick and dirty four from Chris. What is are. Can you go down the list with shelters and motels and the two different types of motels? And tell me, how many beds do we have total and how many are currently vacant? I can't do that. From the flash card memory I had, I can certainly follow up with a more detailed response. What I can say is, in broad strokes of proportion, again, about one third of individuals stay within motels, and within that third of individuals, they're staying in motels. The overwhelming majority of those are staying as a protective measure for long term stay within motel. So looking at identifying those aged 65 and older with an underlying health condition, who we want to move them in motel room regardless of a diagnosis with COVID, because we we know that if they were to get a virus, it would they may well succumb to the disease. I think the last time I glanced at the number of people we had in motel room for actual activated respite, which is a shorter term motel stay for somebody who does have a diagnosed COVID condition that lasts for the duration that that disease may be contagious with the person. So thinking about that two week period, those are reduced to the smaller end of double digits. So 17 to 20 individuals within that. The last I checked, I can I can get to the finer points on kind of the motel categories that we use. And we can better understand. A rough, rough estimate. How many shelter beds do we have in the city of Denver? The rough estimate for auxiliary shelters at Northwestern and Denver Coliseum right now. The rough estimate is a thousand. We know we have 300 at Denver Coliseum. I think we have capacity to go up with social distancing to I believe it's like 760 or so at Denver Coliseum. But we don't serve up to that high number. We had a thousand so that the thousand is our current congregate shelters. But is that. The thousand of it. Is that including all of our shelter beds in Denver? No, no, that's including the auxiliary and national western. I think. One. Way to get it and I have this just on my text last I looked for available beds each night was for a two week period between the ninth and the 22nd. And to give a perspective there, we had on average 543 beds that were available. So that includes the on the campus between Denver Coliseum and National Western Center. It also includes looking at 48 Avenue shelter, which has been activated. And we have a capacity of about 250 there. The reason that I appreciate your forbearance, but the reason that I have for making that harder to drill down is the lot of numbers that were associated with our facilities pre-pandemic no longer apply because we're reorienting them for social spacing and reducing the capacity numbers that are within them. So there's still a looseness as we try to factor what is the appropriate number for a facility with social spacing has. We're backing into that, but we're following that that CDC approval for at least six foot spacing in between. I bring it up because I think it's critical for us to have an exact understanding of how many beds are available citywide, whether that be in shelters or in motels, because we have a court order that says we should not be sweeping people if there are not enough beds. And so even if there are 500 beds that are not being used at a shelter, what the city only has 1000 beds available. And we know at a minimum there are 4000 people on the street. I think that that has some larger implications. So if you can get us those numbers, that would be helpful. And that is all of my questions for for you. Thank you, Mr. Connor. I appreciate it, Councilwoman. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask for clarification from the host team. So we have two questions. One is, what was our preference in terms of the length of the National Western Center? Is this contracting ending at our request or the request of the the host facility? So first, want to ask about would we have extended if we could have could we have extended that we try to extend. This was the timeline that was negotiated with the owners of the facilities for our use. We did have some conversation around potential beyond this, but this was the outcome of the negotiation as far as their interest in using the facilities for this purpose as part of the contract. I hear you're trying to be very careful and I respect that. But would we have extended if we could have? We would have. Evaluated the opportunity if we could have partnered with them to look on that. Okay. Gotcha. Second question, since this has been called out for a vote, what happens if this contract fails? There's the does the facility need to close immediately since this is an extension we're voting on? So if the contract fails, does that mean the shelter closes sooner? I just want to clarify the meaning of our vote tonight. Or it's Lisa. Can I jump in. Please? It would sense the time. You're right. But it would also have our responsibilities of restoring and repairing the damages to the building that we need to return back to its existing condition. So let me clarify. We have an existing lease that has existing obligations to return the facility. So is there a risk that we would be in breach of those agreements if we didn't sign this agreement that details how that will be carried out? Correct. Okay. So it's. Not that we don't have the responsibility if we don't do this contract tonight, we already have. The responsibility. Yes, that would be correct. Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Madam President. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Thank you, everybody, for answering the questions. And Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Resolution 749 on the floor for adoption? Yep. I actually just have one other one last, final question in response to Councilwoman Kenney inches question, and this might be for real estate, I guess I'm just a little bit confused. I wish someone from National Western had maybe been here to answer some questions as well, because I guess I don't understand how 400 homeless individuals could be causing more damage to bathrooms than 650,000 users. I'm a little confused about that and I would like someone to answer that. We're going to be on the hook for renovating their bathrooms. Chris may want to respond as well. What I will say is that what we have found, certainly my involvement as we've owned a shelter, that there is a very heavy use in fixtures and the repairs are not necessarily surprising to me. So, Chris, I don't know if you want to share. Nor nor are they to me. One thing that I'd I'd maybe suggest is that the the National Western Center has been providing a residential solution, so not non event based solution. So every one of the individuals who we've been accommodating has been utilizing the facilities multiple times a day. I would say and the majority of our guests can navigate using those facilities just fine. I would be remiss to say without no, I don't want to to arrive as stigmatizing. But the reality of it is we do have behavioral issues within the population that we work with. Where I mean, in particular is a facility issue that that requires special attention in the facility. At our 48th Avenue shelter facility, for instance, we installed something and you'll forgive me as it's around dinnertime for folks who may be watching, but we installed something called a muffin monster that essentially grinds up anything and everything that you could put through the pipes. That's that's includes fabric. That includes plastic and glass bottles. That includes metals in those kinds of things. Because because of the heaviest use facilities that provide a shelter and assistance to people in homelessness need to be created and equipped as very, very durable, hard used facilities. And so much like Mr. Lumley, I'm not too surprised that the plumbing issues through the course of our stay has has burdened the National Western Center and require repair. Okay. Thank you. I think Councilman Hines had one more question. Or I was going to ask if it was okay. If I go to his final question and then we don't quite have this on the floor yet, so. Okay. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember Canady, for your for your questions. And your questions created a question of mine, too. I thought that the city tried its best to because we are obligating taxpayer funds to be maximally determinate on the amount that when when city council approves a funding request that we prove that funding request and don't. Create a create a blank check. So I guess this might be for real estate. I'm I'm curious as to how, in most cases, city council obligated itself to at most dollar amount and not a blank check. And yet in this case, we obligated ourselves to a dollar amount and then a blank check. Councilman, you are right that we would normally try to identify all of the costs right up front. This is an agreement in a situation where some of these repairs, there is no way for us to have known. We also had not intended originally when the lease was a license agreement was negotiated to be here as long as we are. Which factors also into. Maybe some of the additional repairs that we now need to make. Oh. Okay. I mean, I guess I'm not sure necessarily what kind of answer I expected. I'm not sure I am satisfied with that answer. I am pretty sure that I don't think that this is the right venue to demand the right answer right now. So perhaps we can chat about that at some point in the future. I just want to make sure that if we're committing taxpayer funds that we know that we can be open and transparent about to the people who elected us what we're committing to. And and we don't say we're giving you these funds and oh, on the back end we might give you more funds. So I just, I, I understand the situation that we're in now. I just I want to make sure that I can be as transparent to the people who elected me. Well, everyone in my district, including the people who didn't elect me. And and so that's I guess that's just a larger question that I have that may not be specific to this particular contract. So thank you, Madam President. I just want to add one point. I appreciate all of the questions related to the costs, and I understand and agree with Lisa's point as far as not being able to necessarily anticipate some of the repairs that have come with the scale of this use. So I would just say, as you're considering this contract, that there are resources as part of this extension are reflects the obligation to bring the facility back to the state that it was prior to our use. So they're important resources as part of that contractual term, but it's also important for us to be able to have enough time to make the transition out of this facility strong with the steps that Chris outlined earlier or so, giving us the time in August to connect back to some of the facilities where if this did not pass, that runway would not be long enough to make the appropriate connections for folks to existing and planned facilities. So just want to reiterate the importance of the time and resources as part of this extension to both uphold that contract and also make sure that we're supporting a strong exit of the facility for the guests that utilize our services. It's been a thoughtful plan that's been outlined by Chris to support residents who are moving to other facilities. And we want to make sure that that's a strong process and well supported for guests to make. All right. Thank you. All right. Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Council Resolution 749 on the floor for adoption? Got it. I move that council resolution 20 dash 0749 be adopted. That can. All right, great. It has been moved and seconded comments by a member of council. Council member sawyer. Thanks so much. I, i, i have my concerns about this. I understand why it is important that it move forward, but I am going to go ahead and vote now. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Wow. I. CdeBaca, I. When I. Herndon. I. I. Question. I h I see all. I. Council president. I am secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. One night an ice. Ten ays Council Resolution 749 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 597. Councilman and CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on this resolution. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to call this one out and 598 out just to ask questions about how these two entities are providing services that are reimbursable. We have lots of contractors and I'm just not sure what exactly they're doing. So for Liberty Waste Management, where where are they operating and what makes their service covered reimbursable? Thank you, gentlemen. See you back. This is Chris Ulrich with General Services. I cut out I had to re logon to zoom for the. First part of your question. But I believe. You're asking what makes services reimbursable for FEMA expenses? Is that correct? What makes these two particular contracts reimbursable? Ross and Liberty. Thank you. So the services that are being provided in addition to their regular services, we have three levels specifically for COVID 19. So for the Liberty Waste, we have deployed a number of hand-washing stations that are specific to kind of help mitigate the transmission of COVID 19 among the public and including those affected by homelessness. In addition, we have also deployed additional portable toilets throughout different parks in other parts of the city. As Scott had mentioned in committee, again, to kind of help spread or not spread, keep the spread, keep the COVID 19 from spreading throughout the community. So that's kind of how these two are applicable, is providing those extra services, including hand-washing stations and the portable toilets. They are reimbursable expenses, Roth Property maintenance, because we have added disinfecting and high touch area cleanings. Those items also become reimbursable under FEMA. And so we have worked with our FEMA coordinator to really understand what it what can be reimbursable and really the process for getting these items reimbursed. And so by that language, it allows you to then go ahead and submit very detailed invoices. Those services that we can. Get reimbursed in. Got it. And so Roth is just our cleaning company, and Liberty is doing that for the bathrooms and hand-washing. That's correct. So Roth is our regular citywide janitorial contractor, excluding Dan. So, yes, they do clean all of our city facilities and have up that disinfecting and correct the clear selections, agreements for portable toilets and hand-washing stations citywide. Got it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Just one question. If we wanted to add in washing stations and portable toilets, I know that some of my constituents are asking for them. Can we expand this program and expand FEMA reimbursement? And if so, would that be additional vote for that would come before city council? That's a great question. So under this contract, we can add facilities, additional sites that are citywide without having to amend. We already have the ability to do so. Which is how. We were able to already add those hand-washing stations and portable toilets. So if that is something that you would. Like to pursue as part. Of your office, you and I can kind of have that conversation online to talk about the process for doing so, right? It's as simple as we get a quote. We know that funding initially, whether we can tie that just to our special revenue fund, which I assume we would and do those things reimburse schools. So that's a conversation that we can kind of have to to add those. But it's a very easy thing for us to add. I would be interested in that. So thank you. And thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilman CdeBaca. Just real quick. Thank you, Madam President. How many do we have in Civic Center Park right now? A great question. Let me look at my spreadsheet and I can give you. So in Civic Center Park, it looks like we have a total of three hand-washing stations. And porta potties. I do not see that we have portable toilets in civic center, at least not on this spreadsheet that I have. Unfortunately, I don't think Scott Gilmore was able to make this meeting. Awesome. While we will be pulling together a request to get some of these out in the communities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, are you good on 598 as well? Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have council resolution 6680. Councilwoman say to Berkeley, go ahead with your questions, please. So we have the power to waive the accrual of interest. I'm wondering if there's power to waive the taxes themselves and in what cases we would be able to do that. So. Good evening, City Council. Thanks for having me. And Councilwoman CdeBaca. No, we do not have the ability to waive the taxes. Property taxes are governed by state law, state constitution, the Colorado Revised Statutes. So there are specific laws and regulations in place that govern govern that in the city does not have the ability to choose to tax or not tax specific property owners. So what gives us. The authority to waive the interest accrual? Late in the session, the Colorado General Assembly passed a statute authorizing counties. To. Waive late interest for a payment interest on late payment of property taxes for this year, only a result of the COVID in the timing of COVID rates to when the property. Tax payments were due. And so is there any have we made any accommodations for people who can't afford to pay their property taxes right now? What what exists to be able to help people get their houses out of delinquent status right now without first having to come up with the money to pay their taxes. So from a property tax collection, the city has has no programs in place to assist. So basically what we have between. June 15th, which was. The second half payment deadline and October, which is when the tax sale takes place, we reach out to the property owners. Provide them delinquent. Statements, and give them the opportunity to pay the taxes up until October when the tax lien sale goes into process. So does the mayor have under his emergency powers, emergency authority? Does he have any power to change retroactively the taxation rate that we selected as a city? I do not know the answer to that question. That would be a question I'd have to have city attorneys opine on. Has there been any other circumstance in our history of a time when a tax rate was selected at one point in the year and something happened and that tax rate was retroactively changed? Not that I'm aware of. So there's essentially no relief at all at the city level for business owners and resident at property owners related to property taxes. Not not through. The Department of Finance. I'm not aware I'm not sure if Human Services or some other city agencies have programs in place to assist folks that are struggling with making making payments on whether it be property taxes or rent or what have you. But the Department of Finance does not administer any programs to provide that kind of assistance. Councilman, this is Kiki Turner Communications for the Department of Finance. Building off of what Steve said, that partment of Human Services does administer a property tax relief program. So I'm sure I can help. Follow up with them and get some on on on that program. It's the rebate and that is I brought it I said, without having to pay their taxes first because in order to get the rebate, you have to front the payment for the taxes first. So if that's the program, I'm already connected. But thank you. And that concludes my questions, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. We have Councilman Hines up. Thank you. Madam President, it is the hindsight of Oscar show tonight, I guess. But so my question is. I believe that property taxes are allocated or they are earmarked for entities. And this is part of the reason why we are required to collect them for state law. And so I want to verify that what I think is the case is actually the case. And specifically, I think 65% of property taxes go to DPS, Denver Public Schools, is that right? It kills behinds. So from 65% of Denver's property tax goes to Denver Public Schools, and there are several other special districts that administer a property tax. And then there are other components of the property tax. Denver's. Denver has a piece of the overall property tax mill levy that that we administer. But you're correct, well over 65% goes to other entities, not the city and county of Denver. So if we didn't collect property tax in the first place, Denver public schools would be an even more financial trouble than it already is. Does that? If they did not remit the funds back to Denver. I'm sorry, I'm making a value statement. How? But I take the value out of it and make it a factual statement. If we did not collect those property taxes, then Denver Public Schools would not get a significant portion of its funding for for the school district . Correct. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Okay. See no other questions on resolution 680. We'll move forward. We're moving to additional questions. And Councilwoman CdeBaca, you had a question on Council Bill 665. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam President. Lisa, is it possible for you to let us know how many leases are affected and if it's not a long list? Could you read us who those leases are with? Oh, give me 1/2. Let me just pull one up. It is with 50 to 80 enterprises. We have two of those locations, that is Subway, we have coffee, etc. Gosford. We have the Denver Center for Performing Arts. We have Giant Corporation HP or it should be convenience, which is Brussels in the world building National Western Center Authority . And I think my last one would be the Wiltshire Events Center. And so what is the, the total. Amount of dollars that we are going to forego in these negotiations. Councilwoman, I need to be clear that actually this is not rent forgiveness. This is rent that will be added all on the back side of their terms. So their term is extended and there and is and it actually then is stepped up to reflect that. So they will be paying actually a little bit more at the end of the term than they would right now. I do not have the total dollar amount per month, but I can get back to you. Awesome. Thank you. That concludes my questions. All right. Thank you. Up next, we have Council Bill 676 and councilman say to go ahead with your questions, please. Thank you, Madam President. Just curious about the language in this. Multiple small impact changes. Is there anybody who can speak to what that language means and what we're talking about here? Hi. It's Susan O'Neal from our class in com. And every six months we put in. Two of these. Small impact changes through city. Council. It's a protocol. That we established a few years ago. For studies. The impact. The impact is. Less than 50,000. It doesn't affect more than 25 employees. There's no more than five classifications and there's no more than three city departments of agencies. And so who who are the. What are the titles? The five. You said no more than five. Right. And so this there were 15 classifications that were changed up. There was an outreach trainer, a revenue development series, a criminalist series. The development of a real time crime center technician lead an infrastructure program manager, a photo enforcement agent, too, because we really had a one time chief and deputy chief, probation officer, forensic director and forensics manager. So those were new titles. A deputy monitors deputy monitor, project inspector supervisor. Emergency service worker, a new classification. For the COVID and then Applications. Support Administrator Specialist. We have a. Right of way inspector series and a business license inspector supervisor. And then the city clerk administrator. Got it. Do we have a. Total dollar amount of the impact. Of these changes? No. We look at them as a whole. I could get back to you on what they are amounted to, but each one, each study respectively wasn't anywhere near $50,000 in costs. Some of them are a couple hundred, maybe. Most of them were probably nothing because of. The new classifications. Awesome. Thank you very much. That concludes my questions. Thanks. Thank you. We have an additional question. Councilman Sawyer, go ahead. Thank you, Madam President. As I was. Looking over these. Today in preparation, I was looking at the outreach trainer classification and it looks like it might be switched because it says in the description that it is removed. It's about abolishing the hourly classification. But then when it talks about the pay grade changes right below that it has the current pay grade as the salary and the proposed pay grade as the hourly. So I don't know if somebody wants to go back and take a look at that, but it looks like maybe that was just switched around inadvertently. So just thought I would bring that to someone's attention before it went through. Thanks. So what actually happened with that one is that it was classified as an exempt level position. As an hourly. And that's an oddity because we want them to be nonexempt. So that's why the classification changed. An 809 is an exempt classification and it was moved to an A 621 and the 600 depicts the nonexempt hourly classification . So it was a good clean up from an FLSA perspective. Okay. So where it where it's in the what it's it doesn't look like that's what it says in the actual description. Or maybe I'm just still confused. Well, the whole thing is confusing when it comes to classification. Which is totally true. But as long as you guys. Have it right, I mean, you're the expert, so that's great. I just wanted to check on it before it went through, so that's great. Thanks. Very good. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. All right. Next up is Council Bill six, six, eight Council member Sawyer, will you please put Bill six, six, eight on the floor for final passage?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the conveyance of the surplus property located at 906 Pine Street, Seattle, Washington, in council district four.

KingCountyCC_06122017_2017-0094

Oh, okay. Let's make it a 15 minute recess. We'll be in recess until about 5 to 11. Thank you. All right. I will call the meeting back into session. We are ready to start on agenda item number six, which is briefing number of 20 $17 009 for the sale of convention police station. This would office action would authorize the executive to sell convention PlayStation to the Washington State Convention Center for construction of a convention center addition. As council members are aware, this item was also included our committee of the whole last week I felt that we were close enough to being able to make some decisions that I wanted to add it to today's agenda, partially because there's not another committee of the hall meeting for a few weeks after this one. Since our next regularly scheduled committee, the whole meeting will be the time for our labor summit, our annual labor summit. On Friday I sent out proposed chair striking amendment. I am aware that there are other amendments, both public and not yet public. I have a revised agenda today, a revised amendment, I should say today that is asked to and I'd like to ask staff to go ahead and distribute that. Now, while they do that. It's it's at your places. Thank you. We were we were working and imagine that. So wait, you told me to say it distributed. Then you went ahead and distributed. It's like a Scottie move right there. I couldn't. We need 3 hours cup. It's done now. Yeah. The only substantive change between as to and the in the striking amendment that was distributed on Friday morning is a change that delays action on the PSC agreement. That's an agreement to move some electrical and communications equipment on the site that's necessary for metro and sound transit operations. The original striking amendment said that we would cap the cost at $17 million to make that move. But because it's early days and and the number is hard to nail down, there's a process approach now that would allow that to come back for a decision at a later time. This is consistent with the proposal that Councilmember Dombrowski sent out on Friday. Thought that was a good approach. So I asked staff to incorporate it into the chair Stryker so I hope are prepared to work through these items today, see if we can't reach a decision on a package that we can forward to full council. I would ask Council Member Cole Wells, who's the lead sponsor, to move the item before the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the chair striking amendment to proposed ordinance 217 zero. I think we actually have to move the underlying item first. I was so anxious. Think so. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move proposed ordinance 2017 009 for it. All right. And then would you be also willing to put the chair's directive, which is amendment as to before us for discussion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Some of the chairs striking amendment as to the proposed ordinance 2017 0094. Okay, that's before us in accordance with council rules 1683 With the item now before the committee, I would ask that all amendments be distributed to each member. If there are additional amendments and ask council members who have amendments they may wish to offer related to this item to provide those to our committee assistant at this time. In Councilmember, the amendments that we are aware of is there, as we know are made public. Is council striking amendment as to which you was just moved by councilmember caldwell's? There is a Councilmember Lambert amendment to insert a price cap on the TPS. Yes, there is a Councilmember Gossett amendment to increase the affordable housing contribution and require that that that affordable housing be built on the site of the project. And there is a Councilmember DEMBOSKY amendment adjusting the timeline for a vacation of the CPS site. And I would also add, Madam Chair, that because we prepared your speaking notes before we checked in with you this morning, there's one other change in your striking amendment also that adjust when the county would leave the CPS site. Do you want to speak to that? Yeah, let me speak to that a little bit. I thought that would be a standalone amendment, but it's an abstract. Okay. So the then let me just describe the change that was is now in situ. So there's a second change in as that makes it different than the striking amendment proposal afforded on Friday. And that is regarding the date by which the county must vacate and sound transit must vacate the convention place tunnel station for busses. The I think as we all are aware at some points in a. At this point, that is September of 2019. Busses are going to have to come out of the tunnel anyway because of the expansion of light rail. This language would state our our I don't know if preference is the correct word, but our policy that September of 2019 is the date that busses should come out of the tunnel unless the Convention Center expansion project has their permit by July of 2018. And unless they make a statement to us by September of 2018 that they are ready to start construction. If they do those two things, then they can start construction in March in a way, or they can be constructing in March in a way that causes the busses to have to leave the tunnel earlier. The thinking behind this is that there's a balance here between allowing this large and impactful public project to move forward, but not having us vacate the the convention police station and have it be empty, sit empty for a period of time when it could be used for a little longer for the benefit of the traveling public . Did I capture that accurately without speaking those disciplines? All right. So that's the striker that's before us. Do we have a perfecting order for the amendments? Yes, ma'am. Beginning on page 133, in your packet, we've got the other amendments laid out in order with the sponsors listed for each sold. Go Councilmember Gossage, then Dombrowski, then Lambert. And that matches the order of the purchase and sale agreement. Web page again, please. 133 133 Okay. So with that, unless there's some preliminary discussion, Councilmember Dabrowski, thank you. Preliminary because just procedurally, I want to make sure I understand where we are with respect to amendments. And Pat, I think you can help. I had prepared working all last week with the various stakeholders, basically a striking amendment to the underlying ordinance that was that was approved by Metro Transit, the Convention Center Authority, outside counsel of the Gay Councils Council assault. And you've prepared, but we have another striking member from the chair here and then you've got some one off amendment. So I'm wondering does to a in in that you've got for me here incorporate all of the agreed changes in the kind of omnibus amendment that I prepared last week. Staff believe that the substantive difference between the two purchase and sale agreements at this point is the exit date for the station, and that is what is incorporated in Amendment two. And I was the other documents, the other the two striking amendments yours, which staff have not released yet because it's been confidential to this point. And Councilmember Bell, ducks are substantively the same on all key terms except for the vacation date of the station. And so that's what is an amendment to. So let me ask you this. The purchase and sale agreement that's on my omnibus amendment, which you're welcome to release the details summary of which was shared for me with all colleagues as soon as we got concurrence by everybody, including the exact office. But you've said they're substantively the same have the as the convention center. Their lawyers and our lawyers reviewed and consented and agreed to the proposed purchase and sale agreement on the Baldacci amendment. I don't know what the maker of that amendment has shared outside of the county, and so that would be a question best directed to her. Okay. So let me direct this question that you then you say that the purchase and sale agreements on the two are substantively the same. I mean, this is a $200 million and sale agreement that we spent a lot of time working with lawyers on last week to get the language precisely correct. And by lawyers, I mean with all the parties, have the lawyers on the Baldacci strike in their conserved contract concurred and participated in its drafting? I mean, their clients are going to have to sign it, right? Are we just is this a one side proposal? I don't know who the who the chair has shared her striker with. All right. I'm happy to speak to that. I have shared the proposal with the Essex office and they reviewed it. I have had a conversation, a verbal conversation with representatives of the project, but they have not had a chance to review it. However, this is a committee and if we take action today on the concept, if we agree that this is the right concept, then we have some time between now and the final vote at the Council to have legal review and a. Address any issues that may have been introduced. I'm not aware of any sitting here today. And thank you, Madam Chair, if I might follow up, please. So we've got some issues around the legal nature of the document. But the other difference you mentioned Pad, that you thought the vacation of the tunnel was the big thing. We had spent a fair bit of time last week again with the Essex Office and Metro Transit and the Convention Center, and lawyers for the county and the courts are working on the transit power substation agreement that TPS has and trying to figure out whether we could figure that out now and the cap issue and all that . And we had some eventually landed on some specific language there where the parties would continue to go work that presented to the council for a potential override. And is that now where do we stand on that? Between the two version. The council and the chair striking amendment has the same allowance for that agreement to be moved to after closing and continue to be worked on. And the Council has the same kind of conceptual review and ability to object to the agreement. Yours does have additional language that was worked out between the attorneys for the parties on indemnification and a it's not really a binding date, but a a go goal target date that was added at the convention center attorney's request. That is not in the chair. Striker Okay, very good. And so Madam Chair, there's some differences just that arise from the way we've come here to today between the two approaches, and I'm happy to proceed. As you wish. I'm trying to get this deal done. I've been for it from the beginning, and I've worked very hard since the Budget Committee to try and bring folks who have to sign this document together in rooms to work out the details. And details on this are important because of the complexity of it. And so I think on principle, there is for most issues, consensus, although I'm satisfied with a minimum date of March 19 for the vacation, the tunnel and you are, I think, have a preference here for September of 19, but that may be the substantive policy difference. But there are some technical differences. And so I don't know, Councilman Baldacci, if you have a set of amendments, say that there was the will of the body to go with the more advanced document that has concurrence by all the parties. If you have a set of policy amendments to that omnibus amendment, that could advance your policy objectives of a September 19 departure. But I think that might be another way to approach it. I calendar Bousquet. I want to acknowledge the hard work and the detailed work that you have done. There may very well be a couple or even more than a couple of technical items that are in the document that you've been working on that are not in the document I've been working on. But. Those things weren't. Haven't been. At least not vetted by. By me and in my office. And so what I would like to try to do today, I mean, we have options. We have we have quite a few options here in front of us today. One is we work through the action on the table in front of us. And if we get to an agreement in principle, because the amendments that we have, other than some of the language in yours, it are much more policy level and much less technical level. If we can get to a decision on the policy and there are technical changes that need to happen between committee and council to make sure we are affecting the policy in a way that is implementable, if you will, then we can take that up at the council meeting. Alternatively, you know, this is a special meeting. We've been going for a while. We could take some time. We could wait until the next council meeting, which will be in early July. I would I think on balance, the I would rather proceed and get to the policy level discussion, see where we all are, and then decide what to do about the technical, assuming we can get past the policy. That would be my preference today. I think it comes from, well, duty. I guess I'll just say this and I think after budget we should pass this up to the full council was referred to this committee. You and Casmir Caldwell's and I had convened a working group of members of staff to see if we can get to an agreed amendment. It became clear last week that there was not an agreement among the three of us on a key policy issue, and that was the vacation date of the tunnel. I was very pleased that we were able to get that kick from September of 18 to March of 19 plus perhaps later, depending on the project's construction schedule. We worked very hard with the proponents to negotiate that, but your office indicated that that your preference was a September minimum 19 departure, and Councilmember Caldwell's was trying to find those. I couldn't tell, she agreed, but was willing to work on things. So that's what prompted me to proceed to see if I could get. And with all due respect, they're much more than technical amendments. But to get an actual deal with all of the stakeholders of approved that they would sign that the buyer would actually sign and there are protections in there for Metro with respect to the TPS and the comp facility as they go about the site. And I'm happy to talk to those. So I'm having trouble understanding why we would not why we would continue to ask folks to come and spend time, resources, energy on perfecting a purchase and sale agreement that has been perfected, that addresses all those issues and instead advance one that's incomplete, that's been not negotiated, that's not had the consent of the parties that the buyer we don't know if they'll sign it over basically the departure date policy question. And I think that's really the main difference here that needs to be resolved. So maybe you will advance through yours. You have expressed a strong desire to advance a chair striking amendment and and staff has prepared this. But I don't think it gets what I'm hearing is it doesn't address the practical reality of a purchase and sale agreement which isn't ready to go. And I would then suggest to my colleagues, if there is interest that that is there and it's ready and I'm happy to talk to it at the right time if we if we can get to it. So again, I'm trying to get this done. I think that this project, by continuing to experience delay, puts it at risk. And I don't want to do that. Thank you. I, I don't know that we need to have further discussion on that topic right now other than to say I think we're all trying to get this done in a way that works for the various stakeholders, including the transit riders of King County, who we serve, including some of the labor representatives who are still working through issues from there and the hotel motel workers. I mean, there are stakeholders who have not been at the table. And so let's just see how far we get. Let's just go and see how far we get. And when we when we we hit a point where there's a relatively firmed up policy decision here, then we can talk about whether there are additional things we need to take up before council. And I will certainly follow the will of the body with regard to what we want to do next. So with this action in front of us there, the First Amendment that has been offered is from Councilmember Gossett. It's Amendment one, a Councilmember Gossett. Would you like to put that into the window to put that before us? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to draw folks attention to Amendment One. Located on page 133. I've been thinking about and wrestling with this. Concept of how do we improve equity and social justice, particularly as it relates to the lower income workers that are working in hotels and motels and the downtown area, as well as the ones that will be working and the expanded part of hotels and motels to deal with the hopefully, hopefully increased number of folks that will be attending conventions as they are. Some of the basics. The essence of that. America. Help me with this. The specific aspects. But the basics are the amendment are located in effect statement at the bottom. This increases the affordable housing requirement from 5 to $10 million and required that affordable housing be constructed on the side of the project. About whether we estimate the number of units the 5 million would have purchased. I think it's I think it's hard at this point to determine that. I think it's a rough rule of thumb for affordable housing units is typically around 300,000 a piece. But I think you've summarized the key differences in the amendment. Remember, the deal came over with essentially a buyer option. They could either contribute 5 million to the county for affordable housing programs or build the affordable housing on site. This amendment would say that that number is now 10 million and the buyer option has gone away. So that would need to be built on site. All right. And but we don't have a total number of expected units for the apartment building part. I don't I don't know that the project does not yet have permits from the city, so they don't know yet how many apartments can be built on the site. So. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is my amendment. Okay. Amendment one is before us. Did you have. Did you want to speak to it further? Councilmembers. I want to hear the responses from members. Okay. Councilmember Coldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for Councilmember Gossett, and it is have you discussed this amendment informally or formally with the purchasers. Particularly people that are going to who build it? Well, the purchaser or the representative, I believe, Mr. Matt Griffin, about the thoughts, as long as we're trying to be inclusive and determine what all the parties think about striking amendments and amendments. I'm just curious, have you spoken with them? No. I haven't spoken. I'm not real clear on who the developer partner is. Mr. Griffin. I'm sorry. No, I haven't spoken to them. I just think that this is a reasonable price to have to pay, given our commitment to equity and social justice, and that the previous time I was not minimally reasonable to me. Thank you. Mr.. That's please. Thank you. So there are actually two major parts to this amendment. So we could find some of us might agree with one part, but not agree with the second part, which may be challenging. Have a quick follow up question with Pat. Pat. I think I asked you kind of a similar question before, but has because I am new here. Is it normative to require construction of affordable housing on site as compared to having the the the other option that we had originally? I think that. We do so few deals where we actually have a piece of county land being sold and then essentially immediately developed again. I don't think there is a normal we have done it both ways. The Kingdom North Lot, for example, there were requirements that it be built on the site and other other deals. We've required a contribution. So, you know, this one having an option of either one for the buyer as originally proposed. Is consistent with the various directions the county has gone before. They didn't quite answer your question, but I don't think I don't think there is a clear answer to it. We've done it both ways before. And I think that's this is not outside of the norm from that perspective. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First of all, my understanding is that there is expected to be a discussion with the city of Seattle as part of either their permitting process or their Ali vacation, road vacation or both, and that there's a likelihood of a requirement for affordable housing that comes out of that process. Is that correct? So where we are currently as part of this deal, the developers offered King County the $5 million payment that was proposed as part of the permitting actions and the community benefit process at the city. They have offered 9 million as part of two different programs, so 4,000,001 and five and the other. And every time I try to figure out which is which, I get them backwards. So 9 million total to the city, 5 million to the county. But neither deal actually is done yet. And so that number may move. Right. And just for reference, the sales price is about 144 million. It's 160. But they're paying 20 million cash at close. And 140 million is where that numbers is. Your head is being financed. Got it. So that's if you're talking about approximately 14 million out of that that amount. I just want to remind us that the executive's proposal included a buyer option to pay cash or build on site. And Councilmember Lambert, among others, questioned that about what would get us the affordable housing built soonest. Do we have a sense of that? I think certainly building on site would be the latest or the or certainly later than cash to close because a cash a close option would result in a check being written to the county later this year or whenever the closing occurs. That would then be used for county affordable housing programs building on onsite. Real realistically, the the apartment or condo building that's being built wouldn't be opened before 2021. So you're still talking quite a bit down the road before that housing would be built on site. Okay. And I want to I want to acknowledge Councilmember Dombrowski for the concept of requiring cash at closing because of the idea that that would accelerate the opportunity to provide $5 million worth of affordable housing as quickly as possible. Okay. Any other comments or questions about this amendment right here? Councilmember Garza to close. Thank you very much, Chair. An additional concept that influenced my mind was listening to the representatives of Unite here and some of the people who have represented inner city communities on this project, and others where people have a difficult time grasping and understanding the commitment to affordable housing when it's not tied more specifically to the actual project . I would tie it to the actual projects. Then we have what Mayor Arroyo used to call almost a guaranteed habit, scattered site and low income housing in various neighborhoods. Now, I've just given the money to the city or the county. The only place where low income housing can be built is when low income developers are developing. Yeah, and it seems to be mostly low income community. That's all right. But I like the idea. I love the, you know, the working poor living in units in the same buildings with moderate and market rate housing falls. That adds more to the enriching social experience that occurs in the buildings. And I don't see how we can get there unless we start as the government requiring that it be on site and trying to facilitate that occurring. So I think any consideration that is given to my No. One. Hey, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Garza. Okay. I'm prepared to call for a vote on amendment. What is each one? A all those in favor. Please signify by saying I. I opposed. No, I think I'm going to have to call for a show of hands. All those opposed. Please signify by saying, I am raising your hands. You say that you support that. I heard those of those who are in favor of the amendment. Did I say opposed? It's been a long day already. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying I and raising your hands. Okay. And those opposed? No. Okay. The amendment does not carry. The next item is where I am right now. One item to a council member. Ambassador. Thank you. I think I'll withhold this amendment at this time. And because I just think it's going to make more sense to offer my combined omnibus amendment and I will probably speak against adoption of the chair Stryker because it does not it just hasn't been negotiated with the parties. And I think there's a more efficient way to go the alternative way. And I'll ask Pat if this makes sense, because you've prepared this and I'm really not sure mechanically how you've set it up. Pat Would it be possible to offer two way which relates to the timing of the departure from the tunnel? Right. As I understand, yes. What it also and say that regardless of how that carries or is a I said to adopt and would then be possible to offer an oral amendment to substitute my purchase and sale agreement form as the attachment to the Belushi's striking amendment to get it to get in other words, get a current purchase and sale agreement or more up to date purchase agreement that has all the material terms negotiated attached. I would have to defer to legal counsel on that. The item that is before the committee right now is a striking amendment with an attachment. I don't know if a right oral amendment to replace the attachments would be in order or not. I just don't know the procedural ruling on that. But okay, so procedural there's that issue. But, but just mechanically, because we've got a very basic kind of ordinance, if you will, with the language that references that attachment. The attachments seem to be kind of stand alone documents and trying to just mechanically you're. Asking for a legal conclusion. I just don't know the answer to it, because an amendment is. Kendall, the thing and I don't know if you can split that amendment into two things or not. I just don't know. So what you have Kendall Mora, deputy legal counsel, what you have before you now is S-1. And as part of this to excuse me as to and as incorporated in as to is the purchase and sale agreement to which all of your amendments are now running or actually to the attachment. So I, I would conclude that offering a, an amendment to replace attachment a at this juncture, it would be out of order because you are you have to deal with your S-1, which includes the attachment. And that S-1 is. To. You as to attach attaches attachment which to the purchase agreement which. Is incorporated into the Stryker. It's part I mean, it's what you are dealing with now is ask one and it's attachment ex S-1. I'm sorry, I keep saying that as to what to call it the belt dutchie Stryker. Right, easier. So what you're saying is an amendment, but we're offering amendments to the Balducci Stryker. This would just be another amendment to it which would say substitute in a different attachment. But your amendment to replace attachment a yes would now be, I would conclude out of order because it wasn't handed out at the beginning of this. No. Well, we have handed it out. I asked that thing out and it was handed out. But is then. That amendment is a striking amendment though. It is not. It is part of it. So I think I think I think what I'm hearing from legal counsel, that's. Out of order because of the procedural. Rule. Let me ma'am is. Yeah. I'm just saying I'm trying to we have 318 to a three. Right. What I'm trying to do is not mess it up by offering to a which is change the personnel agreement. If, if we could get your if we could get your. Eyes to. You see what I'm saying? It would be cleaner if you're willing to, if you will, perfect or complete the Stryker with the striking amendment that's currently in front of us mine with whatever substantive policy amendments there are that might include yours, which is different language around the dates, it might not include yours, but then when it comes to actually maybe swapping out the purchase and sale agreement, which is what this is all really about, is adopting the purchase and sale agreement, maybe we could do that as a separate thing at the end after we've it just might be less confusing that way. And I think that's what you started to say. And yeah, I was told by my staff that staff had prepared any amendments necessary to advance kind of my package on yours. But now. I'm saying that that actually didn't occur. So what I think I'll do my share is not before the fair. This all happened between Friday and this morning. So now I have a mic and maybe I think I will probably just argue against adopting the striker and then if it fails, advance my S-3 because that would be the consolidated document. That might be a cleaner way to go if that works for you. I mean, if if if your amendment carries if you're striking minimum carries, then mine probably won't. Right? I don't I don't think can I think if the chair's striking amendment carries, I don't think you can offer a revised striking amendment. Is that correct. That's correct. Because all the decisions will have been made with regard to the bout dutchie the purchase. And so yeah. But we will have, as I said, at least a couple of weeks between now and the council meeting. If there are items that you feel were not picked up that are important to try to merge them and then we can take up additional action. I guess it. Seems goofy to me, but I mean there's a lot of items, but I think I will I will not offer mine and we will see if yours has adequate votes and then I'll offer. If it does, then we're done. And if it doesn't, all offer mine. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we'll move on to Amendment three A, which is Councilmember Lamberts. Thank you. That Chair, in looking at this important project, I had a feeling that there were many items that were taking and reducing the amount of our net proceeds from the sale. And one of them, I felt we needed to have some kind of oversight over. And that is if you look on the effect statement on page 137, it says that it adds a sentence that obligates them to pay for all costs for the TPC work above 70 million unless the county approves a higher amount. I think we've we've talked about that the price. And my concern is that the price would escalate so much and we would have no input in that. So I think as being notified and being able to have some say on that is very important and not be a blank check because I believe that there could be instances where that might be exceeded and we should know about that. So it's just to make sure that we have oversight. Okay. Okay. Amendment three A is before us. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Gossett. Thank you. I wanted to ask Patrick and I thought that the Common Council already had the ability to approve a significant price increase. Or is this different than that? I think to be fair, we are trying to thread a very fine needle in this case because what has changed in the striking amendment is the movement of this TPS agreement to, more likely than not, post-closing. And also you have an opportunity that's in this amendment for the Council to review, and if they don't like it, reject the TPS agreement. And this this language, I think is a policy statement. But because this has to be reviewed by the Council later on anyway, I it's it's a bit odd in the in trying to get it in just but but from a policy statement perspective I think it works. But because the agreement already has to come back and the council already has a 30 day review and opportunity to reject, I think that's what makes it a little unique. Okay. Comments. Other comments for questions. I had. A couple of. Comments. Yeah. Come from an and I think there might be some more before you close. Councilmember DEMBOSKY I think that I'm chair so this issue, the TPI SRS that is the transit power substation memorandum of understanding is one of two major follow on agreements beyond the purchase and sale agreement. I will be candid and say I didn't realize the complexity of it until after several hours of meetings last week with the executive branch, with the Deputy General Manager, Victor Bass of Metro Transit, with the county's lawyer, Matt Hanna from Cairncross and help him and with that central staff. And it is an integral piece of making sure that this works smoothly. It has two components. There's a communications facility and a power facility which are covered by this agreement, both of which are important in operating our bus system in the tunnel and our light rail system. And this is what it comes down to. It is a life safety issue. This equipment, power and communications are essential for safely operating the tunnel, both in light rail and busses. There's a complexity to this in that the there's some issues around who would be obligated to pay the cost of moving certain of this equipment, sound transit or King County. And there are also some advantages to having some of those things worked out later. That's just the highlights of the complexity around this issue and the amendment that I have, the personnel agreement that resulted from extensive hours of discussions, including on this particular topic I tried to achieve, and I'm not sure that Councilmember Lambert's amendment were well-intentioned , achieves the goal in the in the best way. Her amendment sets a firm dollar cap of $17 million on it. And I think in doing so, she's trying to protect the benefit of the bargain, which is a principle I think everybody here agrees to. Now, interestingly, if the number had come over to us at 22 million, I think we'd be trying to protect the benefit of the bargain and saying 22 million. We at least I don't have the level of granularity to know what if it's 17 million or 22 million and who should pay and what's right. So what I think the better approach is, given the complexity of this, while still trying to achieve Councilmember Lambert's objective, which I share with you, to protect the better, a bargain is to keep the council involved with the process that is set up to, say, continue negotiations. Mr. Executive, with all the parties Sound Transit, the Convention Center and Metro Transit, continue those negotiations. And then once you think you've got a deal, report back to us at the council and give us adequate time. If we don't like it to reject it. And that's the structure that is in. I think my I know it's in my mind abundantly. I think it may have made its way into law. So I think the hard cap in this case is, is a is a well-intentioned idea to preserve in a bit of a bargain, but it's a blunt instrument to blunt, I think , for the complexity of this. And and again, the complexity of this particular issue didn't become apparent to me until last last week. Councilmember Lambert. So for that reason, I'm not going to support it, but I know that the intention behind it is good. I'll add my own comments. I, I agree that I think all of us have our eye on the ball of not of creating some certainty that the benefit of the sales price not be, you know, frittered away and additional costs that we'd have no control over. I think that the language that I frankly cribbed from Councilmember Dombroski gives this body a veto. It gives us an opportunity to say in the future, we don't like that price that you came back with. And so no. And forces, you know, to go back to the table. And with that, we can achieve the same goal. And it's even slightly more flexible, I think, because there's nothing that says that even a slight overage could, could, could trigger that. We have to be thoughtful and we have to act in good faith, of course, at that time. But we have we still have some control over what's happening with that that cost that we don't really know exactly today what it will be at the point in the future when it is incurred. So I agree with the intent in both cases, but I have incorporated the procedural approach for a reason and B, I think that meets our our needs. So I'm going to I'm going to vote against the amendment, but I definitely support the motivation behind the amendment. Any other comments before Councilmember Lambert? Councilmember Lambert, go ahead. Thank you. Well, as you said, this happened over the weekend and this was written before over the weekend. So I think it signals our intent. I am excited about the project and what it can do. I would like to see the affordable housing be part of it because then I know for sure it will get done. And that is. My concern that there's affordable housing get done. I am not feeling like I always have confidence that when affordable housing is being done for this or that, it it is the quality or the quantity that we had originally thought. So if it's in the building, I know that it's not going to be of lesser quality. But when you look at the price and you look at the comps per square foot and maybe this is part of my closing statement, but it was in the it was in the middle. It wasn't at the very top. And that concerned me. The desirability of this property is very, very high. So for that reason, it should be at the top. The length of this contract is longer than I have seen in some contracts, which is favorable, and that's fine with me too. But that also should put us up towards the top. The size of the down payment is smaller than I would have liked, which should put us up more to the top. So. Oh, and then I see these other costs that we don't really know what this is going to be and we really don't know what that's going to be. And you just know that we hadn't seen the language over the weekend when we wrote this, but it keeps lowering the price per square footage. And one of the things I'm going to want to know when we get this done is what what did it ultimately come out to be as the cost the square footage ? Because I wasn't really pleased where it was when it started. And if it keeps getting lower, then I'm really going to be less pleased with that. And in addition, during the time of this construction, if the current trends in real estate properties cost continue to escalate at the same rate, then it's even a lower rate of what we have offered here. So I'm trying to look out for the taxpayers and I think in the way you put this together, bringing it back to the council again. So we continue to do that. I just hope that we don't feel as we have in some projects, Oh, this is so much into it or that so much has been done already that will just go along with it. I'm not ready to go along with it. As we go on it. It means that the taxpayers are not getting the full value of what that property was worth. So I'm going to withdraw this in light of the fact that you have put it in your striker and be ready to vote on final passes. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. That concludes the submitted amendments, which brings us to a final vote on Amendment S two as amended. Are there any comments or questions at this time, Councilmember? Do you think that you're just procedurally at somewhat awkward here and that I guess I'm asking Mike. I'm having a little difficulty in being able to present the differences that I would offer in SE three, and I think that's the choice before council a fully prepared negotiated agreement that the lawyers have looked back, that Metro Transit is looked at, that the exact office is looked at and the buyer has looked at and agreed to, but which folks have not been able have been briefed on it fully. And I want to make sure that folks know that that's here. It's in front of you. It's S three. And I'll do my best to highlight some of the things. One, well, anyway, and I guess maybe I'm asking procedurally, you would like to have an up or down vote on yours first. Is that is that right? That's what was before us. And so that's the next step. But if you would like to take your time now to explain the differences, I think that would be the now would be the time. Okay. I guess I appreciate the opportunity to do that. I would I would ask maybe Mr. Hanna, our counsel, who has had a chance to look at mine if he would be available for for four questions or an overview or. Pat, do you have anything that you would like to add? I would think that Mr. Hanna giving legal advice would need to be an executive session, which I think can be done. I can hit the highlights of what was in your amendment, I think in open session without. Before we do that, I have a question, if you don't mind. Councilmember Caldwell's has a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had requested that a side by side comparison be developed between Mr. between Councilmember Dombrovskis and Council and the chair approaches. And I know there was one change in the Chair's approach in terms what's reflected in striking amendment as to I think though that what went out on Friday or Saturday may not have gotten to all council members relatively. I, I don't believe it did council member I believe it went to you because at the time that the the other striking amendment wasn't available yet. So I provided it to Mr. Dombrowski. The chair striker has since changed to that document. That document would not. Be relevant. That. I perhaps by the time we get to the full council meeting. It could have a side by side, certainly. And regardless of what happens here, it's just helpful for me anyway. And I think it could be helpful for others. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for. Thank you. Councilmember Domanski, you had the floor and thank you for allowing the question. But can you please give a brief summary assurances? Sure. I think and actually we tried to do a similar so if you take the two amendments at the top of the page is actually same format. I think from my perspective, both you, Madam Chair, and customary Taberski talked about the difference in the date. Customary Dombrovskis would be March 30th of 2019 unless the permits were not issued by the City of Seattle by June 30th of 2018. And yours, Madam Chair, would be September of 2019. Almost the opposite. Unless by June of by the end of June or July one of 2018, the city has issued permits. And then later that year, the project provides notice to the county that they will be ready to take over the site in March. So that's certainly a difference. The other major difference that I would say is through that work with legal counsel on the TPS US agreement itself, while both agreements have to come back to the council and the Council has a similar review and rejection period. Councilmember Dombrovskis includes more protections for the equipment that is on the site, which is a big deal. And what's changed there, because both amendments move that approval of that agreement, most likely to a post-closing scenario. That means after the deal closes, after we've transferred the property to them, the the power substation and communications equipment will still be on site. So Councilmember Dombrovskis purchasing sale agreement adds additional protections for the county to make sure that we have continued operations of the site undisturbed and puts I'm not sure what I would call a target date in there for when the parties should reach agreement, although that agreement still has to come back to the council. So I think from the staff perspective and one other change, although maybe this doesn't rise to the level of major change, but I pointed out, just to be fair, both amendments say the same thing for how the proceeds shall be used first for costs from the sale, then for routes or services impacted by the early closure. Then for the long term Metro connects. As you're aware, if we do transfer the tunnel earlier than planned, the county will avoid a couple of years, one, maybe two years of debt service depending on when it transfers. Councilmember Dombrovskis amendment also says the debt service payments that are avoided go into that pot as well for allocation and that could be three, three and a half to 4 million to 8 million depending on whether it's one or two years debt service payments, it's probably going to be one. So in that 3 to $4 million range, I think unless Mr. Dombrowski thinks something else, I think those are the major differences between the two documents. And if I missed something, I'm sorry. And I think that was a good summary. I think in addition and this is important with respect to affordable housing, I have added language agreed upon with the purchaser in the recital section on page one, page seven of my amendment. But page one of the purchase agreement that reflects the commitment by the Convention Center to the Seattle Affordable Housing Piece of the $9 million that is not in the chair striking purchase and sale agreement. And I thought that was important, given the interest in affordable housing to be able to kind of cement that public commitment in the purchase and sale agreement as a as a floor. And that's on lines 19 through 26 of my purchase and sale agreement on artwork. Pat, is there any difference on the artwork language? No, proper, proper. I'm using decommissioning because I can never say of the other word. Proper decommissioning of the artwork is a condition of closing in both agreements. Okay. I think also on that note, I'm sorry to jump back to you on the TPS. There's another thing that we negotiated and agreed upon was the, you know, suspension provision. And this is on page seven of line 738 of my purchase agreement. And that is if the demolition work on the project's critical path is suspended by the buyer for a period of three days or more, then our termination date may be extended by like period. In other words, what I'm trying to do here is here's my main goal keep the tunnel for our operations as long as we can , but not interfere with the project's construction. So when they're ready to go. They would have it. And if they suspend their work and we could continue to use it, that clause lets us keep using it. And that's been my main thrust here while trying to build an objective test, which, frankly, Pat, you suggested the hard date of June 30th as the permit date and and then the service changed thereafter. So there's a number of other language provisions in here, I guess, colleagues. Boils down to two things. One, my strike amendment is the result of a lot of work of all the parties that have to sign it, and they're advising the council. The Chair Stryker doesn't reflect that work. And importantly, and I think it's a big win, frankly, for our operations, we pushed the date to March of 1904 coming out of the tunnel. Cast member Belushi's has a September 19 date and I don't know whether that's agreed upon or workable mind. Could go back to to to two 2019 if the convention center doesn't have their permits and I have additional flexibility in there to get us as long as we possibly can without interfering in the project. So we're trying trying to advance a sale. I took a lesson from Councilman McDermott when we were doing the Bellevue site, when finally we could we figured, one, you couldn't negotiate with nine council members. And he went into the room with council duty and negotiated and brought back a recommendation. And we tried to do this with three council members, but it became apparent that there was a difference in policy. And that's why I was available. I attended all of the meetings and and continue to attend them. And and the policy is around that vacation date. And I don't want it to interfere with the project. We've made some very good progress in here. We've capped at $4 million the ramp cost. That was an open item before, but we've got a hard cap on that to protect the benefit of the bargain. And Councilmember Gossett, with respect to housing, please know, in addition to the language in my purchase and sale agreement that makes the developer commit to that promise over at the city of Seattle, we do have a preference for workforce housing. Both of the amendments are the same in this regard and a priority for 30 to 50% AMI on the lower end. And I think that's good and that's the same across both. So I think I would ask I think it's it's fair to ask the lawyers if there's anything we've missed here that Mr. Hannah would add. I think it'd be important for colleagues to hear it, given the amount of work you put in on last week. Mr. Hanna. Do you want to come forward and add anything? Mr. Hanna is the special your lawyer. He says he'll introduce himself a. Special deputy prosecuting attorney and other outside counsel working for the prosecuting attorney's office advising King County on that. He's our lawyer, but our lawyers. All right. Welcome, Mr. Hanna. Thanks. Morning. I had a chance to review the amendments in the last hour. So from my very brief review, I would say the only other difference is with respect to the threshold that the convention center would have to meet in order for the timeline to either be extended to September 2019 and Councilmember Dombrovskis version or for the exit date to be rolled back from September to March. And Councilmember Vale teaches for a version in council member duties version. There is a threshold that needs to be met. The language, I believe, is take control of the site, that the notice to the county would be that the convention center would need to, quote, take control of the site, which means continued operation of the site as a transit base would impair the construction of the project. The threshold that is in Councilmember Dombrowski, his version. Bear with me just one moment. Would be that the permits necessary to commence construction, which are contingent contingent upon the issuance of a master use permit and demolition and construction on the site for the project has not begun by by June 30th. So in one case. Councilmember Dombrowski, the threshold that must be met is that permits are issued and that the convention centers mobilize the state site and begun construction. Councilmember Belushi adds Notice that the convention center needs to take control of the site. So a slightly different description of the threshold and each version. That's the only other substantive difference that I was able to identify in my very brief review here in the last hour. Well, we appreciate your your on the spot legal work. And there's a question from Council Lambert. Thank you. So I've had the privilege of working with the city. Is that the I'm trying to get a new P for our out of street facility, which has been a nightmare. So I want to make sure that if they treat the convention center as charmingly as they've treated the county, that this may be built in the years 75, 92. So what do you mean when you say take can ask me how I really feel. What do you mean? You say take control in order to be able to to work in this space. You have to have a grading permit, assuring permit part of that, and you require that there's a variety of permits. So does the language take control? Also assume that. You have those permits in hand? Councilmember Lambert, I'll mention right off the bat that I candidly was not involved in the development, the language around taking control of the site. And and so I don't want to interpret the intention that was behind the use of that language. But if I read the language that's proposed in the in the agreement, it states that this is simply notice from the convention center that the convention center will need to take control of the site. So I think there's a built in assumption that permits have been issued and that there are other ways ready. Right. So there's a two part test that looks like in Councilmember Belushi's version. The permits are, in fact, issued in the same way that it is in Councilmember Dombrovskis version and that we received this notification that they're prepared to take control of the site. So again, they have the permits and are otherwise ready to proceed. They have acted customarily. Did the both amendments treat Seattle permitting in essentially the same way and that they June 30th or July one is the target date? One of them says it's September unless they meet this threshold. One of them says it's March, unless they don't meet this threshold. So if Seattle, as you put it, treats this project the way they treated the CFTC, you will be beyond that June 30th date and I'm not even sure which year, and that's the reality of it. But that is not a substantive difference between the two documents. The subsequent notification is the difference. Okay. I think that that's. Really an important part, and I'm really glad to see that it's got that second part test. And I would say it's not only the year I would be talking about what century after having dealt with that. So make me go to Wednesday morning meetings for four years to talk about something. It makes me a little testy. So thank you. Okay. Councilmember Gosset. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is for Councilwoman Ranking Biles, because I'm trying to figure out what happened, because to me, these two documents look like plans that we got. The only difference is, as they are Stryker and the other ones they have. DEMBOSKY Stryker, and you talked about the meeting with all the parties that took place that led to your being bought off on by all the parties. And my question is, were the other two council members on the subcommittee of three invited to that negotiating session? And if they weren't, why not? Customer recalls that they were. We were working together, including doing the recommendations up until, I think Thursday or Friday. I did not invite them to the Thursday or was at the Friday meeting meant for me because at that point all of the points which had been agreed upon is there are a lot of similarities were done, but there was a fundamental difference in opinion on the vacation of the tunnel date. And Councilman Belushi wants September of 19. In a way, Councilmember Caldwell said, I agree with Claudia, quote unquote in the meeting. And I said, Well, I just don't agree. And so then I continued to work with the parties to try and get something that reflected the March date. Now I kezman remember Caldwell's is certainly capable of speaking for herself, and I want to say that she has been open to trying finding a resolution throughout, but that those two things, when it became clear to me that cars were real douchey, who wasn't there but her chief of staff was said that she wants to use this trigger period for coming out of the tunnel to make and basically a September date. Or it could even be be worse, to be honest with you, under the prior language. But that fundamental difference in direction caused me to say, well, I don't agree, I want to be out in March or as soon after is as we need to be to let the work commence. And so that's why I advanced this work. And you are by yourself to all the other partners? Yes, I did so. But that's the only choice. They had to advance the deal. I did not want to negotiate with myself on a complex deal. I thought, in fact, I'm the only one that has invited repeatedly the purchaser to come into the room. And that was with Councilman Belushi and Caldwell's a week ago or more to try and get this done. And so I think it's been inclusive until there was a fundamental disagreement on the policy, and then I continued to advance the measure. So I've tried to put together a deal that will actually be signed that the buyers willing to sign, that the executive supports that works for Metro. And that's what I've done before with with the alternative. And so they're not twins, but they're closed because there's mostly agreement, but there's some big differences. And on a deal of this nature, I don't think you can sit in a room on the 12th floor and write words and then pass it in legislation and expect the other side to sign it. I think you got to bring them into the room, hear that their concerns are listened to. Our own lawyers who I brought into the room to work the deal and put it together and bring in the deputy county executive to get their input. And Victor observed, So I've done the best I can. I want to move this project forward. My alternative is ready to go. It will be signed. It protects Metro. Very importantly, that TPS language that I have in there protecting our equipment is not in the Baldacci amendment. Not in there. And that's an important piece of language for a life safety system. I'm not saying it can't be fixed. We're kind of in a procedural wrangle here, but I've tried to move this ball in a responsible way from a governing perspective. And there is a fundamental difference in policy between Councilmember Bell, Dutchie and me. She wants the floor of September 19, a year later than they first wanted in 18. I got working with them six more months March and it could be later. But I do not want to cause a delay on this project and put it at risk. And that's been the thrust of my work. And that's why the convention center has agreed to it and Metro has agreed to it and the executive has agreed to it, and our lawyers have blessed it. I want to call on Councilmember Caldwell's and then move to a vote, because we're already well past the end of the meeting time, if we could. Councilmember Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel compelled to speak on this, and I think this disagreement could have been avoided. And we were agreeing on a lot of things in a meeting that Councilmember Dombroski. I requested our attendance last Wednesday with very little noticed and unfortunately the chair of this committee, she was not able to attend. I it was not a convenient time for me to meet either, but I went there and at one point I did say that I would like to say I agree with Councilmember Bell. Do try to stay in the tunnel for the better sense as long as we could, but without disrupting putting the deal together. That's a very different comment than saying that there was a total impasse and there was a fundamental difference in opinion. I am the sponsor of this legislation. The site is in my district and I believe as such that I was certainly to be considered one of the parties who should have been consulted with continuing work to bring everything together. I also believe strongly that Councilmember Bell Banducci expressed, as Harris has expressed, a very similar if not the same view as I had expressed at this one meeting. I was not informed of a follow up meeting. I was not invited to attend, nor was my staff. And if that had happened, I believe we would be here today with an agreed upon striking amendment that everybody could be supportive. And I think we really are in a very unfortunate position at this point. And I'm not appreciative of the procedure in terms of how we got here, rather the process. Ready to go with that. I think there is time to reach agreement, whether we postpone this to a later meeting or we go ahead and take a vote, which I am fine with on Striking Amendment two, sponsored by Councilmember Belge. Then we can have time to perfected before we get to our council meeting, which I believe would be on the 26th. Is that correct? Yes. But I felt the need to say this. I don't like to get in. You know, he I said you said this type of thing. And I think we blew an opportunity to all work on this together. But I'm going to let you know, I want everybody to hear this when I'm the sponsor of legislation and especially when it's in my district, I want to be consulted. Absolutely. And I don't want it to be said later that I had expressed a fundamental difference. So why consult with me any more? That's not appreciated. Thank you. Okay. I think we're ready to move to vote. I just want to say a few brief comments in closing on the substance of the amendment that's before us. I think what this amendment fundamentally does, if it passes, is it sets a policy direction that says on the question of removing busses from the tunnel, that that will happen in September of 2019, which is the same date that sound transit is scheduled today to remove busses from the tunnel anyway because of the expansion of light rail. Unless the the convention center project proponents by July 1st, 2018 have their permits in hand and by September 30th, 2018, give us notice that they're ready to take over the site in a way that they need the busses gone. The point of this is that the busses can be removed from the tunnel earlier. They can be removed from the tunnel by March of 2019 under this language. But what we don't want to see happen is the busses be removed from the tunnel and then the site sits there for months unused when it could be being used for the benefit of the traveling public. That is the big picture policy direction that we will be adopting. The changes that were described that are in Amendment S-3, that's not before us. There are some things and they are a number of things that might be I might support these ultimately, but I just hadn't seen them until today and hadn't had a chance to look at them. Those things that I had seen before today that I agreed with, that Councilmember Dombrowski proposed. I have tried to include in the Stryker because I think there are some good, good innovations in here that that that make it possible. We will have to have legal review of this before we take final action on all sides to make sure that it is implementable. But I believe it sets a course that we then can implement. Final comment I want to say is there's an issue that is kind of in the room but not in the documents, and that is the request that we have had from representatives of hotel motel workers to make sure that their interests are being considered as part of this sale. I understand there's some discussions going on right now outside of our process to try to address those. And I think it's important that we allow those to go on and not and not rush through this in a way that that forecloses that discussion. With that, I'm just going to go ahead now and call for a vote on an amendment as to as amended. Is this a voice vote? But what is this. We can do either? Okay. Would you like a voice vote on it or wrong? Ah, okay. Do you care, Councilmember? Domestic violence to voice vote. All those in favor of amendment as to as amendment please signify by saying I. I opposed. No. Okay. The motion carries our electorate. Okay. I have been asked for division. Okay. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, I. Councilmember Crowell's I. Councilmember Lambert I. Councilmember McDermott, High Councilmember of the Grove, Councilmember Yvonne Wright. Bauer No, Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is 652 nos. Councilmembers Dombrowski and Councilmember If I'm right, they're voting no. And Councilmember Dunn excused. Okay, so at this point now. We still have some more work to do, but this is prepared to move to council in the normal course. Of the reproduction strike. Oh, I am so sorry. We have the final passage. Any words on final passage? Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start where you left off. One of the things I've thought a lot about during this discussion is who are the stakeholders? Is it just those who signed the agreements, or are there more people impacted? Obviously, with a proposal like this, the benefits are widespread, but there also can be adverse impacts, as is often the case. And so when I think about stakeholders, I also think about the obviously the transit riders, not just the transit agency. And I think that the approach in this Stryker is one that that I'm supportive of. But I also wanted to echo your comments. It is my understanding, too, that the men and women who work in the hotel industry and their representatives have met recently with the Washington State Convention Center to talk about how these costs and benefits are shared and ways in which the costs and benefits can be distributed in more equitable ways. And I don't know what the answer is. We do know that one of the largest economic beneficiaries is the hotel industry, and that's generally speaking, that's a good thing. But we also have employees who work in many of these hotels in Seattle who have been struggling, not only struggling economically, but struggling with their relationships with their employers. And I'm I think the Washington State Convention Center would be wise to engage more specifically in those conversations, both before we take full action, but also, I think as this hits the city of Seattle, I think that it's important to keep a broad view on this. You know, I support this because I believe that overall the economic benefits are a positive for our region. But I do think that those are important discussions that the convention center should take seriously and engage in specifics as as we continue to move through the process. And so I appreciate your comments, Madam Chair. I wanted to reiterate those. Thank you. Other comments? Okay. I think Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hopeful that this will get into a form that eventually can be signed. I'll be voting no today, obviously. I think it'll it'll advance. I think there's generally consensus about the terms, but we're we're, in my view, risking a multi hundred million dollar project by continuing to impose a delay. Ironically, the language on your take control words compared to the language that was in mind could mean that the convention center boots us out of the tunnel sooner because my language required that they actually start work on the site. Your language has them take control and then we're gone. But that is what it is. And and I think that we'll eventually get it get it done. And I think this is a good public project. Sometimes people forget that the public the convention center is a public institution created by the King County Council, and that we confirm every member of the board of directors. And one of the people sitting on the board is the secretary of the King County Labor Council. And I was very pleased and proud to push the convention center behind the scene to get to a project labor agreement with the building and construction trades, because I think this is a good project for generations of jobs and we'll build that up. So I hope that we can get it done and I think that we've made some improvements here. But I hope that folks, as they negotiate, will actually quit negotiating with themselves and reach out to folks that have to sign the agreement and get something that's workable. And I trust that will occur. The executive will veto it and the party won't sign it. So more work to do. And I commend you and enjoy working with the folks who are on the other side. They're good folks who are smart folks who are trying to do the right thing. Okay. I think we're ready to vote. The the very last word I will give as the as the proponent of this, if if the maker of the motion will indulge me, is that I think we have all been trying very, very hard to balance a variety of public benefits. There are opportunities here. There are also impacts here. We all are attempting to do our best to represent the people that we are sent here to represent and to get the best deal possible for the residents of King County while supporting a project that can do a great deal of good for the residents of King County. And to the extent we have hit that balance today, I am pleased to the extent we need to do more to strike the right balance. I am open and with that I would urge your support and I think we're ready to call for a vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett. Hi. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Bond right now. Madam Chair, I tried to go to seven days. Councilmember DEMBOSKY voting no and Councilmember Dunn excused. Okay, that counts. Mr. Hamacher. Just a very quick announcement, Madam Chair, just for everyone's recognition on the schedule, you have an advertised public hearing for this item scheduled for a week from today on the 19th. That's a state law requirement. The convention center proponents, however, have asked that the council delay this action until the 26th, so you'll see a advertised public hearing for the 19th. That's because we had to publish and get that out to the public. But if this is on a regular calendar, it would be up at council on the 26th. Does that mean that we will move the public hearing to the 26th so that a year can both happen on the same day? Or will we hold the public hearing on the 15th? I think you should hold the public hearing on the 19th. And if the chair desires, though, he can keep the public hearing open until the 26th if he wants, or he can close it on that day. We will leave that in the chairs. Good hands. Okay. Thanks you, everyone. This meeting is now.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 2.06.060, and Subsections 2.18.050.D and 2.63.030.A, all relating to commission compensation, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06162020_20-0502

All right. Thank you. I 11, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to Commission compensation read and adopted as read citywide. The emotion that comes from a Richardson second. I can't remember your anger. Public comment, please. We have one speaker. Victor Boosie, you have 3 minutes. They find out. Dee dee Dee. When I keep saying it, I'm going to keep repeating it. So you all get the message. This is a call for everybody. Next meeting. Call in. Oh, then what the people are saying d find out the p d. I yield my time. Thank you. Roll call the police. District one. District two. I district three. I district for. The. District five by District six. By District seven. By District eight. Merrick. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Special Trust Fund Series for the “Unclaimed Minimum Wages” program. Establishes the Unclaimed Minimum Wage Special Trust Fund to temporarily maintain unclaimed wage payments made by Denver employers pursuant to the minimum wage ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1232

11 eyes counted. 1237 has passed. All right. Unfortunately, we're not done yet. We have that companion bill that we delayed. Councilman Hines, will you please put House Bill 1232 on the floor? I. I'm of of counsel, Bill 1234 or 12 excuse me. 12 3232. Thank you. Be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments by members of council? Doesn't look like it, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye Lynn. High Hinds. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Y. Sandoval. Sawyer, i. Torres High. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 Eyes, 11 eyes. Health Bill 1232 has passed, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding section 5.90.290 related to local enforcement and penalties for illegal marijuana businesses, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07112017_17-0496

Motion carries. Can't. Exciting, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to local enforcement and penalties for illegal marijuana businesses read and adopted as read citywide. Emotion in a second. Councilman Price. Do you have any comments? No. I ask my colleagues to support this item again. Please. Okay. Public, please come down. I really do. Clark has the address. I address this a few weeks ago, and though this measure has some merit to it, this is one of the I think the first time I'm going to suggest that you. Undertake an action tantamount to reconvening the Council of Trent. And going back and correcting. A very serious error that was made. The city did a good job of saying, hey, we don't want these facilities near our schools. We don't want these near our parks. As I mentioned two weeks ago, what was fair, what we failed to consider or is failed to take into consideration is the avenues and the byways by which those you're trying to protect go to and from schools, period, in the instant kit. And I don't know all of your neighborhoods. I know development your area rather well. And I do know kids patterns. All right. Kids don't don't go to banks. Kids don't go to shoe stores. Kids don't go to jewelry stores. All right? They don't go anywhere where mom and dad goes. All right. But what they do go in. I our area, I know is Rite Aid for ice cream and a block away of. However, a jack in the box. I know you have correlative locations in your district that. So what you've got to do. Is go back and provide those corridors that the kids take as safe zones, period. Somebody has a wet dream of opening up one of these right down in the middle of wells of of Belmont Shore. As he comes to read. You will see he is. The police records show perhaps the most irresponsible landlord in. They're not sure if not in the city. As is a major tentative is next door. Equally odious. And it responsible for five years, providing both of them, but providing sanctuaries to an insidious criminal element. One of them threatening to kill a shop owner because a block away, less than a block away because she reported that the use of crack cocaine. Another one biting the female biting somebody in the stomach. Both of them spitting at the branch librarian every time she goes out on the second street for a lunch or a break because they were banned from the library for that type of conduct. So what you've got to do is go back to the drawing board and redesign that your protections for the community. Thank you very much. Any public public comment saying now there's a motion and a second, please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PD18-090 and award contracts to Axon Enterprise, Inc., of Scottsdale, AZ, and VIEVU, LLC, of Seattle, WA, to furnish and deliver body worn camera equipment, at no cost to the City, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for three additional six-month periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05152018_18-0424

Thank you. Thank you. Public comment saying no members, please get your vote. I'm yes. Motion carries. Thank you. 17, please. Report from police and financial management recommendation to award contracts to two contractors to deliver body worn camera equipment at no cost to the city for a period of one year city wide. Okay, we're a bit out of sorry on this list. I have 15 and 16 on the list, so 16, 17. So we'll go back and pick up some 15 after this. So let's take 17 now. Let's go ahead and hear from staff on item 17. Mr. Mayor, council members were looking at body worn cameras here. We're looking at a potential to go to a new pilot program with a new company. I'm going to turn this over to our chief of police, Robert Luna, to walk us through the contracts. Thank you, Mr. West. Just really quick before I get started. I have Mara Velasco, who's our chief financial officer next to me, and Jason Campbell, our bureau chief over our administration bureau. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, the body worn camera program was established within the police department to do several things enhance community trust, improve accountability , better document community interactions, believing that the use of body worn cameras would result in a reduction of uses of force and citizen complaints. In January of 2016, the City Council voted to award a contract to Dell Marketing for the purchase of body worn cameras. On November 5th, 2016, the pilot program was officially initiated. The pilot consisted of the deployment of 40 cameras at our West Patrol division. On the afternoon shift, the pilot officially concluded on November the fourth, 2017. West Division personnel continued to deploy body worn technology in the field, given early promising findings and an opportunity to test upgraded second generation technology with the existing vendor. The program was expanded to all sworn personnel at the West Division on February 17th, 2018. After a thorough review, both generation one and two cameras, it was determined that the technology did not meet the needs of our department, believing in the overall value of the body worn camera technology. Another RFP was released on April 3rd, 2018, to test competing technology to find a system that best meets the needs of our department and our city. In total, 5224 potential firms specializing in body worn camera technology were notified. 40 entities downloaded the RFP and five proposals were received. Of those five, the selection committee determined that Axon Enterprises and V view best satisfied city requirements based on established evaluation criteria of the following demonstrated competence, equipment, function, data management and technology support an approach experience with same size police department's expertize and availability of key personnel. Financial stability. Conformance with the terms of the RFP and reasonableness of cost. Originally, the department recommended that both Axon and V view be awarded the contract. However, recent developments have occurred that directly impact the Council decision to award contracts to both Axon and review. On May four, 2018, Axon announced that it agreed to purchase its main competitor V view. As a result, we planned to pursue a contract exclusively with Axon. The Department is prepared to work with our city partners and the vendor on implementation, fill testing and evaluation. Of the new equipment. Every effort will be made to ensure a smooth transition in programs with a planned deployment of approximately 200 cameras cameras covering two geographical divisions. I want to take just a quick second to thank our city attorney's office, financial management and our technology and innovation departments. They worked their tails off to try and get this through in the speed that they did. It was actually pretty amazing in helping us getting it done so quickly. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions or we stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. I have a motion and a second Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to thank the chief and the police department for the great work that you've done on this. You know, I've been pretty vocal on the Public Safety Committee, and throughout the time that we've been discussing this issue that I think we are past due the time to have body cameras in place. I a while I understand what has taken us so long to get to this point. I'm disappointed that it has taken us this long to get to this point. And I really wish there was a way that we could do a shorter pilot. So I'm going to talk I'm going to ask a few questions about that. But before we talk a little bit about that, Chief, can you share with us what some of the issues with the former deployment were and why we think we might be in a better situation now with the technology or otherwise? And I might jump in here right now. I'd rather we could meet and discuss in private the reasons why the chief of police and the police department has decided that the former companies did not meet the demands of the Long Beach Police Department and not discuss them in an open session. Sure. And let me just rephrase the question. Do we think that from a technology standpoint, the company that we're choosing to enter into a contract with can accommodate the needs that we have and satisfy our needs for a pilot. Councilwoman Price, the RFP set that direction out and we are encouraged by what we see and that's why we need this pilot program as we move forward. We made a lot of demands as a police department and as a city, not just for what the police department needed, but we had to be sensitive to the technological needs of the city. So that's the reason for the length of the pilot program. We want to make sure that when we come back to this council that I am recommending to you through the city manager that this is the best option for us as a city to move forward. Okay. And I appreciate that answer. So the reason for the length of the. Pilot is for us to look at the operational aspects of it. We will be looking at everything. We will be looking at the equipment, the logistics of it, the storage from one end to the other, their staffing considerations that we're looking at. One of the things we learned from the previous pilot program is that, as you know, the men and women of this police department are working their tails off. I have not too much fat even in people. And as we move forward with this pilot program, we hope to introduce more staffing, which is going to be needed and required to effectively run it on our side of the fence. So we'll be looking at that. How smooth is that? And then we'll be working with our partners in the city to make sure the technology works. And that's one thing we're we're asking Axon to do is to come in with a plan on how they're going to operate within the city. As you know, we're geographically spread out and we do have some challenges, some challenges historically in regards to our outdated technology from a city perspective. Okay. And I understand that, Chief, and I appreciate that answer. I guess the question I'm asking is. And so some of the reasons why. Let me let me just say that based on my experience, a one year pilot is a very long pilot with Axon. I work in a county where nine out of our ten agencies are using Axon. And we've where we've talked we've had 30 day pilots. We've had several month pilots. A one year pilot is a long time. And so from an operational standpoint, I think one year I would like us to get the police department as online as soon as possible, because I believe body cameras protect not just the individuals who come into contact with the police officers, but also the police officers who are often alleged to have participated in conduct that in fact, upon viewing the body cameras, they did not. Do so from. A city liability issue. And from a justice standpoint, I think the body cameras, the faster we can roll them out, the better. So what I'm hearing is that in addition to having time to look at the operational aspects, that there may be some staffing needs that might also present a financial challenge for us to get up and running and deploy agency wide. And I'm wondering because looking at the that the proposed contract that we could have, that we can terminate a one year pilot with 30 days notice, is that correct? Approximately. Yes, that's. Correct. Okay. So because I think that's what the the the staff report says. So we could. If we were to bring this back in six months, we could at that point evaluate the city's available resources to augment perhaps the budget in order to allow staffing and roll out an agency, a department wide. Body camera program as opposed to continuing with the pilot for an additional six months. And during that six months that we've done the pilot, we can have the opportunity to evaluate what our realistic staffing needs might be. Because we might have just looking at this and I don't question anybody's judgment, I understand what we think the staffing is going to be, but it could be that we don't have as many praise requesting body worn camera as we're expecting. We don't have as many redactions as we're expecting. It could be that we don't need the number of positions, the eight positions that we've requested in in a pilot would also reveal that information as well. And one of the reasons why we want to do a one year pilot to make sure that we are positive, whether it comes with pre staffing and everything you just mentioned. Okay. So you believe that if resources were not an issue, you believe that a one year pilot would be best for our agency? When I talk about resources, I am very concerned about our internal resources, but I'm also concerned about the logistics from a technology perspective, from a city perspective, just to make sure that we can do that across the board. Okay. I mean, I think there are a lot of cities that are using Axon that are far less sophisticated than we are with technology. So I'm not aware of any technological hurdles. And that's exactly why I want to do a one year pilot program. Could it be less? It absolutely could. But when I come back to this council, I think my job is to provide you with every answer that all of you all answer, any questions that any of you may have regarding every box that I need to check to make sure that we're making a very wise investment because this is expensive. I agree with you. I think it's a necessary tool, but it's going to take some significant funding or a significant budget enhancement for us to make this happen. And I get that completely and I agree with you completely. I guess what I'm trying to say is. As the chief, putting aside budget constraints, putting aside your concerns about where the money could come from, would you want to see this program deployed agency wide sooner than one year? And I understand that, you know, you don't as a as the director of the department, you have to think about policy decisions in combination with fiscal constraints. I get that. But what I'm what I'm trying to do is figure out if we were to come back in a while, in a few months and six months, and we can look at our financial situation at that point and we were able to roll it out agency wide. Is that something that we could do in less than a year? And if the answer to that is no, then I get it. But I will say a yearlong pilot is a very long pilot for a program that agencies far less sophisticated than ours have rolled out very efficiently with zero problems. I met with liaisons today from multiple police agencies in Orange County, much some smaller than are, some around the same size. And the rollout has honestly been flawless. The discovery process, the use of evidence dot com. There have been very few glitches. And so what I'm saying is, assuming we are entering into a partnership with an organization who has learned lesson for within it, with a provider that has learned lessons and we're the beneficiary of the lessons learned , could we implement this agency wide? Because I'll be as clear and direct as I can be. I think we need to have body cameras for all of Long Beach Police Department as soon as possible. And that's what I'm trying to establish with you, Chief, as if finances were not an issue. Could we do it sooner? And if finances are the issue, could we maybe come back in six months and think about whether or not we want to roll it out for the full agency? I can promise you an all out effort in trying to do what we can do, but I would have to reprogram my mind because there's a lot of things I'd like to do that we have money restraints on. So I get it. Thank you. Just one final question. Have we determined whether or not the pilot policy is going to have the activation is going to be a discretionary or mandatory policy for the officers? Our current draft policy, which has been in existence for over a year, mandates that the officers record enforcement contacts. It's not optional. Great. That's very good. A couple of best practice suggestions that I might make is that the policy and of course this would have to go back to. The members to to approve. But one of the things we have found in terms of best practices is there are times when officers will have to deactivate their body camera, whether it's for a restroom break or whether it's because a victim or someone has asked that they be allowed to do so by indicating such by speaking into the body camera before they disengage. And I don't know if we have something like that in our policy, but to allow for that flexibility such that in those situations, the officer can articulate why they're turning off the camera by speaking into the body cam before turning it off. Is that a policy that we have or could look into as part of the pilot? Yes. Okay. The other thing lessons learned is that we have several agencies who entered into an agreement with Axon not anticipating some of the storage issues that might come up. So I don't know what the terms of our contract will be, but if we can try to get an unlimited storage with Axon, I don't know if that's possible , but I think that would be good because some agencies are finding themselves having to recategorized their body cameras so that the retention they fall into a certain retention policy. So if that's something that we could fold into the contract, I think that would be good for us too. Since we're going to do a pilot, we may as well get the most out of our policy. But those are just my suggestions, just from lessons learned and a few articles that I was able to find online today from experiences other agencies have had. Axon has already offered that as part of their proposal. Great. Thank you very much, Chief. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Price. I'm sorry, Councilmember Pearce. Two years later, still Price. I want to thank you, Police Chief, for your efforts on this. I know we've had some conversations in the past. I've had other conversations outside of our office as well. And honestly, I think that I was going to ask many of the same questions that Councilmember Price was going to ask and just stress that I know that a lot of costs with data storage and that there are a lot of unknowns. But I would support coming back in six months. You know, if we could come back in six months and evaluate where we're at, I think that that would be great for the council, whether or not we are identifying the cost and how much we need to to really plan for. But as six months return, I think would be appreciated. So I'll just echo my my colleague and leave it there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is your public comment? Please come forward. Maybe my mom to. Very good. Hugh Clark is the address. Let me make this suggestion. Let's get a body camera. That will be worn by the mayor. Given the fact a mayor has a salary of $400,000. A pension that goes with that. So he should have no problem. A wearing. A body camera, just like the police do. As well as as well as his staff members. As long as they're in this building or working on city business. If he has nothing to hide. There should be no problem with that. And I think it would benefit this city. We had that long ago he probably would not be going to prison. But for any man, given the size of the salary, the size of the pension. He should have no problem of wearing. And his staff members. Body cameras. Unless. Unless they have something to hide. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Stephanie Dawson So Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach Branch. I just wanted to voice I supported this particular measure. Body worn cameras are a good faith, albeit imperfect, standard operating practice that's made it better for, as the chief said, to the restoring faith within the community and frankly, protecting cities from crippling civil lawsuits. As a criminal defense attorney myself, body worn cameras have made my job eminently harder because it shows that the vast majority of police interactions with people are overwhelmingly positive. And they and they keep to the restrictions, put on the word to them by the Constitution. That said, they are not a panacea. We today just approved a slew of new people for the PCC. Robert, I remember through what, four years ago now when you told me directly that the PCC has no teeth, that has not changed statutorily. We need major charter reform to be able to make it so that we can have actual accountability for when officers do not abide by the high standards that we have set for them. Furthermore, as Councilwoman Pryce alluded to, the issue with a lot of these body cameras is storage and retention. You know, there are many times when I come in my own practice, when I've been looking for discovery matters. And a lot of the necessary records have been lost in the course of a case that's only a year old, which is not that long in the grand scheme of things, with criminal justice issues, we just ought to think it was a month ago ordered the destruction of years of use of force records from the Internal Affairs Division of the police department. Obviously this is an ongoing problem if we are not able to physically keep these records or do so on a permanent basis so that they could be used in discovery for for lawsuits or anything else for that matter. This is a matter of of significant public interest. And I think that it really demands a further look at it. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, Mr. Parkin. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. I just want to clarify the motion that's on the floor as this motion was placed on the agenda prior to the city, knowing that Exxon had purchased view, we'd like some flexibility to be able to enter and enter into the contract with Exxon and then discuss with them the availability of the Veeva, if I'm saying that correctly, camera and operating system and give PD the flexibility if available to test both of those and then come back with their recommendation on which technology meets their needs the best. So it kind of follows the spirit of what the letter and the council recommended action is today. And we would have to have some additional conversations with Axon to make sure that that second technology remains available. Thank you. And just before we go on to the I want to just clarify also where I think the motion is at is the motion is presented by the city attorney. I think there's also an interest that while this is a year long pilot that Chief, I know you regularly give updates obviously on it on big projects and that there'll be a formal one. I think it's six months I think is kind of what I'm hearing just to make sure, you know, the council's abreast at that point. That would be I think that'd be a good update for the council to have this a formal six month presentation on the pilot and with that, Councilwoman Gonzales. Seeing no other. Just had a couple of questions. Sorry. Our names. Just Scott. Oh, sure. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay, just thank you so much, Chief, for the update. And I appreciate the questions from my council colleagues. Just one clarifying, clarifying question for the fiscal impact. It states three positions now for the testing efforts and then eight down the line. And that's the are those technical positions that's just overseeing the the back end work for the actual technological aspect? Is that correct? Those are estimates at this point. Again, what we learned from the the first pilot program, we try to do it with one person. It just was not working. Okay. There's a lot of work that needs to be done behind the scenes. So we fully implement the program. We're looking at approximately eight positions that can be adjusted down the road depending on workload. I hope it's not that much work. Maybe Axon will do such a great job. We don't need anybody. I doubt it. But we'll see what we that's what the pilot programs for. We want to make sure we're bringing you the best possible scenario that our community expects from us. Great. Thank you. And I would just also include in that I know Axon, just from knowing them from my technological job, I know that they're looking to incorporate possibly facial recognition, which I know is something for us to just think about. But it is, you know, very controversial. I know that there's a lot of issues around that. So it's just something I wanted to throw out there. But I will say to that, I know every city is a bit different, every county is a bit different. I will say, you know, we're I'm so glad we have a different direction now. And when it comes to technology, we were on Lotus Notes not too long ago. I just want to remind everybody. So we're a little antiquated on that side. But I know I said it. I didn't even remember we had Lotus Notes, but we did. So I just want to say we're moving ahead and I really appreciate it. Thank you. And I would like to add, mayor and council, that part of the investment that you've made in technology is what makes this possible. So we were running the old system because we did not have a fiber network that we could actually rely on to do this. And so by investing in that fiber that's part of the status update will give you is how are we doing with fiber? Where is it? Because that's going to determine how far we can get for a citywide pilot. So with that investment, that's how we're able to move forward. Councilman Price. So I have a follow up on that. So it. Is our. Position that we need to have fiber throughout the city in order to roll out this technology. Yes, I understand, especially the accent system. It requires a lot of bandwidth and it needs to go back to the station in order to be uploaded as one of the ways to do it. And so we do not have fiber to all of our police stations currently, but Caitlin can give additional info if we need it. Get them on. There we go. Honorable mayor and members of the city council. The the technology behind Axon does require higher bandwidths, but there's also a intermediate intermediary approach we can take where city council already approved in. On March the 20th, a telecommunication network expansion. And that that expansion provides us the immediate capability to expand bandwidth to each of the substations. With through the installation of fiber. Or. Correct fiber fiber with the telecom providers eventually being sunsetted. And moved to city owned fiber. I see. So at all the police stations. Correct. So we have that now. We have the contractual authority to do that, and we're currently in negotiations with the telecom providers. Great. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And there's no other further comments here. So please, members, go ahead and cast your vote. And as we do so, I just want to, you know, just to the chief and to the technology team, I know this is this is an important issue. I know you guys have been working very, very hard on this issue. Just the whole staff. And I think we're obviously the council is as anxious and supportive of moving forward. And so we look forward to all the results. So just thank you and your team chief. And with that, we will move on to the next item, please. That motion carries that go up on the board. Yes. Thank you very much. Next item, I believe is. Item 15th October 2015.

A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.

DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0545

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, money also take just a moment to to recognize Pat nating Armin in the audience who who lost her husband in 1971. Thank you. And she is now vice president of the Denver Police Museum. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We have another proclamation this evening. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 545? Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. Proclamation 545 Series of 2017 recognizing May 19th as hepatitis testing day in July 28 as World Hepatitis Day, whereas May 19th as National Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th is World Hepatitis Day. Hepatitis C is recognized as the most common blood borne viral infection in the United States. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C has infected an estimated 70,000 Coloradans, as many as 3.5 million American residents, nearly one in 50 persons in more than 130 million people worldwide. And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants. Transplants in the United States. Excuse me. And. Whereas, as many as 20,000 hepatitis hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year. Make me hepatitis C, one of the top preventable causes of death. And when I ask people born between 1945 and 1965 are five times more likely to be infected than other adults. More than 75% of all people with hep C in the United States are people in this age range and are largely unaware of the condition due to any lack of signs, symptoms and testing. Beating Hepatitis C to be labeled as, quote unquote, the silent epidemic. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C disproportionately affects people of color and the majority of individuals with the infection can be cured of the virus through the advent of an effective treatment options currently available on the market and those cured through treatment are able to stop and even reverse damage to the liver caused by the virus. Whereas hepatitis C can be prevented. Testing can identify existing infections, and early diagnosis and treatment can save lives, money and resources. And. WHEREAS, A Liver Health connection is available as a statewide resource for education testing linkages to care. Patient navigation, help line and other support services. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council agrees that preventing and treating Hep C as an important public health initiative that will improve the quality of life for Denver residents affected by the virus. Section two, the Denver City Council proclaims May 19th as hepatitis testing day and recognize recognizes July 28 as World Hepatitis Day. Section three at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county in Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of Liver Health Connection. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt this president. I move to adopt proclamation 545 of 2017. Great idea has been moved. And second, it comes by members of council councilman lopez. Thank you. I appreciate it. I, as you know, have been doing this thing for. I don't know, eight years. Every every year on the council. And in those eight years, I cannot help but think. And, you know, here's the thing. I. This is supposed to be Councilman Ray Garcia's proclamation on long time ago. He didn't show up and we needed someone to carry the proclamation. And I said, I'll do it. But guess what? I did it. And I said, wait a second. This actually hits home for me. This hits home for me because the only the. The man that played that role of father in my life died. I passed away because of cirrhosis of the liver. He had no idea until it was detectable. I think sometime in the late 2000 or 2000, late nineties. He realized, and they found that he had hepatitis C. And his liver was already at a point where it was life threatening. And my grandfather thought to himself, a man wasn't that much of a drinker. I mean I mean, the guy would drink the beer. That was the generic beer and kind of white and, you know, the white Canada stripe on it said beer. Right. I remember that being my grandfather. He said, No, I don't think that's it. My grandfather never you know, I was faithful man is somebody who's just is my grandfather. Now, I guess what? In World War Two. My grandfather was serving in Germany. He was hurt. His Jeep had ran over an explosive and everybody in the jeep was killed and it just crushed his knee and he bled. And so they gave him a blood transfusion. A lot of folks in that age range. It was undetectable. And ended up taking my grandfather from us. And so for me, this hits home because I think to myself, what would have happened if he'd stayed around? I know I'd have at least four of my formative years in my life, my grandfather around. Right. And knowing that now is preventable. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to make sure people understand this is preventable and it's curable. How many diseases that are terrible like this. Can we say that about. Hmm. Here's just one of them. And it's important that folks that everybody get you get people out there to get tested. Should I go all the time? And, you know, I hate needles, but I just do it just because, you know, just to be in solidarity. And also I'm a freaking out as I go along. But, you know, you just kind of like you have to do it. And it's it's out there and it's something that's preventable. And the more education that we have, the better and the better we can get the word out. And I just think to myself, okay, well, you know, I thought to myself, oh, man, how is this proclamation really changed? Was it the language is kind of the same language and this over and over. But I think to myself, you know what, eight years is a long time. Eight years is a lot of people. Imagine what eight years can do. Right. Every single year we have to make sure we talk about this and we make it commonplace. So. Mr. President, I really appreciate the time being able to comment on it. As a great organization used to be called the Hep C connection, but now it's the liver liver health connection. So without further ado, I'm proudly supporting this proclamation in memory of my grandfather, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in doing the same. Beautiful. Councilman Lopez, thanks for carrying the ball for city council on this important issue and for our city for the last eight years. It looks like no one else is up to speak, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Assessment Clerk by Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Kashan Canete. Mr. President. I. 12. Please close the voting and then switch 12 eyes. Proclamation 545 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, I see nine up there. I'll clean up the vote. Okay. You guys don't worry about that. We'll clean it up. All right. Counsel Guzman Lopez, do you have anyone you'd like to bring up? Absolutely. I'd like to welcome back up to the counselor podium and Nancy Steinfurth, who is the E.D., the executive director of the Liver Health Connection, which has a great announcement that we're participating in. Right. So go for it. Oh, dear. I hope that's on my remarks. Hello. And thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm here tonight to offer hope and action to anyone who may have had a risk factor for the hepatitis C virus. That means baby boomers, Vietnam veterans, health care workers, police, fire, all those police officers who were here before, EMT responders, people who were transfused with blood plasma or RH factor. People who. Received tattoos in unregulated settings. Or people who shared needles or works while injecting. Let's face it, the list includes almost. All of us. I'm happy to. Say that there is hope for anyone with the virus, and that's because we have a cure that is up to 99% effective. So there's a lots of conditions, you know, this and that and the other 99%. They're very close to a treatment that is 100% effective. So it's amazing the cure is cheaper than when they first were launched three years ago thanks to competition. So they're five different treatments and they vary by genotype. We can help with. Figuring out genotype, which one's the right one, etc. but it's amazing that they're now about $30,000 where originally the first drug was launched at. 84,000. So. It was a lot of hard work. There are financial resources to help with co-insurance payments. So a lot of times under the ACA, people might have a co-insurance amount of $6,000. We know of some foundations that will help be able to pay that. So someone might end up paying $50 or $100 per month for their treatment. So when you think of 84,000 down to $150, it's worth it. And then Colorado Medicaid in October 2016 reduced their restrictions so that many more people can access treatment. And I can tell you that our colleagues at Denver Health are very busy, very, very busy. But they like that. They like being kept busy. The action that I offer is this liver health connection will be offering free hepatitis C testing in the web building on May 19th between the hours of nine and 3 p.m.. So that's this Friday. We encourage everyone to come get tested if you've not already been so. Also, there is testing in four other Denver locations and that's at D cap 6260 East Colfax Avenue on a walk in basis. That's their new office. So it's three other locations. Hey, Denver, 1720, Pearl Street from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.. And then the Denver Indian Health and Family Service, 1633 Fillmore. From 830 to 4:30 p.m.. If this doesn't work for your schedule, you can call it. Contact us will test you at any time. Well. Not at midnight. Don't call then. But it's. It's free and we will honor that. So whatever the risk factor is at our organization will test you for free. And then we will work with you on what the next steps are. The test is simple. It's a little finger prick. So even Councilman Lopez can handle this. We can give results in 20 minutes, and then we'll walk you through. And all of these testing sites can walk you through what the next steps are, because this is diagnosing or coming up with antibodies. And that is not the final test in all of this. It's also possible to call a liver health connection 800 5224372 to find a treating physician actually anywhere in the country. But we'll focus on Denver right now. Financial assistance or to understand test results, we are available to help people along every step in the path to being cured. However, the first step is knowing your HIV status, and that starts with testing. We hope you'll join us and our Denver partner organizations on May 19th and take that first step. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for always being our champion, always making me cry. The story of your grandfather and all of the council members for advocacy on behalf of this important issue. So for World Hepatitis Day, we're also doing a testing event on the 16th Street Mall, and I believe it's from 10 to 1 or two. We're going to have a tent, we're going to have some other activities, but. That'll be our second event as a part. Of this. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing this forward for the eighth year.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with relevant departments and the Economic Development Commission to review the feasibility of the City of Long Beach implementing a vacant commercial property fee to address long-time vacant commercial properties, and report back to the City Council within 120 days on findings and recommendations.

LongBeachCC_05072019_19-0446

Thank you. Others in motion in a second. Any public comments now? Please cast your votes. Thank you. Back to item. Sorry. Motion carries. Thank you. Back to item 29. Communication from Councilman Austin, Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilmember Younger Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to request city manager to work with relevant departments to review the feasibility of implementing a vacant commercial property fee to address long time vacant commercial properties. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? Councilman Austin. So I think I just need to explain this. No, you do. Because I thought it was a Starfighter person. I'm sorry. Personally, I need to slow down. Councilman, I'll thank you. And I think we're going to get out of here at a decent hour tonight. So, first of all, Long Beach is retail economy is strong. Our as our sales tax revenues continue to exceed projections and overall commercial vacancy rates remain low in much of our city. However, there are some very clear retail properties along a commercial corridors that have remained vacant for four years. I've seen that, witnessed that in North Long Beach and in other areas of our city. Even other retail properties as other retail properties in other areas of the city are filled. This can result in blight conditions and send a negative message to adjacent neighborhoods as well as the business community. Cities throughout the country such as Washington, D.C., New York, Boston, Oakland and San Francisco have recently implemented or are considering adopting vacant property taxes to address chronically vacant storefronts. A fee on chronically vacant commercial properties can provide an additional tool for Long Beach to incentivize property owners to take more productive or proactive role in leasing their rental spaces or retail spaces, rather than being content to let them sit vacant for a very long time. Most vacancy fee policies allow for exemptions for properties that are undergoing renovations or are going through entitlement processes with the city and where the property owner is showing that progress toward leasing the space is being made. I believe this is an intriguing idea, one that is merits some some review and getting input from our Economic Development Commission . We're requesting that the city manager work with relevant, relevant departments and Economic Development Commission to review the feasibility of implementing a vacant commercial property fee policy in Long Beach and report back to the City Council with findings and recommendations and try to come back within 120 days. I ask for your support. Thank you, Vice managers. Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor. You know, in my district we have numerous commercial properties and vacant lots that have been seemingly abandoned by their owners. I'm not sure whether any owner would let this property fall into disrepair. It's a waste of valuable property and an insult to the surrounding communities. These are an eyesore and a magnet for good, greedy, homeless and other less savory activities. I'm hoping that it be would create an incentive for owners to re and re engage in the activities and the stewardship of their properties. So rent them, sell them, or otherwise use them for the purpose for which they were intended. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. I think this is a fantastic idea. Councilmember Austin, what I've seen a lot of on Broadway over the last several years are small businesses having their rent increased excessively. Then they end up leaving and then the property stays vacant for two years. So I think it also incentivizes people to keep small businesses in in that location until they maybe have a plan. I know that we are working with economic development, hopefully in the next month to come back with some other small business retention ideas. But this is definitely one of the ones that I support. So thank you. Thank you. No public comment on this item. Some members, please cast your votes. Motion carries.

A RESOLUTION addressing a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Tacoma, and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to improve tribal consultation procedures and collaborate with regional mayors, leaders, and tribes to address the growing impact of climate change.

SeattleCityCouncil_01292018_Res 31793

Please read the report of the full council. The report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Resolution 317 93 opposing a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Tacoma and urging the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to reflect, reject its permit applications. COUNCILMEMBER So want. To thank you, President. Harrell. And I apologize in advance. My comments will need to go a little bit in depth into the question of what LNG actually is. So I will make an effort to include most of the points that have come up. This resolution opposes the liquefied natural gas or LNG for short plan that Puget Sound Energy is attempting to build into Goma. I want to first express my gratitude to all the Puyallup tribal leaders and activists and all and members of all native tribes who have not only begun to begin to build a movement against the Tacoma LNG plant, but also have been at the forefront of the struggle against environmental destruction and against climate change. Many of you, I think, were personally at Standing Rock, so this is not the first battle we're fighting. I also want to thank all the activists who have been fighting against B.C. LNG, which includes environmental activists, labor union rank and file members, and also native members from Seattle who live in Seattle. If this facility were actually built and run, it would hold over 8 million gallons of natural gas that has been frozen and condensed to one 600 volume. When expanded back into it's natural they perform. This plant would hold an incredible 4.8 billion gallons of natural gas. Puget Sound Energy is a massive, multi-billion dollar non-for-profit fossil fuel company owned by a multinational company out of Australia. In other words, PSC is owned by billionaires and just like any other multinational corporation under capitalism, BSE is interested in one thing only profits, and they will sacrifice the world and environment that we all depend on to survive. The lives and the livelihoods of regular people if it increases their wealth bases the company responsible for improperly maintaining one of their natural gas lines and Greenwood leading to an explosion that destroyed several small businesses, injured firefighters and probably would have killed people if it wasn't. Not that it was lucky enough that it happened at night. Now they want to station 4.8 billion gallons of this highly volatile fuel in a metropolitan area and on the lands of the people of tribe without the tribes permission. And in the context of a breathtaking lack of tribal consultation. And because he is using the power and influence of their immense wealth to try and convince people to support by making pseudoscientific arguments, to convince people to support this dangerous and polluting venture. Because he has claimed that this LNG plant will bring down the costs for people who heat their house with bases, natural gas or get electricity from these natural gas power plants. That is not true because he is a for profit company and its profits go to its wealthy shareholders, not to its ratepayer customers. When was the last time a billionaire owned company gave out checks to ratepayers? When was the last time you got a check at home? Seattle satellite is a publicly owned utility, and one satellite makes extra money that goes directly to benefit its ratepayers. And there's a public process involved because the city council oversees it. But B.C. is not like that. But he's also claiming that natural gas is somehow clean or a cleaner fuel. We need to correct that. Many in the environmental movement are calling LNG the next big battle, the next big battleground over climate change, because propaganda that claims natural gas, environmental friendly is like the coal industry's advertisements lauding the so-called clean coal because environmental claims center around an argument that LNG is cleaner than the highly dirty diesel coal bunker fuel used by many cargo ships and I think most cargo ships today. How low do you have to sink in order for the, quote unquote, better than bunker fuel argument to be convincing? And absurdly, that might not even be true. But let's look at the facts. It is true that LNG is less polluting polluting that bunker fuel at the point that it is burned. But LNG is also extremely destructive when it is extracted and transported when natural gas is burned. It produces carbon dioxide, which is the greenhouse gas that causes climate change. Beyond that, most natural gas today is extracted from deep in the earth using a technique called fracking or hydraulic fracturing. But the earth is fractured with pressurized water. Fracking pollutes the water with many deadly and carcinogenic chemicals. And research shows it may even cause earthquakes. Natural gas is overwhelmingly made up of methane, which is also a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more warming, that carbon dioxide. And during the fracking and later transportation of that natural gas, methane leaks into the atmosphere, further adding to climate change. And when you include the climate change impacts of methane with the impacts of the CO2 and the pollution from the fracking, many environmentalists believe that natural gas may be as bad or worse than diesel. But even if it were hypothetically, even if it were true that LNG is at least no worse than diesel, that is not the metric by which we should be judging these things in this day and age. Based on everything that we know now about climate change, making new investments in fossil fuel is absolutely the most destructive and the worst way to go. It is like taking a thousand steps backwards. The point is we are talking about what infrastructure is built for the future for the next 5000 years. Cargo ship companies are going to be building ships that use the cheap fuel sources that are readily available. This LNG plant would be an expansion of that whole fossil fuel infrastructure. That would be a barrier to building truly clean fuel sources in the future, which is why so many of you and other regular people and organizations have come out in staunch opposition to LNG in general and this facility in particular. Residents of Tacoma and Puyallup tribe members do not want to see themselves or their families the casualties of an explosion like what happened at Greenwood only on a much larger scale. And regular people all over the world who are not PSC shareholders want an end, not an expansion one an end to not an expansion of LNG. We do not when it's a question of climate change, when it's a question of fighting for disadvantaged communities and communities of color, we do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Already. Already our movement has had a huge impact and I already want a concrete victory. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency just five days ago announced that they will carry out a supplemental impact analysis, and this time that will include quantitative analysis of the emissions throughout the fossil fuel lifecycle, which will be a scientific approach because it showed if they are if they do it the right way, it should take into consideration other things like the dangers of fracking. The Washington State Democratic Party Central Committee has passed a resolution against this facility. The King County Democratic Party Central Committee has passed a resolution against us. Hundreds of you have sent emails, have called our offices. 50,000 people have signed a petition from the tribal members that is demanding that Elon that Governor Inslee stand in opposition against LNG. So I want to thank you all courageous activists who have organized and successfully brought us to this point. But let's also remember, as hard as this fight will be and it will be hard, there are so many victories in the past that we can build on the Tacoma method, not the proposed marine planned at the port was defeated. The Cherry Point Terminal was defeated. And and at first nobody thought we could do it, but we did it. And that's why we need to persevere. Now as an elected representative of working people and as a rank and file member of the labor movement myself, I do also want to answer the question about jobs, which is an important question, and I really appreciate myself the rank and file member, that this is an important question not only to organized labor but to workers in general. We all want decent living wage, unionized jobs. But this is why this is exactly why we should not buy into Baez's propaganda that it's using to justify this dangerous and polluting LNG facility. We heard the statistics, the damning statistics about how few jobs are going to be created. There is no shortage of jobs that could be created in fixing our crumbling infrastructure, our transportation with electric vehicles and public transportation to replace our electricity generating infrastructure with power generated by wind, solar and other fuel sources that do not cause climate change. There is no shortage of jobs that could be had. Yes, the question remains that those jobs are not here today. But how do we get there is the question. The problem is that if we use this line that these are the jobs we have today and this is what he has to offer, then there will never be a solution and we will always be digging more into our graves as far as climate change is concerned. And the problem and this is a political question. This is not it's not a question of ecology or other science is the political question. As long as the power remains, power and wealth remains in the hands of the billionaires, they have no incentive to switch to renewable energy. So we have to do something and we have to start somewhere. And some point has to be a starting point. We cannot forever say that what we have these jobs. And so we have to we have to go forward because somewhere we have to draw the line. That is why I am a socialist, because we cannot afford to give companies like PSC the power to decide how society is structured because we know how that's going. We need to build a movement to demand that politicians tax big business and use those resources to build clean energy sources, generate green jobs, unionized jobs. And it is been my honor to work with environmental, tribal and labor activists to fight for those green jobs. I want to particularly thank Mark Martinez from the Pierce County Building Trades and Matthew Hepner from the statewide IBEW, who spoke today who are very willing to meet us. Last Monday with myself, members of the Puyallup tribe, and I thank Councilmember James Rideout for being there, an environmental activist and as I said, rank and file members from labor themselves who are against this plan. We all had a very good meeting. We obviously did not agree on all issues, but it is essential, sisters and brothers, that we use that model because it is essential we find common ground with one another, because we need to unite our movement in order to overcome the political power of big business. And while we did not come out of Monday's meeting with an agreement. I am really thankful to all of you to have had the opportunity to maintain those lines of communication. I apologize that I was not able to contact every representative of labor, but our intention very much is to, you know, work in solidarity with labor. It reminded me it was a good, good, good memory that we had done a similar meeting during the shuttle, no campaign. And there was a similar difference of opinion that arose between the environmental and tribes movement on one side and the labor movement and maritime trade and other. And I really thank Nicole Grant, who is now the head of the King County Labor Council, for helping me co-chair that meeting. The reality is that when the labor movement and especially the trades they go, stand with the support of social movements, we can build immense power. The labor movement is in a strong position to draw a line in the sand and say there will be no more fossil fuel infrastructure built in this country. You know, with our labor, because labor has the power of going on strike and refusing to work, and that is the most incredible power, because if we as workers refuse to go to work, PSC makes no profits. And so I appeal to everybody that we let's let's work in a united fashion so that we send a strong message to our fellow community members. Our fight is not with each other as working people. Our fight is against the corporate bosses and the financial oligarchy. And just to give you a stat statistic here, $800 million of aggregate commitments have already been made for this plant by the financial industry. And there's all your usual suspects Jp morgan Chase, Bank of America and KeyBank, and also your friendly neighborhood, Wells Fargo. They are all the financial underwriters of this project. So let's not forget who exactly is to blame for this now, largely because we have to think of next steps. As many of you know, PSC LNG plant is currently being constructed even though they have not received all the necessary permits. This is a very common, strong arming tactics used by corporations. They will were started already thinking that they will intimidate the movement enough to go away. But we're not going to be intimidated. Right. So we need to keep building the movement. I urge the City Council of Seattle to have the same courage as our movement and be willing to stand up against a powerful company like Boise. I thank Councilmember Juarez for doing a lot of work with us in terms of making sure that all the language that we need in order to represent the the positions of the tribal leaders are included. I also know that several other council members have been negotiating amendments over one another. I was not part of that and I'm happy to vote on the original version of my resolution, if that if that goes forward. But there is an understanding that council members may want to delay the vote because they feel that it has been rushed. I will accept that as long as it's not a cover to water down the resolution. And if council members want to delay the vote for any reason, I would urge you all I would appeal to you all to state your reasons for why you want to delay. But my message to the activists is, regardless of what happens today, please know that we need to keep building a fighting movement and holding all elected officials accountable. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Swann. And we discussed this morning about sort of the posture of this case. I know we have several amendments that have been discussed and sort of work behind the scenes, so to speak, in it. As of 1030 this morning, they were still being developed, I think even up until noon, our cutoff deadline. I had mentioned earlier that one motion we may want to consider is moving it back to moving it to the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community Committee for further consideration. Not so far as watering it down or any other purpose, but there has been very little public process. We heard today both opposing views of Councilmember Swann space legislation and supporting views, but we haven't had really the public dialog or the committee structure and it's not a preferred practice to have resolutions on the full council. So I'd like to hear some opinions from some of my colleagues, whether we want to go through all of the amendments that we have one after another now, or we want to refer it to the committee. Given the Puget Sound Clean Air Agencies request or demand for a supplemental environmental review, what your thoughts are. Councilmember Belcher. Thank you. I am going to second your motion if and when you do it to refer it to Councilmember Suarez's Committee. And before I do, I want to. Thank those of you. Who came today and a number of you from the pull up tribe who said you are pleased that at last you've got a voice on this council. And I want to tell you, you have a very excellent, respectful and capable voice in Councilmember Suarez. So I feel lucky to have her here. And I want to thank you all for coming, because her voice and your voice matters a lot to me. I want to also acknowledge my colleagues and friends in the various labor unions who came today. I believe that what we should do is to bring this conversation back to the table. And I think that, Mr. O'Halloran, you mentioned this, that having the health and safety issues up front and then for us to consider the air quality issues and frankly respectfully how we work with Tacoma, the port of Tacoma, the tribes, because they do have tribal consultation rates that haven't been respected to date. So I believe that we have a real opportunity to have this respectful regional cooperation and opportunity led by Councilmember Suarez, where the tribes, our communities are workers, their safety is front and center. But also we hear from scientists, people that can tell us about the natural resources, what we need to do in our region. And again, respectfully ask the city of Tacoma, the port of Tacoma and others to join us so we can really get our hands around this. So I'm going to recommend it go back to her committee and when you move it, I will. Seconded Councilmember Waters say cuts no worries and so on. Out mama I'm. Original her original. In all due respect, ma'am, public comment is over and I don't want to have to, but I understand. But. But but we should also know that we had a discussion with council members who want this morning as one of our respected colleagues about this procedural issue. But we hear you, Councilman, where you have the floor. Ma'am, I want to see this. This, ma'am, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to hold you disruptive in a minute, which I don't want to do, which you're going to be removed. I'm going to let you know I'm going to have to remove you if you keep that up. Councilman Morris Council President Thank you. Councilmember. So want for bringing us this resolution that we've been working on for the last week. The overarching goal and the main purpose in the spirit intent of this resolution is to address climate change and its disproportionate effect on tribal communities and lands, in particular the Puyallup Nation. What we plan to do with with the resolution in the drafting was to also attach the resolution from ATCI, which was passed in September 2017, opposing the LNG plant and to also attach the NCAI resolution passed in October 2017 opposing the LNG plant. I've had an opportunity to speak with the Puyallup tribal elected leadership as well as their council. I had an opportunity to read the correspondence between PSC reps CAA that would be the clean air energy in their correspondence and the notice of violation. I had an opportunity to read the Shoreline Hearings, Board Opinion and the appeal by the Puyallup tribe in which the court found that they indeed did have standing. Now, let me just be very clear. The most important issue here for us in this council and what we've seen is the lack of tribal consultation and the concerns regarding the Puget Sound Clean Air Energy, which has elected leadership from four counties, which include nine tribes. We have no elected tribal elected leaders on that very important air agency that has been around since 1967. 51 years as. We know tribal consultation is not just an amenity, it is required by law. And my understanding is it did not happen in this case. I'm an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Nation. I've been a lawyer for 31 years and I've been representing tribes my whole life. I was a tribal attorney and I was a trial lawyer in USV, Washington. I was born and raised on the Puyallup Reservation. I know Blair Waterway. I know high blows. I know Commencement Bay. And I was there when the court ruled that the mob tried indeed owned the Tidelands. So I understand this issue and many, many levels. This is not about the city of Seattle versus the city of Tacoma or PSC versus the Puget Sound clean air energy or tribes versus labor or tribes versus business or tribe versus the port. All jurisdictional and legal arguments aside, the tribes, the tribe, the Puyallup nation is, has always been and will continue to be the original steward of that land as signatories to the Treaty of Medicine Creek. They are the original water protectors and they will be here long after all of us are gone. The tribes are not going anywhere. And I want to make it very clear what I heard today. The Puget Sound, the Salish Sea, the Tidelands. Nobody owns them but the tribes. The Puyallup Tribe has a treaty, right? Government to government, tribal consultation. And again, all jurisdictional and legal arguments aside, the tribes will continue to be here and we will continue to defend their right to tribal consultation and their treaty. Right. This is our Dakota Access Pipeline moment, except we're on the front end of this. These are our water protectors. And again, you know, I bristle when I hear people say, stay in your lane. This is our lane. It's Indian country. So again, I want to go back to what I'm working with my colleagues. I want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Herbold and President Harrell, who have been working on us and different drafts, because our main goal has been to make sure that climate change and its disparate impact on the nation and other signatories to the treaties, STEPHENS Treaties of the 1960s are upheld. This council, the Seattle City Council, which I'm proud to be a part of, has been consistent in its actions to reduce carbon emissions, to support the Paris climate agreement, to stop the oil trains. And, of course, we passed a resolution, two of them, to protect the water protectors, the Dakota Access pipeline. And we now know that we have had three spills in that project. And the main issue there was lack of tribal consultation. I am a personal friend of all the leadership that you saw sitting in the front row. Except I just met you, sir, but I knew your uncle well. I used to babysit David being so he probably didn't want people telling them his mother was one of my mentors. Gloria, we should all be working with all of our tribal governments and sister cities. When we recognize this, when we recognize an environmental risk or injustice. I should remind people that the last treaty that was made with our people was in 1871. And since the Steven Treaties and the treaty with my own tribe, we have been fighting to uphold that. We are more than warriors, we're soldiers. And that has never stopped. One of the council members addressed various victories Cherry Point oil trains in Elliott Bay. But I want to remind people that tribes are not environmental groups. They are not clubs. They are not a political base. They are a government. And what one of those cases, quite frankly, for Cherry Point, was the Lummi Nation. What won that issue for the oil trains was Suquamish and Swinomish. Both chairman's very dear friend of mine and I used to represent those tribes, the Elliot Bay issues in the lawsuits. That was Michael Shute. That is because when you have a treaty right in your back pocket, it trumps state and federal law. It is the law of the land. I mean, no disrespect to the advocates, activists, environmentalists and all the groups that align themselves with Native people. But again, tribes are not an interest group. We're not a club. We're not a political base. We're not a grassroots organization. We are a government a government accorded the same sovereignty as federal, state and city governments with all the privileges, amenities and responsibilities. So I think those of you who are not members of tribes but are here to be supportive, I appreciate that. But are people died for this land and we will continue. And I want to add on one last note. It has been a privilege to work with the colleagues that I have here because we all work together. And the reason why we want this to go back to in which we now added and to my committee, which has never happened before in any city, we have never had native communities on the legislative branch. And my goal has, which has been wonderful in that I have had an opportunity to reach out and speak directly government to government with Puyallup and other tribal elected leadership, such as council member Mr. Rideout. And that's important. I'm not taking away the work from the activists and environmentalists and unions and the and the interest groups. But what I am saying and the perspective that I come from is I like to rely on facts, on evidence, on research and on history. And with that, I'm glad that this issue is going to come back to my committee and we can sit down and we can talk about what this means to government. To government. I'm not here to debate the science. I am not an engineer. I'm not a scientist. I appreciate the people who came through public comment who do have that. And like I said, I did have an opportunity to look at PSC. I was one of the attorneys that sued the I have sued Pewds so many times is a tribal lawyer and one I represented the lower Elwha tribe in the removal of their dams when they tried to build a grieving dock on their ancestral lands on their graveyard. I know this stuff. So it isn't for me just about having a slogan or a hashtag or a T-shirt or a one liner for us. Those Native people who are in the room, we don't have the luxury of letting things like this go. So we will not stay in our lane. And I can assure you that this council is just as compassionate and is just as diligent as me to wanting to make sure that climate change in its impact on the Puyallup and Native folk that we pay attention to, that that we demand tribal consultation and that we make sure and we have discussed this with our mayor, with her seat on this very important agency. That elected tribal leadership must be part of this conversation, otherwise it cannot go forward. I will leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Whereas. Cancer Council member O'Brien. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you. Council member Wise, thank you for those powerful words, and thank you for your ongoing work on this and your work to elevate the conversation between the city and tribal leadership around the region and around the country. Councilmember Swan, I also want to thank you for bringing forward this resolution, which I fully support. I support it today and I will certainly support it continue working through working with it through committee. I want to just highlight a couple of things. Well, what's been said and I'll just repeat briefly, I'm proud that this council has stood with the Lummi tribe defending their sovereignty in fighting the coal export facility up there. I'm proud that this council has stood with the people of Standing Rock in fighting the oil pipeline through their tribe. And I will be standing with the Puyallup tribe as they fight this LNG facility to. I want to say thank you to labor leaders that were here today speaking on behalf of workers. And I want to just reiterate what Councilmember Salmon said, that the people that work for fossil fuel companies that are feeding their families and paying the rent for that, these are good people. They're not our enemies here. As we move to a fossil free society. It's critically important that that transition is a fair, thoughtful and just transition away from the fossil fuel industry. And we need to center those workers at that work to make sure that the impact on them is is minimal. But we also know if we're transitioning to a fossil free society, we cannot add new fossil free infrastructure today. So which is why I fought the Shell Oil rigs in the earlier bay was why we're going to fight this LNG plant. I want to also reiterate that. Half a dozen years ago, there were a lot of people that thought natural gas was a transition fuel that we could be switching to. The science has been telling us since then that that has shifted. Two things have shifted. One, it's becoming more and more apparent that the changes and the threats to our climate are happening much more swiftly than we had previously thought. We have to act faster than we thought. We had time, even just half a dozen years ago. And as council members so on highlighted, we also are learning more and more about the impacts of natural gas. When you calculate the leakage that happens in in the pipelines, in storage and in the mines for these, the impacts are significant and may actually be a worse fossil fuel than even things as awful as bunker fuel. But having the arguments over which fuel is the best fuel when we know they're all bad and they all need to stay on the ground, really misses the point. We certainly shouldn't be building a piece of infrastructure that's going to lock us in for decades of a fossil fuel. Instead, we should be focusing our energy on a clean transition to clean energy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Comes from O'Brien. So I will move to her for item one, resolution 317932, the Civic Development Public Assets, a native community native community committee for further consideration. All those in favor of the motion and any more discussion about the motion. Okay. Councilmember Swan and then Governor Skinner. Ahead. Go. Good. This is on the motion, correct? Yes. On the motion? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So I just want to comment on a few of the themes that we've heard today. There's some recurring themes that the panelists have brought up that I've heard throughout the day and throughout the last two weeks from my colleagues as well. Number one, there is a commitment to protecting the environment. Number two, we want to move towards greater clean energy jobs and a cleaner energy economy. And number three, which came out loud and clear today, is that there is a commitment to stand in solidarity for tribal representatives, not only have respect, but to have what is afforded to them under the law, which is government to government relations. As a member of the labor movement, as someone who stands shoulder to shoulder with labor, brothers and sisters every day. I want to reiterate something that we also heard. Every single union that I spoke to throughout the last two weeks has said that they send a solidarity message with the tribes, with the Puyallup nation, that we will want we want government to government relations to be respected. It is not a nicety. It is the law. No one today has said counter to that, and I appreciate what council members want and others have said today, we will not reduce this issue to labor versus tribes. We cannot and we will not. As Vince O'Halloran also mentioned, the Labor movement has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with our tribal brothers and sisters, and my office has made it clear under no uncertain, uncertain terms, that doing the bare minimum, which has been discussed this morning and in the last two weeks, as required under the law with respect to outreach to tribal governments, is not good enough. We know that the bare minimum exacerbates environmental racism. It harms rank and file workers. It harms communities of color. These individuals are bearing the brunt of climate change. We must go above and beyond the bare minimum to create sustainable change, to make sure that we're promoting green energy jobs and be transparent in our actions, as well as council members as we engage with other municipalities. That is why I'm supporting Councilmember Suarez's effort to bring this to her committee. That is why I'm supporting the effort to make sure that the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee has the opportunity to have this discussion in conjunction with tribal representatives, with labor union members and workers, with government municipalities. Because we will not be divided. We cannot be pitted against each other. And that is how we build a movement. I know from my colleagues and conversations with them over the last two weeks that when we have this conversation in committee, it will be a full and robust discussion. And for those who haven't had the opportunity to see the proposed language, which has been discussed, as you heard, up until ten 3011 this morning, we will be more informed as we move forward on this very important discussion, and we'll have the opportunity to engage more fully with the public. But I want to be clear that the outcome of this resolution and the outcome of committee is not enough. We here in Seattle have an opportunity to lead by example, to show what it means to create those green energy economies, to actually take the reins on this issue. And that's why I think it's important that we look internal into our own house to address the policies that we need, not to just curb global warming, but to create the green energy economy that our city can create our own our own Office of Environment and Sustainability has reported in the Media Report and recently, as of last week, that we are nowhere near meeting our own emissions reduction goals. The largest contributor locally to climate change. We must act on that. We must hold ourselves accountable. Work in conjunction with labor unions and workers and tribes and environmentalists and our regional municipalities to address this change right here in Seattle. I'm going to throw out three ideas because I think it's important to act on these. Number one, I want free transit for every resident and commuter in this city. This would immediately, immediately reduce carbon emissions. It would immediately help to put more folks to work in King County Metro and Sound Transit with good paying union jobs. It would provide access to transportation for all residents, regardless of income. And it would create a better experience for everyone here commuters, those who live here, and those who want to visit. Number two, I think we should be looking internally to how we retrofit our own buildings throughout Seattle. I've had conversations with folks in the building and construction trades who tell me that they've been to boiler rooms in our own city down in the basement, and the room is 120 degrees. We are admitting energy unnecessarily to heat our own buildings when we should be thinking about how we retrofit our buildings throughout Seattle. Number three, I think we need to call for us to have action immediately on an energy audit so that we move to glean clean, green energy technology. Working with the Port of Seattle, working with the Port of Tacoma, regional tribes, our neighboring municipalities. We must protect industrial lands, clean up our waterways and promote, promote green manufacturing jobs. So working with the longshore, working with the seafarers, we can become leaders in green clean energy technology for. Our own ports while protecting and promoting our economy, our health, our lands and our port. So this is the things that I think that we can do when we work together. The movement that we create must be all inclusive. We must find the intersectionality of our struggle so that we lift up the health, protect good living wage jobs, and protect our environment. I want to thank again the good work of the council, especially the good work that Councilmember Juarez is about to begin in her committee. I think that this is just the beginning of how we create a more inclusive conversation, how we can make sure that it's a productive discussion. And I look forward to making sure that we're creating a unified movement that never pits ourselves against each other. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Skinner. Consumers want. All of us as activists, you know, because we worked together on this. No, I would be ready to vote on the resolution today because I think that we know everything that there is to be known at this moment about climate change and about LNG. I don't exactly understand. I have to admit, I don't exactly I don't understand why it is being postponed. But I will vote yes on this on the on the condition that we actually see from the council a resolution that does the job. What this resolution draft does, which is opposes LNG, the LNG plant in Tacoma. And I, I really agree, obviously that the law is for us, for every government to maintain and respect government to government relations. But I think it also needs to be said, this is not about government or government relations. This is about the lives of ordinary people, many of whom are native, but others are not. But we all. Share. We all share in the same fate. If we don't deal with climate change and I don't think that we should in any way accept this kind of divisive sort of language that, well, Native people are the only real speakers, and others don't get to speak. Not all of us have a stake in this. All of us should stand with Native people because they are on the front lines. But I don't agree with having sort of this tiered activist sort of stature. We all stand together because all of our lives are at stake together. If you look at the whole radius where this facility will impact, if there's an explosion, it's not only Native people living there. There's white people and black people. I don't I'm not done the demographic study, but I'm assuming that there's people of different races and ethnicities there. I think we all should be at the forefront of struggle. Absolutely. In solidarity with the. I. I also think that I'm in response to a comment that was made. Science is extremely important. Science is very important to the native communities because they know they understand the science and they know that this is extremely dangerous to them. So I would not I think we have to be careful not do not do. Not to say that this is just about tribal relations, is not about science. The tribal leaders who spoke to me, they are extremely concerned about this issue because they understand the science. So it is not an either or. We are we are fighting in solidarity with the tribal leaders, but we're doing it because we understand the science of what will happen if we let this go forward. So I think that should be clear. And I look forward to working with you all and also with council members on this issue so that we make sure we have a strong resolution going forward. But also, please know from our experience, we cannot let up on our movement. We cannot just put our blind faith in active officials. We have to keep building our grassroots movement. And I look forward to being there with you. And in addition to being on the dais, I look forward to being there with you on the streets. Thank you. Do. Okay. So we have a live motion on the tables and moved in second. I think everyone understands it, so I don't and we've had ample comments there. So I'll call for a vote. Now, all those in favor of the motion to refer please vote I. I opposed the ayes have it so will be referred to the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Community Committee. For further consideration, let's move to the next agenda item. Agenda item number two, please read that into the record. The report they read the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item two Appointment 886 Reappointment of Timothy Lennon as members Seattle Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2020. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

A bill for an ordinance vacating the alley located between Irving Street and Hooker Street north of West 17th Avenue, without reservations. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates an alley between North Irving Street and North Hooker Street, North of West 17th Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-28-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05092016_16-0297

You. Yeah, I'm going to read actually from a paraphrased email that I sent not on this particular parcel, but it's the exact same situation. And I've asked that other situation, vacation, alley vacation be brought to committee to talk about this very issue. So I'm bringing this request to the attention of the Denver of Denver residents. This is a land grab utilizing city policy that gives considerable deference to developers with total disregard for the impact on the surrounding community. For 100 years, Northwest Denver has had these mid-block carriage lots that have been de facto open spaces. Since 2010, the city with a complete lack of foresight created zoned districts that allow a destabilizing amount of lot coverage and density in historically single family and duplex neighborhoods. Prior to 2010, these mid-block carriage lots existed almost solely in. In. Means being more creative in the earliest days of Denver. So these are square lots with a with a carriage lot that exists for actually for more of a public facility historically if these. So when a developer makes a request for these land parcels, we charge them $1,000 application fee and two $300 additional fees to give them the right to take. I mean, to have tens of thousands of dollars of development land developable or land. So if this vacation is found to be technically feasible, the request proceeds unchecked and the developer will gain the ability to develop and sell additional square footage and units. That would not be possible without this vacation. And there is no recourse by the adjacent property owners when this is requested because it is a technical consideration only. So that said, it then falls upon council after everybody else has vetted it and said, well, there's no technical violation, is there actually any need to actually vacate this land ? And so when we vote on these items, we're voting on whether it's acceptable or not for us to to, to, to to surrender this land. Now, I understand there's policies and we're I've asked that we look at to how we dispose of these properties because other municipalities don't do it the way we do it. And I understand that we do it by some amalgamation of state statute and city charter and in our own policies. But this is these are occurring since 2010 in our historic neighborhoods that have these square blocks, which is the original town of Highlands. And unfortunately, where we have GMU three zoning, which is fairly egregiously dense land coverage with minimal parking standards, you're taking you're allowing new development into the center core of a block where these units look into the backyards of house after house after house after house. And we're not getting anything as a city in return for this. And I just my question, why? So I would like to I called this out for a vote because I, I don't see despite the technical lack of technical and feasibility, I don't see any reason or purpose to to grant this property moving forward. I do see a need to maintain this sort of open space that we have historically had in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to my colleague, Councilman Espinoza, this is Council District three. And first of all, this is the other than watching the mayor council and realizing there was an issue with it, I understand that there's a larger policy question on vacation rallies. But first of all, I you know, this isn't the highlands, this is the Slums Lake area. This particular area in Irving along 17th between Irving and Hooker is pretty highly developed. And it would. You know, it's basically chasing down jumbo jet fuel. And on the runway, this development has always taken, already taking place, and it has substantially changed the character of this particular area. So the the second I think is an issue, and I wanted to call on our assistant city attorney, Mr. Broadwell. There's an inference of us getting something for the vacation. It's my recollection that in state statute, that's illegal. That prevents us from the city from getting compensated for any kind of vacation to an alley. Is that right, Mr. Burrows? There's something that I guess is can you help clarify that that question? Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, the the state statute doesn't make it illegal. The state statute doesn't. Require compensation for a. Vacation. It's silent on the question of whether or not you can charge. Traditionally, the city attorney's office has expressed concern about. Charging for real estate as an. Asset that the city didn't pay for to begin with. And in the absence. Of a provision for. Compensation in the statute. We've interpreted it strictly by the book following the procedures. Following the criteria. In the statute, without adding a compensation element. As a matter of custom and practice, I think Councilman. Espinosa was alluding to that. But it doesn't flat out say you can't charge. It's just been interpreted by us for years to. Say that we shouldn't. Thank you, Mr. Broadwell. And like I said, that's a larger policy discussion, I think. I don't see it fit or necessary to to hold this up until we have that policy discussion. You know, this has its due process and it's moving through counsel. This was brought up relatively recently. So like I said, I think when it comes to the character and the area. You know, this is not unique in any way in that particular corner, in that particular part of the city. So and I haven't had any kind of public. No. I mean, nobody's called my office opposed to it or concerned about it. Certainly nobody in that particular area. So thank you. I think that I'll just I'm going to vote for this to move it forward. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. I have a couple of questions on this. The first one is just trying to clarify. I know we've seen development all up and down 17th Avenue in this area. Is this a site that has already been developed and that this land has been incorporated into? Can somebody has just come? Angela. Hi there. Angela Casey is for Denver Public Works. And I believe they are in the process of of creating the development. Now, I don't know how far along they are and in the development. Okay. I know sometimes this is a chicken and an egg situation, but I think before we allow development and I'm not sure that we actually have had other situations where the development starts and then we come back and do the vacation later. But if for some reason City Council decided not to approve one and the development had already started, I think that puts this body in the city in a very precarious situation. So I think at a minimum, we would want to make sure that the the vacation of any street or alley takes place before, you know, the development is allowed to begin. That that that is usually the case. And in fact, I believe now that this this situation is coming back to me there. There the owner the property. Owner owns. Like the adjacent property. And so is just asking for a vacation to complete the parcel. Okay. I know we had another one of these in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where the city was asked to vacate land. And this allowed, you know, a pretty high density development to go in where there was some parking challenges. And I don't know how much we're addressing the parking issue as part of this, but I think it's important to make sure that all those details are covered as part of the project before, you know, it's allowed to proceed. And so I'm just trying to get clarification on this one before I know how I'm going to vote on it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. So? So I can almost be assured that they're not moving forward with the development because they don't have this right today. They can develop their existing parcel that fronts the street to whatever GMU three allows, but they can't develop on the carriage lot because it not habitable units because it doesn't address the street. So what this vacation does then allows them to connect these two parcels and develop an additional six or so units on that on that property, all deeply. Right, smack smack in the center of this square block. This is exactly what's going on in Jefferson Park. Time and time again, more recently, this is the first one that's come up since I've been on council, which is why I'm opining here and I'll opine more heavily on the one that is in my district. But more recently, this is the exact case of the Anderson House and I did not sit on this dais for that . Otherwise I would have countered the developer, I mean, the arguments that were laid out there. But the reality is, is that when you when a homeowner who owns these parcels sells them individually, they have a certain value. But when you vacate this valuable land that joins these two parcels. Now you've increased the development potential dramatically. And so this was the case in the Anderson House where the homeowner had three distinct parcels and two of them, I mean, two were separated from one through a vacation. The city vacated that land, and that's where that $1.6 million valuation came from, because now you've added that additional development potential . So it's not lost on me that three days after that property was sold, the developer then turnkey that whole development for $2.26 million, making more money in three days than the prior owner had made in 30 years. And so that's what's going on here. The developer has acquired both parcels with this, with certain development rights on one and not on the other. By virtue of us vacating it, we're granting significant additional development potential. And in again, this is not through a rezoning process. It's not through a public process. The only reason we're talking about it is because I called it out. And and this is if you look at the character of that block, aside from what's going on on 17th Avenue, you don't have this sort of density. And you didn't historically, you know, you had a certain amount of density in the former, what I believe would have been R3, but it had open area requirements and and more parking requirements than what we allow in the GMU today. And so this is character altering and dramatic. And so I am going to I'm articulating all this because this is a conversation that never occurred in 2010 aside from in local areas, and it hasn't occurred until now. And so I'm going to be talking about this now, and I respect the votes where they go. But we need to have this discussion because there aren't. The good news is there's so few of these square parcels in the city of Denver with these cares lots that this won't be happening very often, but there are still a few and they still impact surrounding neighborhoods. Councilman. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you back? Thank you. Like I said, with all due respect, this is not a rezoning. And the second thing is that it's an open kind of parcel. And it's an alley that needs to be vacated. Is going to not going to dramatically change the character of this particular block. It's something that, you know, we see these alley vacations go through all the time without any major hiccups. And there are some absolutely in in the north side that, you know, that prompts a closer look. But this is not one of those. At least not not from what I can tell in this area. And I said in Council District three, you know, fortunately, you know. We don't have that that issue up there. So most of this area has been developed the way it is with the heights that it has. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks. I'm not getting into this debate, but I just want to have this a clarifying question. Don't you notify neighbors, council people for any Ali vacation? Yes. Okay. We have a public process. Okay. I've been through about four or five of these. And I know that it's a huge public process for for our neighbors. And I just wanted to make sure that folks didn't think that the city was sneaking through alley vacations. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. All right. Hey, Councilman Espinosa. You betcha. I know. I got notified. What is the actual notify notification that goes to adjacent property owners? I believe there's a notification that goes out to the ages of property owners, to the RINO's in the area as well. I believe there. Is a sign posted physically on the property with a with an email address and contact information for people to reach someone to give public input. So was there any public input received? No. Thank you. In that. And just for the record, that when we submit those vacations, when we submit our ordinance requests, if there is public comment or any. Or anything that we are. Not able to resolve, we'll let you know in the ordinance request. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's another think, Angela. And the other comments, questions to 97. All right. It's on the floor. So seeing no comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. ESPINOSA No. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I can each. Lopez I knew Ortega. Susman. Brooks Clark. All right. Mr. President, I. Councilman Ortega. I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close me now. So, results. Ten eyes, one knee. And eyes one day 297 has been ordered published. All right. That was all that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We're ready for the block votes. Councilman Ortega, could you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block? Absolutely. For resolutions. Number 3083093 1034 315. 301302 316 299 and three or four. All be ordered published.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Police Department and Technology and Innovation Department to report on the feasibility of creating a free voluntary online bicycle registration program for use by residents and Council offices, an app-based registration system, and an education campaign to inform residents of this service.

LongBeachCC_06202017_17-0498

Thank you. We're moving on to the next item, please, which is item 20. If you. If we could read him. 20 Communication from Councilman Price Councilmember Supernova Councilman Andrew's Councilmember Urunga Recommendation or request of City Manager to work with Police Department and Technology and Innovation Department to report on the feasibility of creating a free, voluntary online bicycle registration program. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. So as as most everyone here knows, bike theft is a continual problem throughout the city, but not just for our city, for for many cities in the region and throughout the nation. The problem that we see with bike thefts is that, unfortunately, they are underreported. So the data that is maintained by our police department and many other police departments doesn't accurately reflect the the magnitude of the problem in Long Beach. We have 30 to 40 reported bikes, reported stolen bikes every month. And many of the reported many of the bikes are not even reported stolen. Bikes are the only item of personal property that we have that we actually leave outside in public for extended periods of time. And we have, generally speaking, no documentation of ownership. People don't report their bikes missing when they're stolen, so the data doesn't show the full story. And when they do report it, they often don't have a serial number, make or model or any photos they can provide to the police department to get the bike returned to them. There are currently opportunities for residents to. Register their. Bikes through a few different companies, but the data is not connected to the Long Beach Police Department, making it impossible for the police department to access those databases and get stolen bikes returned to their owners. This item came about in order for the city to get more proactive and take an active role in confronting this growing problem . It's important that the public be a part of the solution, so making registration easy for individuals is essential. And why a program like this needs to be free to encourage people to sign up and voluntarily ensure that such a program is not punitive. We see cities up and down the state dealing with this problem, and if we're to claim we are a bike friendly city, we need to find ways to reduce bike thefts occurring citywide. Bike theft and any theft should not become so normal that we accept it as a part of urban life or a cost of living in a coastal community like Long Beach. Craigslist and eBay, for example, have made it even easier for bike thieves to sell bikes or bike parts. We see bike thefts, funding, additional criminal activity, as we have seen nationally, bike thefts being used as a currency for possession, for purchasing controlled substances, for petty theft and property crime, because bikes are vulnerable and can be stolen relatively easily. We can't expect the residents to fight this problem alone. So the city getting involved by providing an easy way for individuals to register their bikes and have their bikes returned to them if they're found is, in my opinion, a common sensical approach. This item requests a report back from our hopefully our multiple departments working together to determine whether or not we can create an app based program that allows residents to register their bikes with the police department so that the bikes can be better tracked and returned to their owners if in fact, they are retrieved at a particular location . I asked my council colleagues for their support in moving this item forward so that we can determine from the city what is feasible with the resources that we currently have in place, so that we can be a little bit more proactive with tracking bikes and allowing bike owners to have a vested interest in the investigation and the recovery of any bikes that they have that are stolen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ringa, please. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this forward. You know, when I was a kid, I remember registering my bike with a fire department. You know, I would go to the fire department. It would be there. And and they give you a little sticker and a number, and your bike was registered and protected. And I'm surprised, actually, that that we got away from that. I think we need to go back to that. Unfortunately, in this day and age of of bigger and better bikes and more expensive bikes, especially, this type of program is is it's critical and it's timely. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I totally support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Andrews, please. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to thank Mrs. Price, Councilwoman Price, for bringing this, because this item is also supporting the request. You know, actually has had bike registered in the past, and I provide an effective service to the public. You know, being in the age of information, we have easy access to right on our fingertips. But, you know, bike registration apps would improve the line of communications between our department and residents and would also reduce the storage of unregistered and recovered bikes and decrease the number of bikes registered as theft and loss. I want to thank you and I truly will support this item. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, thank you. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this item forward and reaching out to the second district on it. Obviously, in our district we have chop shops and alleyways behind my house that we continually to go back and try to catch the guys, also our parks. I personally have had three bikes stolen in our city, so I feel the pain. So I think this is a great idea, making it be something that's accessible to everybody that that we can. So I just really hope that we come back with some exciting new opportunity that we can broadcast and use widely. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I want to praise the councilwoman for her commitment to bikes and bikes after I know that in the fifth District, what we're trying to do is get people to keep track of the information that Councilman Price talks about. But what I definitely want us to also explore as a part of this is there are already bike registries and within the last several months, different bike registries have started to merge to make a national bike registry. And so I think that it is important for people to take the time to register their bikes. I think that what we really need to look at is some kind of partnership with the organizations that sell bikes. I know that it is challenging that not all places that sell bikes take as much ownership as, say, a bicycle shop like a performance bikes or a jacks bikes. A lot of places when you buy a bicycle at a generic big box store, they don't give you any encouragement or information along with the registration of that bike. And so how to register that bike. And so what I know is challenging is that. The culture in which we owned bikes has changed. And you don't just go down to the fire station anymore and register your bike. But the fire service is also changed and our calls for service are up and the number of calls are up. And so I don't want the city to take on a responsibility if we can also, as a part of this item, explore the options that are available for partnership and to potentially find perhaps a partnership program with the bike shops in the city to take the ownership. Because what is challenging for me to say once again is we already have apps in the city that need significant time and effort. And I'm still frustrated that our Go Long Beach app is still not at top shape. It's marginal at best at this point. And so what I don't want to do is create more apps are online data portal is still not to where it should be. And so while I support the general idea of this, I just don't see that our departments have made the strides that we need to in technology to open up another platform. And so I'll be supportive of the study, but I really hope that in it we bring back alternatives where we don't have to take the ownership of another app, where where the world is changing and the platforms are changing and the city is not yet at the speed we need to be to keep pace . Thank you, Councilmember Supernanny. Thank you. I was happy to sign on to this item. The one thing I did request is that the app would work with fares that we might have on the weekend, so that it's an easy app application that if we had a bike fare or something, we could have a canopy set up to registered bikes at our various events. We have also. Not only do I support Councilmember Price's idea that it should be cheap or free. I think we have to look at incentives. And an example I'll give you is 20 years ago, Cal State, Long Beach had a real bad bike theft problem. So they came up with a plan where if you registered your bike, you got a you lock for $5 and it was a $30. You like I'm not saying we can put something that robust together, but let's look at those opportunities, too, as we move this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. I agree. I think there might be some grant opportunities available since we're encouraging more bike ridership that we can explore. Just a couple of quick points that I wanted to make. The Councilwoman Mongo is correct there. There has been for many years a national bike registry and it recently merged with I think it's the company I forgot project 5 to 9. And the problem is that, yeah, that's wonderful for residents to register with the national registry, but Long Beach PD is not connected to it. So so we used to be, but we no longer are. So obviously that's something that we will also consider. But in regards to the app base, that was just a suggestion because obviously the way people would register would be through the Internet and sometimes that's a little bit more cumbersome. So it would be. Using technology that already exists or that is being used in other cities for us to be able to make it easy for people to register, which is the whole point of it. And I think on moving forward, we have a lot of emphasis on bikes in the city and if we're going to do that, we may want to. And I thought I talked about this with Craig Beck. We may want to think about an app that is kind of a bike friendly app so that even the bike rentals that we have, the bike share program, you can keep everything in one place almost like a bike wallet, where all the information that you need in regards to getting around town, whether it's maps, whether it's the bike share card code that you need, all of that could be through one particular app with so many different apps in the city of Long Beach, we just recently looked at the newsletter that the Go Long Beach newsletter that we have, and it had featured the go along beach apps that we have, that we have some police department specific ones, we have some public works specific ones. I know there's someone here from our I.T. department. We're doing a lot of great things with allowing residents to report things and file things more readily through an app or through the Internet. So if we can do that with bikes, I think we'll be in great shape. So I look forward to seeing the report, too, and excellent comments by my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on the registry? Mr.. GOOD. You. It's certainly a good idea. And I think we should also consider given the impact. Do run the numbers and. Get a firm figure, a firm handle on the benefit of getting people out of cars onto a bike. Whenever they can. And then. Figure out its aggregate benefit in terms of reduction of smog, traffic and all the nine yards that are connected with going someplace. And then increase the fine, which is deadly, and make it a 3 to 5 year prison sentence. In addition to that. I think we're. I'm not a techie guy and my Homer Simpson isn't around tonight, so I can't ask him. But it seems to me that one of the things we could do is develop same type of devices that can be in cars that when they manufacture or you get it from the dealer, they can weld into the frame of the bike, a tracking device. And I don't know how long the battery would last like that, but it would certainly, I think if the volume is there, that would drive that down and so you'd be able to track it. But I think going back to the original penalty, I think it should make it to find some people in Sacramento. That understand the import of it and pass a law that it would be. Put them away for 3 to 5 years period. And increase the increase in the penalty that would bring it down dramatically. Couple that with the tracking device and I think probably 95% of the problem would go away. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal code by amending Subsections 21.54.120.B.2 and 21.54.130.A, and Table 54-1 of Chapter 21.54, all relating to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0365

Madam Clerk, I think we go back to item two. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. There's no oath required. So I'd like to turn this over to our assistant city manager, Mr. Tom Modica. Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. Mr. Modica, maybe we can give folks about a minute to. Absolutely. Take our leave. Madam Vice Mayor, can you say something real quick? Yeah. I also want to recognize the presence of my former chief of staff, Ray Polk, up on top over there, who was one of the only Cambodian chief of staff's in the city of Long Beach with the only one. So thank you for being here and your support. Read this article and. Oh. Part of. The conspiracy. Thank you, Mr. America. Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. The staff report would be given by Amy Beauregard, Director of Development Services. Mr. Mays just told me that there better be a stellar report because he's not expecting any questions. Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor. Members of the city council. Tonight, we're here to give some of you a tutorial on our billboard ordinance and others a refresher on what we've been doing for the last year and a half or so. The city actually two years. The city council adopted a brand new billboard ordinance in June of 2014, and it was a very laborious process to get to that point, but it resulted in some very significant changes to our existing to our previously existing billboard standards. We essentially modernized the code and required that any new billboards require a conditional use permit. We did allow for electronic billboards to be considered in specific places. But as a caveat to that, there was a requirement for taking down existing static billboards in priority order in specific neighborhoods and commercial districts. Clearly, the purpose of the billboard ordinance was to incentivize the removal of the approximately 400 plus nonconforming billboards that exist throughout the city and to allow electronic billboards as a legitimate land use within the city of Long Beach. So what have we been doing since then is we have removed and had installed through a couple of applicants, a number of electronic billboards. There are two double sided electronic billboards currently in operation one on the 710 Freeway near 12th Street and the other one on the 91 freeway right near the 710. We have a another double sided electronic billboard that's approved but not yet constructed. And that would be on a portion of the MTA site that is adjacent to the 710 Freeway. And we have a two single sided billboards that have been conditionally approved, but they do need your concurrence in order to get those approvals. Tonight's request is that we make a change to the existing billboard ordinance that essentially amounts to a half a sentence that would allow us a little bit of flexibility in where we place the electronic billboards within the landscape freeway segments. And if we move forward with that, we have the ability to remove up to 138 static billboards with that half sentence change and potentially more to come in the future. I want to give you an idea of the progress that we've made to date. These are all estimated numbers. We think we have a handle on most of the billboard inventory. But as you probably know, billboards tend to pop up where we least expect them or they've been hidden by trees that get trimmed. And suddenly there's a billboard that we didn't realize was in the inventory. So to the best of our knowledge and with the help of of the majority of the billboard industry, we have been able to determine that there's approximately 500 billboard faces in the city as of 2011. We believe that last year's inventory, we got it down to about 456 and that if we we get your approval tonight on this ordinance amendment, we will actually be able to get that inventory down to approximately 320 billboards throughout the city. We also think that there's a pending application that would remove another 36 plus or minus faces. So that would get us down to approximately 284 billboards in the entire city in exchange for allowing a few electronic billboards on certain locations in the freeway. So I want to give you some visuals for what what this billboard program has done for neighborhoods and for corridors. This is right on Artesia Boulevard. You can see that it's a small space, but squarely on the street. And this is what it looks like when it's been removed. This is 2069 Long Beach Boulevard. Again, right along the commercial corridor. Notice that it was actually in somebody's front yard. And now the woman sitting on her porch, this one is on the west side, 1400 West Wardlow. It was a very large double faced sign. And this is what it looks like now with just one of the billboards removed. The other one on the far right of the screen was also removed as part of a conversion project. This is my personal favorite. This was a pretty significant billboard at 1320 Anaheim. I used to orient myself that I knew I was coming up to Atlantic because of this billboard. It is now gone. You can see. It went over the entire parking lot. So that's my favorite. So what we ended up doing is working with the billboard industry and many of the manufacturers to craft a very tightly worded ordinance. And it was only with the cooperation of the billboard industry and your cooperation that we were able to get there. However, we do believe that we are more restrictive in state law in one area and that is causing us some challenges in removing additional billboard inventory. If a billboard is freeway oriented and is within 660 feet of a landscaped freeway segment that's defined by Caltrans, it is considered adjacent and is subject to additional restrictions. So essentially, if Caltrans says that a freeway segment is a landscaped freeway segment, regardless of the condition of the landscaping, it cannot have billboards within 660 feet of that landscape segment. This map shows in Gray the landscape freeway segments that are within the city of Long Beach. All of the six or five freeway within the city, the majority, essentially all of the four or five freeway as it traverses our city, the majority of the 710 freeway and the majority of the 91 freeway, all of those are considered landscape freeway segments. I've overlaid that with our zoning classifications on where we would actually allow billboard conversions and it's a very, very small defined area. So normally billboard development is not allowed in these 660 feet of the landscape freeway segments. However, state law allows Caltrans to give billboard companies credits if they've removed billboards somewhere else in the state, either because Caltrans had to acquire it for a street project or they, you know, they just bought the billboard company out for some other reason. When that credit is obtained, then the billboard company can get a Caltrans permit for somewhere else in the state. Unfortunately, our city code is more restrictive than the Outdoor Advertising Act, and the use of these Caltrans credits to allow for electronic billboards is actually prohibited within our code. We believe that the proposed change would recalibrate the city's billboard or an ordinance to match state law, allowing the use of Caltrans credits and very specified, very specific landscape freeway segments in order to do that. Certainly, if you did not have Caltrans credits, you would not be allowed to construct in those landscape freeway segments. All the other criteria within the zoning code would apply. They are restricted to residential properties. They're only allowed in industrial properties. I l I am ig IP and commercial highway and commercial storage zones. So it's a very limited universe of locations that in an electronic billboard can go all. All new electronic billboards would still have to meet the requirements of removal and takedown. And there are still the remaining billboard size, height, shape, directional influences, lighting. All of those restrictions still remain. They're not allowed in residential zones. They're not allowed in park zones. Those would remain still off limits. We believe that the only affected areas. Again would be a very limited area on this 91 freeway and a small area on the four or five freeway. With that, I am open to any questions you might have. I believe the clerk passed out the red line of the ordinance, and you can see that it essentially just lines up our code to the State Outdoor Advertising Act. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Miss Borough Councilman Mongo. Yes, Miss Bodak, while I think you said it would still comply with the regional blah blah blah, just in plain language, you would not be able to remove billboards elsewhere and then put a billboard in Long Beach. I just want to be clear on that. That that's what the legal easement. Correct. You have to remove existing static billboards within the city of Long Beach and use Caltrans credits in order to be able to construct a electronic billboard within the landscape freeway segment. Wonderful. I think that this is a great move in the right direction. I know that we still have some billboards in places that they we would rather not have them. I'd like to make one modification to the motion. I'd like to include that new freeway oriented billboards shall not be more than 50 feet above the nearest freeway lane. But if my seconder is okay with that, I see a nod. Then I'm very comfortable with the motion and the work you've done. Thank you. May I just suggest that there may be situations where the billboard company might require a variance due to sound walls or other topographic issues related to that. I think that that would go through the COAG process, wouldn't it. It would actually be a variance as well as a. If you do put a specific height limit on it. Are you stating that there are occasions where we where people would apply for them to be higher than 50 feet? Yes. I would be open to that. So 50 feet. And then anything above that would require a. Will you remind me what. It was there? Variance. I wanted to say if you've a variance, that sounds reasonable. Wonderful that I'll take that as my new ocean. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And so the 91 freeway runs entirely through Council District nine. This has been something that we've. This has been an ordinance that we watched closely for years. And the intent was really to remove blight. A number of blighted billboards, particularly on our corridors. And I remember a number of years back, we literally put up images, some of the same images that we saw today and said, hey, if this ordinance doesn't accomplish our goal of removing these, you know, taking down these blighted billboards, then it didn't make sense. And I think it's safe to say that this has been a success. We've seen just the number of conversions so far to the digital. We haven't received any complaints from the neighbors. We've been very open and transparent, particularly with the neighborhoods adjacent to the 91 about this. And frankly, residents are really excited to see a number of lots that have been on, you know, vacant lots with billboards in them on Atlantic in the middle of our business district, on our on Artesia in the middle of our business district. Those billboards are gone now. And now we can sort of talk about possibilities, community gardens, development, things like that that are possible on these lots. So so I'm very happy with where we are in terms of the changes I'm comfortable with, with what they are based on. I truly believe past experience is the best indicator of future performance if we make these adjustments. I'm really excited to see what can particularly what boards can come down. With respect to the The Lamar Project. So, so I'm going to be in support of this and I'm glad to see that the credits for addition will not be in lieu of local takedowns. So so I'm glad that that was clarified tonight that, you know, we can't use credits, Caltrans credits, in lieu of the formula that we've established as a council. Thank you. Councilmember your anger. Longer take you right there. I want to say that this this whole remake of this ordinance is a step in the right direction. And I think it's something that we need to look at carefully. There is a lot of blight out there with the preponderance of billboards that don't serve a real good function or just a lot of simply old. There's a lot of those billboards that are not maintained and not updated. So I think this is this would be an excellent way of taking care of that and removing some of those billboards that basically serve no purpose other than as blight. In regards to the the amendment, I totally agree with that. I think it's a good it's a good way of being able to not only address the concerns that some communities might have in terms of their height, but also be able to address the the the advertisers who are going to be using those billboards to send their message. So I actually support this amendment. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo. I just want to thank my colleagues and Ms.. Bodak for the modification and the support. I think that this is a step in the right direction. I think that the less blight we have in our communities, the better. I want to thank the our predecessors who started on this path many years ago, and I think that we're moving in the right direction. So thank you very much. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on hearing item two? Please come forward and state your name. Laurie Angel. I'm pretty familiar with the Billboard situation. I worked on it for years and we made a point of trying to eliminate blight on our landscaped freeways. So now we're going to give that up for the purpose of removing a few more in our neighborhoods. And, you know, there are states that don't even allow billboards on their highways at all. But we're going to give up our landscaped freeways for the purpose of taking them off of our corridors. When, in fact, that may occur. That's all right. You can look at me or you can look down. That's fine. So I'm just concerned that I mean, the other thing the irony here is that people are earning credits by removing billboards on landscaped freeways. And so now they can put billboards on our landscape. Freeways. I mean, what is the logic in that? So I don't really believe in giving up a nice, open, beautiful stretch of freeway for the purpose of accelerating a process that's going to happen anyway over maybe a little bit more time. I just think it's extremely short sighted. We have a nice looking freeway now. It's one of the best ones around. But we're okay. We're just going to give it up. Thank you. So anyone else seeing no further comment? Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. At this time, we can take up concert calendar items 3 to 14 zero motion. It's been in motion in a second. So any member of the public that wished to address counsel on consent. See members cast your vote.

On the message and order, referred on November 3, 2021, Docket #1146, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Dollars ($387,164.00) from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Division of Conservation Services for the Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities (PARC) Program grant, to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will help fund the acquisition of two parcels on the western shore of Sprague Pond at 0-4 Lakeside Avenue in Hyde Park as a permanently protected parkland to be known as the Sprague Pond Shoreline Reserve, the Committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_11032021_2021-1146

Thank you. Docket 1145 will be referred to the Committee on Environment, Resiliency and Parks. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1146. Docket 1146 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand an amount not to exceed $387,164 for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Division of Conservation Services for the Parkland Acquisition and Renovation for communities known as the Park Program Grant to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will fund the acquisition of two parcels on the western shore of Sprague Pond Edge 024 Lakeside Avenue in Hyde Park as a permanently protected park land to be known as the Sprague Pond Shoreline Reserve. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Docket one one for six will be referred to the Committee on Environment, Resiliency and Parks reports of public officers and others. Madam Clerk, could you please read dockets 1147 through 1151. Thank you. Docket 1147 notices this from the acting mayor of the appointment of Justin Sterrett as trustee of the Boston Common Maintenance Trust Fund. Docket number 1148 notices received from the aftermath of the appointment of Justin Sterrett as trustee to the Franklin Park Maintenance Trust Fund.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for a Sublease to Lease No. 9351 between Million Air North, Inc., a California corporation, and the City of Long Beach for office space at 4401 Donald Douglas Drive, to house the Engineering, Accounting and Security Divisions of the Airport Department; and Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund (EF 320) in the Airport Department (AP) by $303,036. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_12132016_16-1104

Motion carries. Okay. So now we're back at the items. Item 13. Item 13 is a report from Long Beach Airport recommendation to authorize city manager to execute all documents necessary for sublease between Millennium North. And the city of Long Beach for office space at 4400. Donna's Donna Douglas drive to house the Engineering, Accounting and Security divisions of the airport department and District five. IT Councilman Austin. Yes. And I would love to get a staff report on this this item. I have a few questions as well. Assistant City Manager Tom Morgan. So I will do my best to give an overview of this item. Essentially, we have been looking for some space at in the airport's area regarding some of our staffing needs. We currently have staff in the third and fourth floors of the terminal. It is a historic terminal and there are issues. There's only stairs. There's no elevator access. And so we've been looking for some appropriate accommodations for our city staff. The item before you outlines a lease or that we've identified a building and gives you a sense of, you know, what that amount is. It's about $302,000 for the lease and the annual base rent costs will be $152,000 and will increase annually by 3%. We can certainly try to. Answer as many questions tonight or we can bring back additional information later. So is this a time sensitive matter? We do want to be able to move staff at some point, but if we need to take another week to answer questions, we can certainly do that. I move to continue this for another 30 days, to gain some more clarity and allow for new information to to come up and help and instruct our staff to look at potential alternatives. Okay. The motion on the floor is to take another look at this, to bring this back in 30 days, in addition to look at other alternatives. There's a motion, I believe Catherine Herring is at the second on that. Okay, Catherine, your anger. Yeah. In light of the new information that we just received today and factually that we did have a busy agenda at the beginning, it sort of got by everybody. I totally supported the motion. Councilwoman Mongo. I to support the motion. I guess my question. To city staff would be what their opinion is on the potential conflict of interest. As I read some documentation from the city attorney that they believe there wasn't one. Mayor members of the council. Yes, we have been advised of the potential issue. We have looked at this under government code 1090. We have discussed it with the SPC on other issues, not this particular contract, but we had a Planning Commissioner in a similar situation. I received an opinion from the NPC which found that there was no conflict because the Planning Commission did not and was not involved in either recommending approval of the contract or in the making of the contract. And that same situation is true here. The Airport Advisory Commission, this lease is not presented to, nor do they recommend, nor do they refer or have any input into the contract. The contract is approved by the Council as a body, not the Airport Advisory Commission. So in his capacity or as a seat on the airport advisory commission does not create a legal conflict, in our opinion, under 1090. So I guess my my thought would be that this is a member of our community who we believe to be an upstanding citizen, so much so that this council chose to put them in a position to represent us and to. Volunteer their time. As mentioned at several community meetings. Recently, we're always looking for people to stand up and volunteer to participate. I mean, there is quite a bit of data that they need to provide and put forward, including form seven hundreds and go through trainings and the such. And so I just want to make sure that we do our diligence and we. Look into this and that. We don't punish someone or put them in a less favorable position for volunteering and for it to be looked at and other considerations to be taken. But perhaps bring it back. Whenever city staff feel confident that. The situation is significantly similar or completely similar to all other situations, and that we. Are clear that there's no potential risks. I see you have a. Mayor and members of the council. If this motion, the substitute motion to continue this item for 30 days is passed, we would have an opportunity to reach out to the NPC and talk to them. That would be great. But if it came back sooner, Mr. Councilmember, would you be comfortable if everybody responded more quickly or even later that we wait until that comes back? Yes. The reason I pull the item and ask for a continuance was just to make sure just to make sure it better safe than sorry. Absolutely. And you know, there's been an allegation and only an allegation that's been looked into. And so it sounds like Mr.. Mr. Parkin wants the consultation with the LPC is kind of complete. You'll bring that back to the council in some form. We will certainly do so. Okay, great. I see no other council comments. Any public comment on the item? Laurie Smith, third district. I guess I'm just curious why the city managers did not. It doesn't sound like the staff report had any other places that they looked at to be leasing from. So that is a curious, curious thing. Also, I met with the city attorney Mays when I did my. A administrative review of the last airport director for 4 hours in a facility that housed airport staff. So I'm just curious why that would not be something else they'd look into. This lease would be for upwards of $800,000. And the conflict of interest is not just about the vice chair of the airport commission and the city. It is also that he's part as a board member on a lobbying group with JetBlue. He's also filed an annual report in which he has worked with the commission to recommend the FISA facility to you, and that has been filed on your website. So since we had a JetBlue issue on tonight's agenda, as well as his lease for $800,000 over five years, it seems very, very interesting. A conundrum. So this would just be something else that, you know, the California Fair Political Practices Commission, as well as the L.A. County DA's Office of Public Integrity will be alerted to. I'm happy that you are postponing it. I wanted to make you aware that the L.A. County D.A. does not talk about current investigations until the investigation is through. So I would really like to have the this motion held over until we until possibly the city attorney or we could check with the L.A. County D.A., Alan Johnson, to be sure that there is no investigation going on. It apparently it is a confidential thing. I understand that once they've been alerted to something, that they're not allowed to talk about it until it's done. So that would be something that I would recommend that they hold off until they are absolutely clear that the L.A. County D.A.. Public Integrity Division looks into this. So I appreciate you allowing me to speak about this. And I. I hope that you continue to use good judgment. Thank you. See no other public comment on the item? There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on short-term rentals (STRs); select Option 2 (Limited STRs) for the framework of regulating STRs in Long Beach; direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement Option 2; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to enter into voluntary agreement(s) with STR-hosting platforms for the collection and remittance of transient occupancy taxes. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12042018_18-1072

All right. And then we'll go ahead. We're going to go ahead and go back to Esther's item 21. Yes. And we'll do a rock. Councilwoman Gonzales, Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Super now here. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember your younger. Councilman, Austin. Councilman after Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Thank you. I'm here as well. And we are going to go ahead and begin our conversation on stars. So I'm going to start by turning this over to staff. Mr. Mayor, council members, this also is an item that the city council and staff has been working with community groups for quite some time. I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Linda Tatum, and she'll walk us through our recommendations for you tonight. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council staff is pleased to bring forward to you tonight our proposal for addressing the short term rentals in the city. As you as council directed us probably close to a year ago with the 29 housing recommendations, this is one of those recommendations, and we will be coming to you within the next 30 days with a couple of more additional efforts. We've been engaged in at first light to acknowledge the really challenging work of a staff team that was led by Lisa Fall, our administrative services director, supported by Charles Farber, who's in our Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau, and also the work of our consultant team, Lisa Wise and Associates who are represented by Jen Daughtery as well as Henry Ponte Morelli. I want to just acknowledge that this was a really a challenging task and it was really important that we took the time to get it right. And a part of that was making sure that we listened to the community, that we listened well to all sides of the issue. And I think what you'll find is that the ultimate recommendation that staff will be presenting tonight reflects not only that we heard all sides of the issue, but that we also considered a number of other factors, such as city housing policy. We considered best practices in the industry and what was legally permissible and what made sense in terms of an implementation perspective. So with that, what I'd like to do is to have our consultant, Jane Daughtery, she'll be presenting an overview of the work that the consultant was engaged in. And I'd just like to highlight that it includes a wealth of data. So whether it's tonight at some later time, if you could certainly defer to the report because it does contain a wealth of data about the topic of stars that we won't be covering tonight in detail. But it is a very good resource for you to keep in mind. And also after the consultants presentation, they will be turning it back over to staff so that we can summarize the staff recommendation. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jen. Thank you. Ms.. Tatum Mayor, council members, thank you very much. This presentation, I will go through some high level background information that includes the process, data and community input. Then I'll describe the three short term rental ordinance options in front of you before handing it back to Ms.. Tatum. Our approach for this process was organized into three phases, the first being research and analysis, where we conducted two public workshops. An online survey was completed and we conducted case study research. The second phase, that's the phase we're in today is looking at alternatives. In that phase, we developed preliminary options. We presented them at a public workshop and we prepared a draft analysis included in your packet tonight. The third phase is looking at code amendments and public hearings, and us moving forward with that phase is going to be dependent on the direction we receive from counsel tonight. To understand what's happening with Long Beach short term rentals, we collected publicly available data from short term rental hosting websites, and the data was collected in March of this year. This data found that there are 1532 active listings in the city, and of those, 1328 are actual individual units. While that looks like a lot of dots on the map, that comprises just under 1% of the city's total housing stock. These stars are not distributed evenly across the city. They're primarily concentrated along the coast and in downtown. And the colors represent different websites as TR websites. And the dominant website operating in is Airbnb with about 80% of the listings that's followed by the Expedia owned platforms, HomeAway and VRBO at about 12%. About half of. The listings are single family and about half multifamily. 52% multifamily. 48% single family. Two thirds of those are listings for entire homes and about a third for partial homes. Partial homes meaning that it's a listing for a bedroom or a portion of a home versus the entire unit. About half. About half of those listings are listed at a nightly rate of no more than $100 per night. And about half of those are estimated. Half of the overall listings are estimated to generate no more than $10,000 of revenue per year to the host. Based on the average long term apartment rate in the city, a short term rent and assuming a short term rental average nightly rate of $100 per night, that star would need to be rented an occupancy of about 44% or rented about 13 nights per month to generate more revenue than an average long term rental apartment. In looking at the number of nights per year stars are rented. About half or 654 units are estimated estimated to be rented. For. More than 90 nights per year. The orange dashed line is showing that threshold of the 90 nights per year and on the on the green bars that's identifying of those rentals, which are entire home units. So, for example, on the right hand side, those units that are rented for 180 nights or more are 380. And 140 of those are entire home rentals. Now the majority of hosts, almost 83%, have only one star listed. Just over 10% have two. It's about 93% of all listings are two or fewer short term rentals. Now, this may be overstated as professional operators have begun to list individual host IDs so it isn't appearing as though they have multiple units. Community input has been a substantial part of our process and some consistent themes have emerged through this, through the various outreach efforts and activities we've had. Those themes include positive ones, such as the reliance and supplemental income that staffers provide to hosts and property owners, and that that income is allowing property owners to maintain their property to make improvements to their property that they wouldn't otherwise be able to. And also that guess of short term rental units are supporting local businesses. We also heard negative themes complaints about noise, parties, parking primarily, or especially in coastal areas. We also heard concern about overall lack of enforcement and concerns of staffers impact on the availability and affordability of housing. Considering the community input we received, we began to prepare some preliminary options for for short term rental regulations. We also considered, in addition to that community input the city's current code. We looked at zoning and other provisions of the code, existing conditions in Long Beach and case study research. Now our research look at looks in-depth at four specific jurisdictions, but we looked at dozens of of case studies in California and nationwide to supplement our efforts here. We also also evaluated the California Coastal Commission's position on short term rentals and assessed potential city costs and potential city revenues from regulating short term rentals. The three options that were developed consist of the first being a baseline level regulation as the lowest level of regulation out of the three options. The second is a limited starters option. This adds additional regulation on top of those baseline restrictions. Lastly, an option, the third option and geographic to opt out is proposed that has additional level of restriction on top of one and two. These are the three regular or three options were presented at the last public workshop we had in October, and we provided some additional information to help explain the three options. The first baseline regulations includes registering short term rentals with the city, including the city's registration number in every listing for that TR. Providing a local 24 hour contact. Providing the rules for the str noise where to park and trash recycling egress routes ahead of the guest stays as well as posting those rules within the unit. Property liability insurance of at least a minimum of at least $1 million would be required. And some platforms offer this and that provision of insurance would satisfy this requirement. The payment of transient occupancy tax or TOTTY at the city's established rate of 12%. This is a tax that is paid by the guest, collected by the host or operator and remitted to the city. Also the business license tax, which currently for residential rentals, is about $80 a parcel and about $35 per each unit. And that's on an annual basis. As teachers would be prohibited in deed, restricted affordable housing units and dormitories. And this option also includes a 24 hour hotline. That would be a method to report and address nonemergency complaints. And the city would also offer a prohibited buildings list where staffers or short term rental activity is not allowed by homeowners associations. And C hours could apply a request to the city to include their development, their properties on the permitted buildings list. And the city would not issue STR registrations for those units. And finally, STR registration would be revoked under this option if three violations occurred within a 12 month period. Now, those aren't complaints. Those are violations. So if violations of these established regulations occur three in 12 months, your registration would be revoked and couldn't be renewed for one year. Option two builds upon and further restricts the regulations in option one. Limited staffers would limit staffers to residents of Long Beach. That would be verified through vehicle registration, IDs, utility bills, and it would allow for one primary primary residence. As Esther, now a resident, must occupy the primary residence for at least 275 nights per year. So it's about nine months for that to be qualified as a resident. In addition to the primary residence str a resident would be allowed to have two non primary residence staffers, so those non primary staffers would have no restriction on the number of nights hosted. For parcels that have two or more units, such as a single family home with an adu or a duplex. Only one of those units would be required to be occupied for 275 nights per year, with the other unit having no restrictions on the nights rented. And the city is still the city is coordinating with legal counsel on this resident requirement. And if if it is something continuing to evaluate it, if if it is something that must be removed from these options, the primary residence requirement could be revised to be at the parcel level. Now an additional restriction is included for under the limited staffers options for multifamily developments. And as previously mentioned, you must be a resident in Long Beach under this option to be able to operate in a STR and you could only have up to two non primary residence stars. So to limit the concentration of these non primary staffers in multifamily developments, those staffers are capped at 25% or no more than six in multifamily developments. So for example, this is particularly relevant when there's multiple owners or hosts in one building, but also in the case of, say, a single apartment building owner, that owner would have to be a resident of Long Beach and would be limited to up to two non primary residence staffers. If the apartment building is an eight unit building or larger, those two non primary residence staffers could be located in that building. The limited upstairs option also includes quiet hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., during which outdoor pools and hot tubs could not be used. It limits occupants to two people per bedroom plus two with a maximum of ten people per TR. Large scale events would be prohibited, as would exterior signage. The last option, the geographic opt out adds an additional restriction where Unhosted stars could be prohibited within designated air areas through a petition process and vote of the residents within that area. Now, Unhosted means that the resident would be would not be present during the guest's stay, and this option evolved out of the continuing feedback from certain neighborhoods about the disturbance stars were having in those areas. Now many cities have begun to regulate stars, and we've looked at a number of them and some range from very simple and strict. Like Santa monica, where stars are only allowed if they're hosted, if the host is on on the premise during the rental activity to more lenient but cumbersome like Sacramento where they have different permit requirements for non primary residence stars. There is no standard model for STR regulations that applies universally across all cities. But the options we have presented include elements that have been instituted in different cities. And I think at that point, I'll hand it back to Miss Tatum. Thank you, John. I would like to now just summarize the staff's recommendation. John talked a lot about in detail about option two. That is the option that staff is recommending. We think that it appropriately balances all of the the market that we have here in the city. But in particular, it also addresses specifically issues of community character. Our recommendation was guided by the fact that we clearly want to be able to benefit residents, local residents with the proposal. But we also want to be sure that we're addressing community concerns and mitigating those concerns through appropriate regulation. We're also concerned with making sure that the program includes a cost recovery component. So with that, staff is recommending option to the other direction that we're asking for. The city council is to direct us to enter into agreements with the the hosting platforms and that would enable the city to collect the transit occupancy task tax. And we'd also be asking Council's direction for to direct staff to continue to study the appropriate fee to address the affordable housing issue. We feel that it's important that that is a consideration in this item, but we will need to go back and do studies to determine to determine the appropriate share of the fees that are collected , how much of those fees should go to affordable housing? Because we've also we also need to address cost recovery efforts to cover the costs of implementation of the program. And I would like to highlight a couple of points that we have very intentionally included in the regulations for option two that do address housing and affordable housing. To note that as cars are currently, they are prohibited in any of the city's deed restricted affordable housing units. We also very specifically limited and thought really carefully about the limit that we are proposing in terms of limiting the number of short term rentals per each host. We are also considering the impact to the affordable housing stock when we also very specifically limit the number of units within each multifamily housing project. And again, we are very supportive of including a component of the fees for this effort to go towards affordable housing. But we will be taking a look at what that appropriate share should be, because, again, we have anticipated a share of the cities of these fees going into the current city budget, and we're hoping to hit those targets. And again, with some additional study we will be bringing back to the City Council once if you direct us to prepare the ordinance, we would be bringing back an appropriate analysis of what that affordable housing share should be. So with that, that concludes staff's presentation. And the staff here at this table, as well as our consultant, will be available to answer your specific questions. Thank you. I know there's been a lot of work that's gone into this and a lot of community input. There is a motion on the floor which I know there's going to be some conversation about that that will likely change some. But we're going to take public comment for the makers of the motion so far. 1/2. I am. Before before everyone jumps up, everyone will get a chance to speak. This gentleman in the front is going to be controlling the public comment so we can't have bunching up like that. Guys, we're going to call. So it's one line. Close to the start over on this side. I didn't bring up that. Everyone will get a chance to speak. So please take direction right now and we will get ready for public comment. I'm. Yeah. Well, you can go ahead of me. Thank you. Okay. You can't be doing this. We're okay. Just be a minute. We have a lot of people that make sure we get them in line for public comment. So. Guys, just just just to be very clear, we have two lines going on here. I can't have two lines. I need one line of speakers. And if that's not if people aren't going to fit, they need to take a seat and we will get to you. I need one line. I have multiple lines of people coming up and down this row. So I need about the last third of this in this line. It needs to grab it, take a seat or go to the other section. He's got it, please. And then if I can have you guys just kind of straighten out a little bit, that'd be great. That. Okay. Share of the tension, please. Okay. We're going to go ahead and start. Just America to be recognized. Sure. I counted just in this about 50 people just on this side, and I didn't realize the rest of that was also speaker's line. So there were 50 here and there's probably another 50 there, maybe 30 at 3 minutes each. That's that's exactly 5 hours of public comment. So respect. Respectfully, there has been significant input and community meetings. So, Mr. Mayor, I would move that. We go to we go to 90 seconds. Oh, dear. They're second on that. I'll just say consensus on that if there's consensus. Unless there's any objection. Okay. We will go to we will go to 90 seconds. You can set that clerk at 90 seconds. Okay. Okay. We will. Please, everyone, quiet down. Shush. I want to make sure that everyone that speaks has a chance to be heard. Please begin. Um, Mayor and City Council. My name is Barbara Schweiger. I live in the eighth district. My family and I have enjoyed several short term rentals, but we also live on a block that has two very large homes which are rented out for short terms. The problem is not with people when the host is in the in the house. The problem is. When the entire house is rented out with no owner to supervise. Generally speaking, the visitors are quiet and act like good neighbors. However, there have. Been a number of instances. Where very large part large parties have occurred, where trucks appear with professional caterers, extensive bars, elaborate decorations, loud bands, deejays or other entertainment which disrupt homes and families well beyond the boundaries of the property. And parking can be impacted for several blocks around. We have had big parties. We invite our neighbors and we don't disturb the neighbor beyond our home. We stayed at an Airbnb in Philadelphia, where my husband and I had the largest room on the third floor. However, there was one small. Window and it was. Painted shut and there were no smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors in the home. We went out and bought a hammer and chisel to crack the window in case of fire. On another occasion there was a serious leak, which the owner asked us to fix in their dark and scary basement. Based on this, I urge you to license and tax short term rentals. Mandate periodic. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's quick. Okay. Thank you very much. Really need inspection. Next speaker, please. I'm bringing it to court and I live on Locust Avenue. There's an Airbnb right next door to me that's basically a commercial venue. They have weddings, they have deejays, they have live bands. They make the windows rattle in my home. My guide dog shakes at times that she can't even sleep and I can't leave. I'm stuck. Because it's where I live and I can't afford to just move. When I bought the home for retirement. There's another Airbnb that's across the street and down on the same block that I live on, and they do the same thing. I've corresponded with both of them with no results. We call the phone number. That's the non-emergency phone number, and we get no results for hours and hours at a time. I sat on the phone one day for over an hour with no response to the non-emergency number that were supposed to call. And then when we do call him, there's times I can't even leave my home because if I go left, the driveways are blocked with cars that are parked over hanging over him. When I go the other direction, it's the same thing. So I'm stuck in all kinds of positions that no one's helping me get out of. I adore Airbnb. I adore Furbo when they're done right. But when they don't care about people with disabilities to give us workouts out and they don't, they keep us trapped for 8 to 10 hours at a time with loud music DJs and live bands and catered events. Help us out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please vote. Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Steve Scott. I've been a resident here in Long Beach in the third district and on the peninsula since I went to Long Beach State in 1966. I've been. Part of. All the code processors since 1970, and I think that's one of the reasons our neighborhood asked me to get involved in this project the second year. I've been through this process in our other home. Six years ago in Jackson, Wyoming, and we had a successful solution to it. All six varied interests from the tourists to the resort operators to the neighborhood, it is operating successfully. So with that reason, I participated in this process. I've solicited the entire peninsula and received responses from virtually everybody. And option whatever option can gain five council votes would be our preference that it would include and respect the right of self-determination like we have enjoyed with some of the other code processors, and that would include the designated area that has the right of that self-determination to include whether we should have hosted in UN hosted homes. But it is hopeful that we can have the right for our own determination. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yes, my name is Martha Briscoe and I live in the area that the first two speakers spoke of. So I have experienced the large scale events. So I'm wondering how you all will define large scale events. Because my neighbor, who has turned a what had been formerly a residential home next to my retirement home, decided that it was a really great idea to start having weddings, all kinds of parties, all kinds of events, very, very commercial, the parking and all of that sort of thing. So even if even when there have been people there that have only been like 20 people, they can make a lot of noise. And as the former speaker just said, it's really difficult just having code enforcement. We've got to have measures to support neighbors who are being offended and stressed out on a weekly basis with no real hope that there's going to be some kind of disciplinary action that is going to result in real change when so much money is being made hand over fist by these folks that have their have their rental at the expense of the quiet neighbors who don't. So please define large scale events. And also, I didn't understand one of the recommendations where it said that the limitation would be the first home has a oh, I guess I'm out of time somebody ask about to answer about two residences. Thank you very much. Residences plus or and thank. You very much yes thank you very much. We thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Diane and I live in South Division Beat six. Oh, wait, that's something else. I live in the first district. Seven years ago, I. Became an Airbnb host. I marched my little self right down to City Hall and I said, I want regulations, I want to pay tax, I want to be listed. And they said, No, we don't have. Any way to. Do it. Here we are only seven years later and all of this good work is going in. Thank you. Council Members Thank you. City Staff. I think it's absolutely fabulous that I can be legal. I want to also add during the fires that we've experienced over the last several months. In the greater Los Angeles area, over 1600 Airbnb host said, Come to my house for free. Yes, I depend upon this income. But we have opened our hearts and our homes to those who need shelter more than we need our income. Thank you so much. You so much. Next speaker, please. Very much. Marilyn Eisinger. Thank you. Councilmembers. Mayor, I am a super host for Airbnb and like many of the Airbnb hosts, I am a senior citizen woman and supplement my income in order to maintain my house. I rent out two of my bedrooms depending upon how many I have 11 grandchildren, so lots of time. There's other people there. My one comment is I'm very happy that we would be paying room tax. I love the city of Long Beach. I want it to have what it needs. I was very sad when the 2008 crisis sent us to our knees and it's just never really recovered. But I would like to talk about that 12%, 6% of the hotel money for their taxes being used to advertise for the hotels. That will not be done for Airbnb or other short terms, which is fine with me, but I don't think an additional amount of money besides that 6% needs to be taken from us. For for yes. For for low cost housing or housing. We're trying to stay indoors ourselves. I'm just trying to pay my taxes and stay indoors. And so I want you to keep that in mind. Nobody here is getting rich. You know, we're scrubbing our houses down and working very hard to make them presentable and nice. And thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. Hi. I'm Kelly Hartwick and I own a triplex with my husband on Bayshore in Belmont Shores, and I've been doing. Airbnb, the RBA, all of that for about ten years. Now. I don't live in Long Beach to accept my job. I needed to be in Orange County. I'm a medical device rep and I had to live in the area I work. So I do not necessarily agree with having a host on property. I live 5 minutes. Away in SEAL Beach. I know my number. All of my tenants are renters, I guess as you want to call them. I have very strict rules about. No parties. No smoking, no pets in my property. Everybody agrees to that. I have better. Success. With short term rentals than I have with long term renters. Thank you. I've just had one long term renter move out and it costs me about $8,000 to have. The apartment refurbished to be able to be occupied again. He didn't. He smoked in it when he wasn't supposed to smoke in it. His pets defecated in it. And I appreciate the ability to have. Short term rentals. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Name is Drew. I am a homeowner in the fifth district. My wife and I back there, we are super hosts and somebody had mentioned about noise and parking and etc., etc. issues. I'll tell you what, my neighbor on the right have two large barking dogs every morning. They're howling. I don't need an alarm clock. So those are they're my alarm clocks. My neighbors on my left have an extended family that come over every other day partying, have a giant screen TV, outdoors, you know, smoking, etc., etc.. Yet we're paying out the bad guys. So. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Well, that's my husband so I just that add to that. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. We bought the house back in the 2015 when the price was kind of rising a high. So when we look for a house, we specifically looking for a place that has a back, like has a guest house that where we can host our family and relatives and friends at the same time, we can open to do Airbnb, to bring some income to supplement those, you know, those mortgages. And on top of that, we actually are keen to find our baby who like about six months old when we moved in like now she's four year old Jess if y in a long beach like average for a preschool is about $3,000 a month in average. So that's the income that we bring in for Airbnb. It's from that Airbnb. It's really helping on the preschools and on mortgages, which we opened here in Long Beach. So we would like to give back and we support option one and we would like to use to to have you consider the totty that 12% is a bit high because that put us in a disadvantage compared to our surrounding kids. So if we can lower down a little bit, that will help. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Next week, please. I live in the fourth district and I support option one. The top taxes are, I think, outrageous. It would affect, even though we're not paying it, the people that are coming to stay at our Airbnbs are. So we would have to lower the price of of of the, of what we're renting. And I. We already paid 10.25% taxes in the city. I feel that I support the city wholeheartedly. I love Long Beach. I want to stay here forever. And I again support option one and a lower totty, please. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. My name is Teresa Morse and I've. Lived in Long Beach for over 40 years and in District nine for over 27. I've been involved with Airbnb for four years and I'm a super host for almost three. I have two listings here in the city and I also have one in Dallas, Texas. I am in favor. Of one with an amendment to the top tax for obvious reasons. We only. Are we are. Currently. Paying 6%. We only need to pay 6%. I don't see anybody. Totally taxing long term rentals. We take. Pride in our. Homes as a host of Airbnb, so we self-regulate. We have welcome letters that do three things. We post them. Onto the portal. We provide them on the door of the Airbnb guest, and we also walk them through all the safety protocols. The security alarms, the monitors. We take care of our property at the time of check in. My neighbors are completely aware that I do Airbnb and they always know when a. Guest is there. They come. From all over the world Singapore, China. Australia, London. They know what country the person is. From and they also know when that person's going to come and when that. Person's going to go. As I said, I've lived there for 27 years. We are like extended family. One of the things. You should know that when you are considering this. Is that. We're only talking about $10,000 a year. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And City Council and special shout out to Susie Third District. Right on the go. My name's Phyllis Mays Lawson, and my husband and I have been doing Airbnb since 4th January 2017. My husband is disabled. When he became disabled in 2012, we needed to check that we were falling behind in all of our and all of our expenses. We had our back house that was rented out to a mother and daughter, and fortunately that didn't work out as well as we had hoped that would. The mother passed away. The daughter stopped paying rent. We lost a lot of income just for that reason. When we went back in to go and do the renovation, we found out that it was torn up there. The door jammed, the windows, everything for long term rentals. It ended up being nothing more than a disaster to us. The Airbnb has been wonderful. We've been able to get hosts families with a lot of families. Laura A lot of kids, a lot of dogs. We live near seventh and PCH. We're able to direct. So all of our guests go to Denny's immediately. They go to Vons. They patronize the local neighborhoods every the the new baby target. So we were able to give back to our we're able to give back to our community and will as continue to put dollars in there. So we definitely want to thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Speaker Hi, Mayor and the council people, I'm Celeste Keith and I'm in district two. I'm doing Airbnb and I love it. And we're no threat to the hotels because the people that stay in my place maybe five or ten times a week, a month, I have people and I'm on a very restricted income. And if I didn't have the money coming in from Airbnb. I'm a senior resident here and it would be a little difficult and I love doing Airbnb. I am a super host and people that come here when one person that came here bought a business and also bought a home here in town, and he told me when he came here he was not looking to go to any hotels, so it would not have been someone they would have lost. And we I think Airbnb provides a lot of things to a lot of people. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Evening. My name is Mike. Patchett and I live in the third. District. And we've been Airbnb host for the last year and a half and frankly without it, we would have had to moved from the area. I've been a resident at Long Beach in the third District for the last 30 years due to health. Issues are our need to host with Airbnb has saved our our residents and it has afforded us the ability to make upgrades pay local plumbers, pay local craftsmen. Pay the. Our cleaning ladies. And it's brought revenue that never we never would have spent in the city. And the people who come and visit the. The guests are constantly going to the local businesses and. Supporting local businesses in the third district. And for that, I'm really grateful and I would hope that you would consider option one. Thank you. Thanks so much, Nick. Speaker, please. Hello. I'm Elizabeth. Thank you for the opportunity to share my input. I'm in District one. Thank you. And I am proud to be an Airbnb super host. And I'm also a HomeAway Premiere partner. I have. I prefer the freedom of continuing in the system that we've put in place and adhering to the rules and restrictions and guidelines that we have by the platforms. In addition, we also provide guidelines and rules and. Restrictions to. Guests. And in multiple ways. We I list rules and restrictions. On the website as well as in a house manual, and I also post safety rules and restrictions in the home. And I think there's a misconception about the. Type of guests that we host. They're not all partiers. My guests have been absolutely wonderful. They're engineers that work on the bridges. They're medical professionals that are working here in town. They are. Scientists in. Neurosciences that come in for. Conferences. And I give jobs as a as a Airbnb super host. I give jobs to a mom. I give it to a young deaf couple. I give it to a student next door. I give jobs to gardeners, plumbers, contractors, landscapers. And I would like to be able to continue to do that. So I am in favor of the. Least amount of restriction as possible. We're self-regulated. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. My name's Jennifer. I'm in District eight. I'm one of the 890 entire home rental properties. I have been Long Beach residents for 26 years. My sons are grown and out of the house. I am renting the property now as an empty nester, keeping the property and making upgrades and repairs with the money that I'm earning. My hope is that sometime my sons will want to live there and raise their own families in the home they've owned for more than 20 years. I've rented to neighbors on multiple occasions. The families who stay at our property are visiting from all over the world France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Canada , Belgium, Scotland and many from our United States. And locals all spend their money in our neighborhoods and attend or compete in local sports arenas, such as the velodrome at Cal State, Dominguez Hills and the Honda Center. They stop in Long Beach before and after their arrival from the airports. They come in for flight training, aerial photography, conventions, etc. My property is best suited for multigenerational families enjoyed by young and old. I have an extremely large house, extremely large property, and I am one of those people that had a wedding in my backyard. It was beautiful, it was very small, was 50 guests and it was quiet, it was intimate, and there was no no problem. I don't want to lose long term renters because I occasionally love to stay in my own home and have our own special events there. I have student recitals. I teach music. I also don't want to sell my property. Allow me to continue with the least amount of regulation as possible. I fully support option one. I'd like to thank Lisa Weiss, Count Consulting for the extensive research that she did funded by the city of Long Beach, which showed overwhelming support of option one. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Veronica. I am in District five and I just want to let you know that Stacy Mango put out a poll and I just looked at it about 25 seconds ago and option one had 50% of the vote, option two had eight, option three had 16% and other had 20%. I also have I took 27 of the rentals and decided to do a little calculation. So these 27 rentals came to 65, 65 a day, and the income for 90 days would be 590,000, but the 12% tax would be 70,000. So I doubled it to 180. The 12% in tax would be 140,000. This is all about money. It's about money for people who need it. It's about money for those for the homeless. In this in this district, you would make a ton of money by doing option one. And one more thing. When I hosted my last guests, they their severely retarded daughter had a fall. And we allowed them to stay for five days for free because they needed to take care of her. And I just don't think hotels would do that. Thank you. Oh, thank you. So I pay 15% tax. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Hello. My name is Anna Evans. Goldstein and I'm a researcher with Unite Here Local. 11. I want to encourage the inclusion of two key provisions. The first provision is. Platform accountability, and the. Second is primary residence hosting. We've entered into the record a memo delineating these provisions. In detail for you to reference. These two provisions have proven to be the most effective way of regulating the short term rental market. They are necessary to protect the future of Long Beach housing. Market and stave off a. Housing crisis that has seen the city lose valuable rental units for families to short term rentals. If these provisions are. Not included tonight, as you move forward, we urge you to postpone tonight's. Vote. This is such an. Important issue and it. Really must be handled with care for. The future of Long Beach. The platform. Accountability provision allows the City of Long Beach to request necessary data. From hosting platforms in order to bring short term rental units into compliance with the law. Platform accountability helps relieve the burden of enforcement from the staff. Of Long Beach and onto the platforms. The primary residence provision is necessary. To protect the city's housing stock, as it stipulates. That there can only be one short term rental unit per host. These provisions have been successful in other cities. And Long Beach has the opportunity to be a leader not just for the region. But the nation, in regulating short term rentals. I strongly urge you to include these provisions in Long Beach, a short term rental ordinance. Thank you. So much. And protect the interests. Of the city. Of life. Thank you so much. Next week, release. My name is Steve Askin. I want to thank my council, Jeanine Pearce, for her very thoughtful approach to short term rentals. I am an Airbnb host and I'm here to suggest some small fixes to option two to meet everybody's interests, to support tenants worried about gentrification, to help homeowners, angry about party houses for small home based hosts like myself, or try to cover our mortgages. And for my fellow trade unionists I see back there with whom I've walked picket lines at the Westin and other hotels. So I'm recommending option two with three clarifications. One, the previous speaker talked about limit short term rentals. Two hosts living on the property. This makes the short term rental a source of income for the resident, for the owner, and it will almost entirely eliminate the annoyance from Unhosted party houses. Number two. And I've heard what people say about taxes. Personally, I'm willing to pay. The appropriate tax if it goes for what's needed. And what I would suggest, since a 6% portion of the. Tax now goes for hotel promotion. Let's instead have half of the 12% the part that now goes to the hotel industry go to help the homeless or do something else for a housing crisis. Number three, and this is important for a short term, hosts make it clear that there will be no days rented restriction on resident hosts . Those restrictions would be a disaster for those of us who cover living costs and cover our mortgages by hosting thank you property where we live. Thank you so much. Okay. And I have a longer copy of this. Perfect. We'll grab it at the clerk's office next speaker, please. My name is Kathleen Brady and I cannot see the clock. That is the clock not up there. So someone sitting. There. And. We have a recent state mandate requiring allowance of more adus even in areas zoned for single family residences instead of providing additional long term homes for us. I'm afraid they will be utilized to short term rentals and we would have the higher density without the intended benefits. The same could be said of the new land use element in certain neighborhoods in Long Beach. The housing crisis is real, it's serious, and a permissive ordinance about stars will make it worse. I would like to ask for option three, but I. I've been thinking seriously about it the last few days after I sent out a few emails, and I would like to add that I think there should only be two stickers per resident, one of which would be primary decrease the number and percentage of allowed short term units in multifamily buildings and prohibit accessory and use accessory dwelling units from being used for short term rental occupancy. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Jean Young, and I live in Al Austin's district. I've been there for 30 years and I'm a super host. I'm asking you, council member, Austin, all this city council and mayor to allow short term rentals as a permitted use. I'm thrilled this is coming before the council and I. Would urge you to support. Opting option one. I know there are representatives of the hotel industry who would have you believe that their jobs are threatened by home sharing. That is not the case. We provide an affordable travel experience to many who could. Not manage the expense of a hotel, stay or want the special care. And guidance provided by an Airbnb. Host. I also hire local people to help me clean my property, paying them the exact cleaning fee than I obtained from a guest. I believe that if effectively managed, short term rentals can provide homeowners an additional opportunity for income to hold on to their residences and invest in upkeep, which supports neighborhood stability and vitality. So it helps seniors stay in their property and millennials get into a property. I do not. Want to see a restriction on the number of days we can host or different rules for home sharing while in the home. Then when short term renting an entire house, this restricts those who must travel for business or retirees who travel for pleasure from renting out their entire house. So that flexibility to take contract jobs in other parts of the country or invite family is the beauty of Airbnb. Thank you so. Much. Do not restrict. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, council members and Mayor. My name is Brant and I'm here to support option one. My mother has loved the Belmont Shore area since 1969. Every summer she would take our family to play in the sun and water of Alamitos Bay. In 1979, her dream came true and my parents purchased a duplex and Bill mature. In 1984, they purchased another home in Belmont Shore, where we my family lived for many years. CSU will be alumni in 2014. At the age of 77, my mother came down with dementia as the illness progressed. My father had a harder and harder time taking care of his beloved bride of 61 years. In late 2016, we had to move. My mother into a. Home for dementia care at the cost of $7,000 a month. My wife and I soon came up with an idea on how to afford this daunting $7,000 a month bill. Our plan was to make the bottom unit a short term rental. We could make the extra income, but still have the bottom unit available for our family to visit. So we talked to our neighbors in Belmont Shore, as well as our long term tenant of ten years upstairs. All had no issue with the short term rental and were very glad we could take such good care of my mother and all have my cell phone number. In November 2016, we cleared up our family duplex. We also paid for a wheelchair bound neighbors tree to be pruned, and we cleaned up her yard as well. With the extra income, the downstairs short term rental plus income from the upstairs long term rental. My father's income shortfall dissipated. He now visits his beloved wife of 63 years daily while my mother, well, my wife and I take care of our family's duplex in Belmont Shore. Thank you. Thank you so much. The speaker, please. Hello. My name is Olga. I live in Belmont Shore. A solution to the noise because we're all here for solutions is that those Airbnb hosts should all purchased a noise monitor. And this will appease all those who are concerned about noise violation noise monitor. You can check it on your phone and everybody's in check. And also every city has a noise ordinance. Simply call the police for current noise problems. Airbnb takes away less than 1% of the housing that we're currently talking about. Lack of housing. I feel I'm forced towards long term rental. This is a horrible thought, especially when we had a very bad experience with long term tenants. Where are my rights to do what I please with my property? I pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars for in our experience, long term tenants were long term problems. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Yes. Hello. Stewart and I live in the First District and my concern is a little bit different than most of what you've heard. I believe in the stability of neighborhoods and communities so that children grow up going to schools with the same people all the time, that they aren't living in a neighborhood that sometimes has a lot of people there. And other times everybody just disappears when it's away from holidays and things like that. So I think these are important kinds of values to keep for our neighborhoods. And I think that if if there's only about 1% of the units in the city are being be well, let's just freeze it at that number . Don't let anybody else start adding new ones here. I'd be one thing and I would take care of that. Second thing is, do keep the 12% tax rate. We make it 18% and use that extra money to provide more for our schools, more for our housing. That's affordable, more help to our people who have to enforce the rules to do it. BND If there's going to be rules, it should be like Prop two. Option to here and then take and do it so and get someone in there to keep it going. So that's what I think. And I live here and I'm buying a very good place. I live in a good building in the Walker building and and we do not have been busier and we don't want them there, by the way, because we don't think that builds a strong, healthy community of people who know each other, who care about each other, and who prevent our neighborhoods from deteriorating. Thank you. Thanks so much. Speaker, please. My name is Nader. Tushnet, and I live in the third district. My concern is about the declining number of the housing stock as we have a great housing crisis before us in our city, which I see every day on my walk. I think there are ways to deal with it without getting in the way of property. Owners who want to have. Airbnb or vacation rental by owner. Which I've used around the world without getting in their. Way. The first is to make the site. Accountable and and find the site. The platform vacation rental by owner or Airbnb for any misdeeds. The second is, in fact, to make sure that it. Is only in primary. Residences. So I would favor option two, though, a little bit stronger. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. My name is Brad Michaels and counsel. I'm living in the third district and I wanted to give you some feedback. What I'd like to say is we're actually kind of out of the box. I support option zero and here's my thoughts. And I know that if you're going to play ball, it's going to be wasting our time. But, you know, we come from the United States of America where there's liberty. And I'd like to push back on some government regulation now. And the because I think we're highly, highly overregulated right now. Also, what is the big fervor about stars? I'd just like to think out of the box. I've had some long term renters. Where I live. Beside that have been worse partiers than I'd heard on some of these stories here that I've heard of the nightmare stories of short term rentals. Thirdly, when my wife and I took over our property in Belmont Shore, we had two drug pushers that were growing pots in our in the house that we purchased and. Selling it on the street. And we finally. Kicked them out. After $10,000 of attorney fees, our neighbors thanked us for turning our house around. Thank you. Thank you so much. Wow. How do I follow that? Okay. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Linda. I'm a resident taxpayer of Second District. Many years ago, I was working as a traveling sales representative. And at that time, my company was giving me a stipend of $60 a night for overnight travel for a hotel. So you can imagine the type of hotels I might be able to afford. That was when I discovered Airbnb. I was able to find shelter in a safe, secure, affordable, clean home with awesome hosts. That was over eight years ago, and I've been part of the home sharing community ever since. My decision to become an Airbnb host started when my husband was laid off on my birthday, no less. And I a week later, the fear of losing our home in the city we've come to love was overwhelming. The Airbnb platform helped us through some very difficult times. Please don't lose that in this conversation that people are really using this as a forum to survive. Okay. And please remember that the sharing community cards, Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, all of that started because of a need, a need to find affordable ways to get around and an affordable way to travel. We met amazing people, a couple in their son from Kazakhstan who won the visa lottery and a couple from New York who needed who needed to find a home. And they now live here in Long Beach on First Street and our loyal customers. Thank you so much. I really prefer no regulations, but if I could just number one. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Diana Wynne and I live downtown Long Beach. What got me into hosting was that I. I love to travel. And so I traveled all over abroad. And I didn't know what Airbnb was. And and so when I did, I started looking into it and it gave me options to giving up my family options of of where we can stay. And once when I got into it, I'm like, oh, my gosh, this is so much better than a hotel. And so I got myself into hosting here at my kind of Long Beach, and the experience I have has been phenomenal. You know, they I have so far zero complaints. And the platform. Allows you to. Actually rate. Each other, not just rate me, but rate them. And so if you're able to look at them and say, hey. You know, they have bad reviews, whatever, but I hadn't had one that had a bad review. So I've allowed each one to stay in my home. I'm also, in a way, board member. And to me, the complaints that I have is actually for the more of the long term renters. And to say that it's it's. Just the short term rentals. That's making noise. I think that's unfair because, you know, we were surrounded by great universities, colleges, and we've all been. There, right. We partied. And so just to say that it's just for the short term, it's not right to say so it could be any of those factors, not just, you know, people that are trying to, you know, give options, working. Options, but if we. Have Airbnb. So thanks so much. My name is Josh Butler, executive director of Housing Long Beach, a resident of the third district. And I am a super renter. There are so many unintended consequences with this. It feels like this policy at this point is half baked and there's more work to do. One for sure is, is what is the fare going to be and where is the money going to go? It doesn't make sense to me to come back and circle around and have that conversation. That should be included as part of this conversation right now. And that money should go to affordable housing. And I think that the hosts are lucky that it's only a minimum of 12%. We're in a housing crisis. We do not have enough affordable housing as is we do not have places for our current renters to be right now. And it's very discouraging that so many host have come up here and decided, rather than to speak about the positives of being a host, have chosen to disparage longtime Long Beach renters in the process of this. There are a lot of rules and regulations out there right now. I'm wondering how it's going to be monitored. Is it going to be done by current staff? Do we have the funding to do that? How many calls for service to the police department will go out? And is any of the funding going to support the police department? I think there's a lot of questions that still remain to be answered. All these hosts have come up here. It sounds like they're struggling to. Many of them have suggested that without the ability to rent out their second home, that they would be underwater. And so I think that we may have a larger problem if so many of our homeowner population are struggling to make ends meet. We might want to look a little bit deeper at that. So we encourage you to look at an individual option, which was the Santa monica option. Thank you. Passed over, which requires the owner to be. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening. Councilmembers and Mayor Connie. Llanos with Airbnb. Thank you so much for allowing us to be here today and for really a thoughtful process that has undergone over a year of community feedback. I think you've heard better from our hosts today the stories of how. Airbnb. Is impacting everyday Long Beach residents and really allowing them to stay in their homes, cover important housing costs, medical costs, supplement retirement medical bills in many situations. These are also ambassadors of Long Beach who really take pride in being able to welcome thousands of guests into this community. In fact, in 2017, this resulted in about $42 million of new spending in local businesses right here in Long Beach, supporting jobs, helping folks be able to stay and live in Long Beach. We appreciate all of the work that's gone into putting together this policy. A couple of suggestions that that we want to urge you to consider. I think, one, you did call for a community feedback process. Your community asked you for option one, consider that. Hear their their voices. They were engaged. If you want to look deeper, I think we really would consider you to look at eliminating caps for the nights that people can share the homes they live in. These folks are going to take care of their community. They're going to take care of their homes. You're going to solve for a lot of these neighborhood character and safety concerns. I think vacation rentals have existed historically in Long Beach. I think there should be a way to legitimize them through this process, but create the rules that actually solve for the noise and concerns that frankly, can happen in long term stays as well as short term stays. We want to be your partner in this process very much. Thank you so much. After attending and tending the community meetings. Everything is what it's come down to for me is that Airbnb people? What you're doing is. Actually you're providing a hotel, you're not doing it because you like to have people come. Different people come every week and stay with you. You're doing it for the money. As such, you're operating in a for profit business, just like any business like the. That the city. You should be able you should pay a yearly license because again, I think it's important that the city knows how. Many hotels are operating inside the city. Not only should they have. That information, but they should share it with the police and the fire department so the fire they can respond better. That's why I think it's important. Yet when it comes to the overall, I think my biggest issue is with buildings, five units and above. These are not home sharing. These are commercial operations. And the city is at a minimum, I would hope that they would support the, you know, the 25%. But if they do that, I would hope that the landlords would be required to notify their long term. Applicants that they're they're also hosting short term. Rentals in that building. But in my opinion, I think it's best that these buildings were not built to be hotels. Again, it's going to be hard to implement this. When inspectors going to go and be inspected as a hotel or. An apartment building. Again, there's a lot of confusion, in my opinion. Very best that unless. You know, the only way to have short term rentals. In apartment buildings is if they're converted, if they're zoned and permitted to operate as a hotel, because basically. I don't know any landlords that are living in there. Thank you, sir. Okay. Hi. My gosh, that number thing is really intimidating. My name is Natalie Barnes. I'm the proud owner of a home in Long Beach, and my home is a duplex and it resides in District three. I have been hosting vacation rentals and more recently Airbnb Rentals for the last eight years. I'd like to present a little bit more positive glimpse of what a host goes through. While many of the visitors may come from outside of our community, they come here for the community. The guests that I've had have been visiting nurses that take care of our community in our hospitals. They have been project managers that have built things for our community, and they have even been people that have come here because they want to eventually transition and live here and become a part of our community as a whole. There's another part of that which are. The people within our community. That are looking for places to stay. And I hope that you'll consider all of this when you consider what you're voting for. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. Good evening. My name is Marianne Gleason and I'm in District three. I'm on the peninsula. I've lived there for 16 years and I have a duplex. I've started short term rentals because of my elderly parents come out from the East Coast for about three months. They're snowbirds and they come up for the winter. So the balance of the months, I thought, Oh, it'd be nice to rent out, since it's hard for me to rent out full term lease, a full year lease. Anyways, I take pride in I'm on a very visible area on the peninsula, I'm on the boardwalk and pretty much everyone knows what I'm doing because I see people there, new people and and they really like to see the new people and the new wherever they're from, the countries. And I really I've had no zero problems. I have parking. I'm I'm upstairs. I'm very village vigilant about parties and, you know, no weddings. No, there's no that it's very, very restrictive. I know that some of the people that came up here this evening. On Peninsula are obviously against it. One person there's one person I think is the only person that is having a problem. There's there's one short term rental. So I would like to probably maybe help with that person to oversee. And I'll do my best to, you know, help whatever I can do to make sure that there's not a problem. And I approve of option two. Thank you. Thank you. Long night, huh? My name is Zach Kaczynski. I'm a resident of the fifth District and also an on income property in the third. I've emailed all of you my word. So I'm going to just stick to my main objection here and my proposed solution. Short term rentals are to be held to the same standards for noise ordinance rules as long term rentals. However, all three options proposed hold STR landlords directly liable for tenant violations based solely on the length of tenancy beyond the costly logistical hurdles involved with enforcement, the shoulders of the landlord with culpability for violations they themselves did not commit. And this is wrong. Landlords should not be required to maintain an asinine 24 hour complaint complaint hotline. We already have a hotline in place and that's in the form of the Long Beach Police Department. Transient occupancy tax revenue should be prioritized to ensure that the PD is adequately staffed with patrol cars, operators and dispatchers to handle any influx in disturbance calls with a focus on patrolling areas with higher densities of rentals. This is fair, it makes sense, and it's funded directly by the STR tenants themselves through tort revenue without creating a bloated, unnecessary licensing, registration and enforcement system. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Hello. My name is Daniel Jimenez, and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local 11. I'm here to urge you to consider the serious impact short term rentals have on the region. I have seen the effects short term rentals have on the housing market and economic development. The time is now for Long Beach and other cities to adopt an ordinance that is a true reflection of what the region needs as we face the biggest housing crisis of our lives. Other cities, such as Santa monica, consider the grave impacts short term rentals have on their housing, stock and hotel industries and incorporated this understanding into their ordinance. The City Council of Long Beach has the responsibility to do the same. I urge you to take a strong action to protect the future of the families in the area. You have the opportunity to be a leader in the nation and you should take it. Thank you. Hello. My name is Pedro alone. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I have been living in Long Beach for around almost three years. I live in many places in the United States. I currently will be able to leave behind my corporate job to begin managing property here in the Philippines. And one thing that I would like to mention to properly address one of the recent comments of the diff. Limiting the number for rental in the long term industry will definitely affect the rental market, but in a negative way because a lot of millennials like me will not be buying property if in a place where they are limited. I myself have been thinking about buying a full plate and if that is limited in number for rent of that, I can have, I will look for what else I will buy, for what I will now buy here. And a lot of people will do the same thing. But I love Long Beach and I think that you guys would probably look at this in a very fair way for everybody that will work in a way that everybody would be happy at the end. I, I forgive the probably the best option would be number one, even though I think the total is a little too high because we are not hotels and. One of the things that I wanted to mention is that the. That we do not support the platform liability. And I think the option it too is way too confusing for a lot of people and does not address all the issues that you want to address. Thank you. Good evening, counsel. Michael O'Toole and I represent Naples Islanders there. Homeowner's Association President. I think these are some amazing stories. First of all, I've never been in a room like this with this many. Owners of or. Workers with the BMB. It's beautiful, the nice stories, but what I think we're getting caught up in a little bit is forgetting it's not just hosts. They're also renting out complete houses. And I think that's a little bit more of a concern. Down in Naples Island, it's a community. It was it was built in 1905. It's a bedroom community. It's got a school right in the middle of it. It's got family houses, single family houses throughout. And by entering into the VRBO world, renting out entire house, it really changes the community. It changes the makeup of it, it changes the traffic pattern, it changes the parking. It's a little bit different. If a host is there, they can control what's going on in the House. They can control what their neighborhood is like. They control what the how all the neighborhoods get along and how they park and where they park and how they go about their business in that neighborhood. When you start adding homes that don't have any of that control, it gets a little bit tougher. So I think the Airbnb concept is beautiful and you've heard a thousand stories tonight that make that that make a good argument for that. But let's not forget, and you seem to be forgetting this VR part, where they rent out an entire house and a bedroom community changes that community tremendously. So along with the beautiful stories, let's think about the big houses, too. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Johanna Cunningham and I'm founder and CEO for the National Short Term Rental in India. This industry is certainly growing, as we've heard, and we want to make sure that we were that we're exploring all of the different options. I have three issues that I'd like to speak to tonight. Number one is the transient occupancy tax. Short term rentals don't even come close to offering what hotels offer. Businesses and families use short term rentals as a way to be able to come to cities that they would be unable to afford in any other way spas, restaurants , workout rooms, events, sites, pools, parking. None of those are usually offered in short term rentals, but they are in hotels. The families are able to afford the opportunity to travel without the high prices that hotels charge. It is a different experience. However, short term rentals provide the city of Long Beach more tourist dollars. They're able to to experience and attend stores. They're able to go to restaurants, and they're supporting the viability of the job market so small and mid-sized business owners are able to thrive. The second is the annual business license requirement. Owners are already paying property tax as it is a private residence. Owners are trying to do what they can to supplement their income, and we don't want to cross over into private property rights. The last is a multifamily. Thank you. And we want to make sure that thank you at least do in part something to support this industry. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. John Dilatory, resident of the eighth where I have my home sharing within my house, and then also a property in the second and third district. Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to share with you an exciting opportunity that has been what an exciting opportunity has been to host people in my home. We have had people from every corner of the world and have taken every chance to share our passion for Long Beach. Many foreigner foreign guests do the usual. They go to the West Coast vacation of San Francisco, L.A., Anaheim, Las Vegas and maybe San Diego. Many of them have no idea what to do in Long Beach, and we take that opportunity to offer them and steer them to all parts of Long Beach, Pine Avenue and ST Sinners in the first Retro Row and the Socialists in the second, second street and open sesame in the third. Most goes on and on through each of the districts that we know and we share with these people and send them to the two main concerns found by the Wise Consultant Group where housing stock and noise parties. They also found that only 0.75% of the housing stock are stars, and many are like me with a room in their home that would not be available as housing stock if things were to change. So housing stock should not be a concern. As for noise parties, we have a noise ordinance in place that is taken care of by our police department. I feel a modified combination of option one or two, which I shared via email to each of you would be the best compromise for on page three. Table one Summary in Overview and Requirements. Thank you so much. Thank you. When I was just like, Oh, no, you stay. This number is my dear mother. Good evening to each one of you. My name is Maria motta. It's like going out on your local onsen. And with the Unite here Local 11. I will not be portraying the news. I've lived in Long Beach for 30 years. Asylum manager, the apartment. Those poor waitress iguanas. The one I had a dream day. Those apartments. And I managed 32 apartments. But also, Susana says that YOLO reckless regulation is a long beach. For all these years, I've followed all the laws of Long Beach. Like. No. Greylock is whose stock I ought to be. You're not. The link is that regulation is with you. So I don't think it's fair that I have to follow all the rules and others don't. Grace. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Dave Shukla, resident of the third. I'd like to thank the staff for their work on the short term rental ordinance and to support their recommendation for option two with specific modifications for Long Beach. We've heard a lot this evening about community character specifically. A couple speakers ago, Maples Island. There's a perverse incentive if you don't have for all these folks who want to make ends meet and rent out their homes to have. Owners not on site and multiple properties and often entire multi-family residential buildings rented out as a workaround to just renting them out as hotels or other short term rental options that actually do pay the transit oriented tax. Transit the total. Limiting the rentals to the primary residence, as well as including platform accountability, the ability to actually get the data from Airbnb over who's abusing the system and putting the onus on them to provide enforcement rather than the city. Having to chase stories or chase police reports is probably a much more effective option. Thank you. Thank you. You folks. My name is Nathan Gordon with the local 11. Quick story. A few years ago, I was able to rent an apartment in this building on Broadway in Linden. It's called the Old Broadland Hotel, built in 1902. It was converted to apartments. Back then, the rent was $700. A few years later, when I returned to the country in 2015, it was 1400 dollars. Now this same building is list all pretty much all the units on Airbnb for 99 tonight. That's almost 2000 dollars for each unit you could make. What motivation does he have to rent it out to locals when he can just make all his money on Airbnb? Anyway. My point is that the Council should direct staff to draft an ordinance which includes platform accountability and primary residency posting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hi. My name's Danielle Wilson. I'm here with the Unite Here Local 11. I've seen short term rentals decimate the housing stock in L.A. and other California cities where we are in a housing crisis. I've seen entire apartment buildings and multifamily buildings, like the gentleman said earlier, turned into de facto hotels in Los Angeles, Venice, Santa monica and here in Long Beach. Most notably about this phenomenon is the fact that it is already illegal. So I say that to say that the proliferation of stars in this way is largely a problem of enforcement, for one, and an inaccurate portrayal of the majority of our host to address enforcement. The city of Santa monica, where over 60% of illegal units have been taken off the market, has recognized how challenging it is for cities to ensure that short term rentals are regulated in a way that actually protects our housing and our neighborhoods. This is known as platform accountability, where the burden of enforcement is on the platforms, not on staff who are already inundated with complaints and other code enforcement issues. For every listing found on the platform's website that is not registered with the city, the platforms should be required to pay a fine for one. The platform should also be required to share data with the city because, like Santa monica and other cities have found, it is very difficult to get the platforms to comply when the city is trying to investigate, investigate a complaint. And as the majority of stars in the city of Long Beach are on hosted, this is the case all over the place. If you want to run out your bedroom, we're fine with that. But if you want to take a valuable housing unit off the market, that is irresponsible and the city should not come forward tonight if that's going to be the case. Thank you. Excuse me 1/2. Now, the young lady up here disabled, she will be speaking now. I'm Maureen Po. And I would just want to have you think about what it's like to live next to an Airbnb. We had the very sad experience with one that was across the street from us, and there would be people coming in for maybe two days at a time or maybe a week, but they would always be different people and there didn't seem to be any control over having late parties. After 10:00 at night, the night the noise was still going on, there'd be young women and men together out in front. And it was a constant noise and worry because when you get home, you didn't know where you could park. My husband and I are both handicapped and we need to be able to park close to getting into our house. And you couldn't do that. I really hope that you would think about option three, that that would have more restrictions. I know that we were told that an area could be actually cut out and left without having that rental. So please think about that for us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Yes, hello. My name is Al Farmer. I'm here with my union Unite Here, Local 11. I'd just like to echo what that last speaker said in terms of having carve out areas. Maybe instead, the city should consider exempting everywhere and letting communities opt in to having short term rentals in their in their neighborhoods before actually allowing these party houses and commercial businesses to take over whole apartment buildings. So obviously, owners who who make money on Airbnb do not want to be regulated. They they live in a current state where they they are not being heavily regulated by the city. They don't want any regulation. Airbnb obviously does not want any regulation because it is a corporate middleman. It is not here to benefit the community of Long Beach. It is not here to benefit the people who clean those places or the people who stay in them. And the benefit it gives to the people who rent them out isn't actually Airbnb's intention. Their intention is to make profit off of those folks, and to some extent they're being taken advantage of because they're harming their city by reducing the housing stock. That is why we need platform accountability to keep track of what is going on on places like Airbnb and VRBO. And it is why this council needs to include those things in in this short term rental rental regulation legislation, or it needs to hold this vote until these issues can be more properly studied. If you have 1% of half, half or 1% on Airbnb and you only have a 3% vacancy rate, that's, you know, 40% of your available housing. Thank you. Hi. I'm Jonah Breslau. I'm also here at Unite here Local 11. And, you know, one of the things that's really stuck out to me is that a lot of the folks speaking are homeowners. And that's. Wonderful. But this is a city of renters. And I myself am a renter. And I think that as the last speaker mentioned. One of the things that's really important is the housing market. There is a housing crisis going on. And when you have a 3% vacancy. Rate, it is very serious to have more than a thousand units off the market. So again, I just want to say that we need a legislation that we can actually enforce to make sure that there's affordable housing. We need primary residence requirements to make sure that people are actually using this as home sharing and not to run hotels out of their homes. And we need platform accountability so that it's possible to actually enforce this ordinance. I mean, I'm just listening to this 25% rule. How would someone even file a complaint about whether or not more than 25% of the units in their building are being used for Airbnb? That seems very complicated to determine if that's being violated. But the primary residence requirement is simple. It's clear it's enforceable, especially if you have the platform accountability provision. So if those can't be put into this, I think that the, you know, city council should thank you, sign and hear from more renters and neighbors of these Airbnb properties . Thank you. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jordan. I'm with you. Not here. Local 11. One of the great things about Long Beach has always been its affordability and accessibility to all residents. However, with the housing crisis that it hit all of Southern California, it's vital that we pass a real short. Term rental regulation. Given the shortage of housing, in particular affordable housing. We don't need short term rentals taking long term housing off the market, housing that can go to long term residents. In my opinion, long term residents are not long term problems, as was said earlier by one of the speakers there. Long there are Long Beach residents that create long term community hosts should be limited to one unit so that we don't take more units off the market and we need platform accountabilities that this law can actually be enforced. If you're not ready to include these sensible solutions, I believe you should postpones that. You have time to really look more into these issues with care. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Christine Miller. I'm a former. Hotel worker and organizer. With Local. 11. I urge the council to pass an ordinance that holds short term rentals accountable to the city, regulates their usage, and requires sufficient. Community benefits through proper oversight. Of the crucial TOT. The City of Long Beach has the opportunity. To create strong and thorough legislation that protects. Our quality of life while creating a much needed and potentially robust source of revenue for the city. I believe this legislation should include a host be limited to one unit that is their primary residence so that we don't see the proliferation of unregulated hotels. I think it. Is also crucial. To include platform accountability. If you are not prepared to include these items tonight, we strongly encourage you to postpone the vote because we believe you really need enough time to look into these matters thoroughly and with care. I urge you to take this responsibility seriously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next. Well, I am I live in the fifth District. And I just one of the things is, is that, um, what if basically everybody's covered all these points that I wanted to make and I do host Airbnb and I just wanted to remind that that we do bring money in because like you said, that that $10,000 that comes in, that money is, is been is, is very spent back into the community. So that we do have that. Sorry. But we do have the ability to invest in our community and we also invest in our houses we invest in and we spend the money to do other things. So the other thing I wanted to just to reiterate was that, you know, the people who come to stay at my house, they're doing things locally. They go to Cal State, Long Beach for conferences or they have to do things around around my neighborhood. So and those people need to have the housing so that they can have something that's affordable to them, because most of the time they're not working for corporations who are sending them on a business trip. They're doing it for themselves and they need to find ways to save money. So thank you. Good evening, Hawkeye Rivero with Libra. I'm just struck by sort of like what we're actually. Talking about and then. Just just keeping in mind that the city is currently trying to tackle the homelessness crisis, which has to do with housing availability, and yet we're here considering actually taking units off the market. Does it make any sense to me how is the city going to tackle homelessness and still allow for non hosted units to be taken off the market? It almost seems like a contradiction, so I don't know how we're going to deal with that. And with the housing crisis as it is low vacancy rates and we don't have any tenant protections, we don't have any money for affordable housing development or any significant affordable housing development projects. How are we replacing the units that we're currently taking off the market? By allowing these stores that are non hosted when we're not, we don't have any plan in place to replace them. And yet we're in a housing crisis and we're we we're willing for these units to actually be taken away from long term renters. And do we not care about stability of our communities? Because studies have shown time after time that community stability is is integral in a healthy community, in a safer community, in a more economically viable community. And yet we have hosts here coming up saying that long term renters are no good, that they prefer short term renters. So basically saying we like unstable communities and that's what we're going to line our pockets with. And I think that that's something that you all need to consider. We need sensible regulations that keep the regulations to host it. Thank you, sir. And people's primary residence. Thank you. Good evening, councilmembers and Mayor. My name is Catherine Chappell. I'm an Airbnb super host in District six. I am in support of Option one as a best serves the range of hosts that are in this community and is the least restrictive. I ran one room in an owner occupied home. Currently, the money. I make from Airbnb is split between home improvement and funding a college education. Being an Airbnb host has increased the value of my home through these improvements. In addition, local businesses gain from customers through the recommendations that I make to guests far into the future. I like to imagine the potential for income that I could earn as an Airbnb host when I retire. And that actually might be the. Most important part for. Me is income that I could earn when I'm no. Longer getting a routine paycheck. I experience as a host a loud neighborhood. With barking dogs, fighting. Couples, dirty alleyways tied with graffiti. I'm doing my part to make my place as beautiful as I can and in it, and an inviting space that is a safe feeling as possible. I like having a short term rental. I've had a bad experience with long term rental. I'm talking teased on the front lawn and cops called twice, so I will never rent to somebody again. I like having a short term rental for that purpose, and I also like having a space available for a guest room ready for them to come into. Family comes to visit me all the time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. Good evening. My name is Kevin Yeager. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and a resident of District two. I'm here to urge the City Council to restrict staffers to only primary residences, no unhosted units. In previous city council meetings, when we've come here to ask for rent control or tenant protections, we've always had the conversation redirected towards housing supply. We don't need limits on rent increases or unjust evictions. We just need to build more housing. And while increasing our housing supply is not enough to address this current crisis, it's absolutely a start. And that's why we can't allow Unhosted Airbnb units to remove rental units from our already strained market. These Unhosted units would otherwise be rental units. Instead, they're operating as effectively illegal hotels. And there's really a discrepancy we're seeing where developers come in. They might build 500 units in downtown Long Beach with 3% in the affordable range. And then meanwhile, on the back end, we're allowing multi-unit buildings to give up to 25% of their rental stock to tourism. So this is just not a sustainable model for our rental supply. We need to resist this commodification of our community and put regulations in place to protect what little rental stock we have. Thank you. My name is Gerald Anderson and I am a resident of Naples. We have each have a copy of the petition that a group of us circulated in Naples. And in circulating it, we, we talked to the people who live next door to and in this disease as these stars and the people who are nearby, those at least in Naples, really feel strongly against against this this practice. So we we were able to get over a thousand signatures so far, and we were still getting more from. And that represents about 800 over 850 residences at different addresses in Naples. So we I urge you to accept, accept, pass. Option three and also option R petition did not designate and hosted. Reynolds Only it was was just general that we want the practice of stars stopped in Naples. So I think you should cover those and you should also consider covering other things by petition. I think that's a very good practice. So I urge you to accept our petition and. To thank you. Sir. Option three. Okay. Holly and Anderson seven reveal also Canal Naples. We respectfully urge you to support the Naples position petition are only over 1000 signatures. To prohibit short term rentals in Naples. We are zoned in R.A. one for a reason. We are exactly three feet away from each other in that small community. We have no backyards, we have postage stamp front yards, and trust me, our houses back up to each other. If we have our kitchen doors open together, the neighbor and us have our living room doors open. You can hear everything. Our bedroom, our master bedroom looks right down on their deck. So our concern for a stranger is going in and out 8 to 10 strangers every two or three days because of safety and security concerns. There is also a liability for the city from from the water. Our homes are actually 12 to 15 feet from the water and the seawalls. There are a mere 18 inches for small children to climb up on the seawall and to go over into the water. Renters would be more careless with that. We bought our houses to live in many years ago as a family community. And most people we think if there were thank you, thank you must not buy a house next to a commercial enterprise like the many hotels. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Leaving councilmembers. Mr. Mayor, Victor Sanchez of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. We really want to kind of try and bring this home. This is this is about the housing crisis. And we're talking about short term rentals. They play a part in the housing crisis. And so what we're trying to advocate for is none of the options. Actually, it's an alternative option, one that focuses on platform accountability and primary residence as a requirement. The on the accountability piece, look, they will cut you a check for Toyota. You will get them needed revenue to fund vital city services and to continue right in that respect. But on the enforcement mechanism, you can create a registry, but without the necessary provisions in an ordinance to mandate that the platforms themselves share the data and the information so that you can cross-reference and actually hold the platforms accountable for the unregistered or unlicensed bookings that are potentially on there. You're going to be spending a lot of money on the back end as a city to try and recoup that later down the road. On the primary residence situation. Look, there's a fine line between speculation and supplemental income. And what we're trying to avoid here is for folks who own multiple homes to take away long term resident units that would otherwise go to long term resident families. And we can go and say that, oh, it's a small part of the housing stock. It's less than 1%. But in the housing crisis where you have such a low vacancy rate, right, every unit matters. And so we're imploring you to really pay attention to those two things as you decide and continue having this conversation. Thank you. Just 1/2 and we're going to close the speakers list if there's a last person speaking. Anyone else? Okay. We're closing right there. The young man with the loudspeaker. Thank you. You can come up, sir. Hi. Good evening. My name is a. Shy and I am a super host with Airbnb. I live in District six. I have a little bit of stage fright, so bear with me. I own two units in District six. I do whole home rentals. I don't do a shared bedroom. I don't do any of that stuff. And that's because among Airbnb hosts, we're all different. I mean, everybody has different needs. I could go out and say, Hey, I want some income property. And let's buy some long term rentals. Well, the thing is, you have bad long term rentals, just as you have bad short term rentals. But the problem here is that I think a lot of people are coming up to date that have had bad experiences with short term rentals, and they're trying to make that the norm. That's not my experience. I have adequate parking for all my guests. I've been a host for three years. I don't have any noise complaints. I manage my property very well. Now I'm an option. I'm in favor of. Option one just because people should be allowed to do what they want. I feel to the. Major degree, with a hard home when I travel, I have a need for short term rentals. If I move with my family of seven for a one week stay in some city, I can go to a hotel for that, you know, drinks of time. Neither can I do a long term rental. A short term rental. That's what I need this it need for that and we just need to regulate it. Well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That's good evening. My name is Tamara Swagger. I'm a resident of District seven. My husband and I moved to Long Beach from SEAL Beach four years ago. We bought a seven bedroom, seven bath fixer upper that had been bank owned for about 11 years. And we've spent the last four years remodeling it. Two of the rooms in our home are operated as Airbnb units are both Airbnb plus we are in our home full time. My husband has a full time job, as do I. We also have two long term rentals that we will keep long term rentals. We have no intention of converting them to short term. We have found it to be a really positive experience for both my husband, myself and my son, who is ten. And since we moved to Long Beach, we have a daughter who's two. Some of our guests, you've heard a lot of people tonight talk about they have had traveling nurses, people who are tourists. We had the opportunity to host two people who were negotiating their leases to become tenants at Steele Craft, which is a development in Bixby Knolls. And and since then, both have purchased homes in the Long Beach area. I am a strong supporter of the sharing economy. I do think that it self regulates, whether it's Airbnb or Turo or Lyft or Uber, and I think that regulation is good and something that should be considered and enforced because it legitimizes the platform in my opinion. I think that the study that was done was thorough and I would urge you to move forward with the recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker. Hello. My name is Sam Grippo from Belmont Shores. First, I like to say that thank you for doing the workshops. It was much appreciated and I support Option one and the only thing I don't believe in is the putting in the liability platform there. Second is, I believe in short term rentals and long term rentals. And as far as long term rentals, I live where I live and I have some long term, Reynolds said, that are pretty much partying all the time and there's nothing I can do about it. I don't even have a 24 hour calling number for long term rentals, and I think that should be an issue to who. If you're going to do it to short term rentals, you should provide it for long term rentals to now and. The thing I have is that I am I believe in the economy. I believe in free market. Now, what would be great if we can just make sure that everything is fair and that we make sure that people understand that people own their properties, they have the right to do what they can do with it, but not to make it so terrible that you have to use option three where people are just not able to do anything. And this is great for the economy. This is great for Long Beach sales tax. t0t it just brings a great economic situation for Long Beach. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councilwoman Mango. Actually, now I'm sorry. Please come forward. It's a. No, I have two more speakers. I'm sorry about that. Please go ahead. Yeah, well, good evening. There's more speakers. My name is Nerida, and I am a super worker and a super resident. Uh oh. Oh, sorry. It's been a long night. I've been at work here. Anyways, as a worker and as a resident of this city, I strongly encourage Long Beach City Council to do the right thing in order to ensure for us to work and live in Long Beach. We need a we need to continue with an ordinance for short term rental that will not threaten our ability to do so. It is your job as elected officials to protect our jobs by continuing to encourage the economic development of Long Beach Union Hotels. Allowing short term rental platforms to enter our city without any regulations would seriously harm our jobs and our industry. Thus, Long Beach City Council must follow the footsteps of Santa monica and approve that ordinance that hold short term rental platforms accountable in our community. Our community is not burdened. Some longshoreman long term rentals are not burdened. Some residents are not burdened. Some we are Long Beach. We are community this. We are what makes Long Beach great. And if we don't have that, where where are we to live? You know, I just strongly encourage Long Beach City Council to do the right thing tonight. Please. Hello. My name is Mauricio, and this is my daughter, Aubrey. I'm a minimum wage worker. I take her to school in the morning. I go to work and I get out of work. I pick her up and then we go to my second job. I work all day from eight in the morning till 11 at night. So she's there with me at work and work. And I just barely make the the train, which is 1500 here in downtown Long Beach. And just two weeks ago, two weeks ago. The businesses that I work with worked for, they shut down so I don't have a job anymore. And Airbnb has helped me pay the rent and now I can spend time with her. She's improving reading at her school. I read to her every day her ABCs, her numbers and everything. Airbnb has gave me a second chance to pay my bills, the rent, and spend more time with her. So all we ask from you is help. And we're good citizens. We pay taxes. And her name is Aubrey, and I'm a single parent. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for coming to. Let me go ahead and sorry. It's not Councilwoman Mongeau. There is a motion in a second on the floor. So let me and I know there's going to be. I just hope people also can just bear with us here. There's questions and there's I know the staff has got I know a lot of information as well. So want to make sure I've got the chance to to do that. Before we begin comes when Councilor Pierce, I got a note from staff that you wanted to clarify something in the staff report just to make it clear. Yes. First of all, that was a lot of great input, and I'm sure that'll be a part of the discussion at the council dais. But two things that I did want to point out for the audience that was not quite clear in the staff report. The first is option one versus option two is there are some differences and we went through those. But if you're a host who is living in your unit, there is no difference between option one and option two. So if you if the council wants to ask more questions about that, we can certainly get into that. But I did want to point that out. We heard a lot of people who live in their homes who are renting it out. There is no difference between option one and option to for them. The second is we heard a lot of input about the TOTY, about what the level of the TOTTY should be, whether we should exempt short term rentals when it should be higher or lower. I just wanted to point out that the city council, this body does not have the ability to exempt anyone from the TOTY. They can't increase the vote, they can't lower the totty that's set by the voters at 12%, and it would apply to short term rentals and could only be changed by the voters. And so with that, we're prepared to answer questions. Thank you. Let me turn this over to Councilor Pearce. Okay. Well, thank you. All of you. Plus, I think public comments that we had and I know that our staff has done a great job of listening and taking an input for the last year. And so I just want to thank everybody for going along this process with us. So I wanna remind us at the beginning of this process actually was not in the housing report. It was when this item was agenda was by the council. And the item is agenda is by the council to really try to tackle two things. One is to understand the impact of units on our housing stock, given that we are about 4% housing vacancy and to create a revenue stream to support protecting affordable housing. Two was to regulate home share short term rentals in a way that enriches the lives, invites alternative modes of tourism or regulating the quality of life, and providing for a revenue stream to monitor as towers, which we currently do not have. And so I want to recognize those that open up their homes are adding to the fabric of this community. I want to recognize those that are struggling to pay their rent are also adding to the fabric of this community. And so this item, listening to the public comments and I. There are so many people that said option one, two and three. And there are things that I agree with all of them. And so I really have spent the last couple of weeks since we've had the staff report out really trying to dissect, not just looking at the staff report as one, two and three, but as a policymaker. I spent a, you know, a decade at a nonprofit that did policy work, really trying to take it seriously and craft a policy that that will be good for Long Beach overall. So, no, no, that going into this that this is a very complex policy and it's not done willy nilly. And so with that comment, you know, there are a lot of questions that we have about the staff report. There are several opportunities where we do not have a lot of information yet. And so I think it's important that today that our council give some direction as to what we'd like to see in the short term rental world, but also give us some opportunities to hear back from staff and in some of these situations. So I'm going to go through all of them, but I just wanted to kind of put the context that I don't expect us to, by the end of today, have an ordinance that we are all 100% on board with, that the city attorneys on board with that staff is on board with because this is a really complex issue. And it is the first time that we as a council have heard this issue as a body. So typically we might have a study session ahead of time and then give some direction to staff to come back. And so bear with us with the process knowing that that hasn't quite happened yet. And this is our first time as a body talking about this in over a year. So with that, I wanted to make a couple comments from the data that was shared. Things that stuck out for me were that 84% of the sharing or people sharing an entire listing, that the average age is 44 people, you know, in their careers, maybe career changing, trying to supplement the majority. Almost 60% of them are women who are. As we know, women are often paid less and are still struggling to equal that same amount going down. See, I have several notes I'm trying to be mindful of. I'm going to start at the beginning. And if you look at the staff report, they have divided it up into several sections. And so I'm going to ask some questions of staff and then hear from my council colleagues and go from there with the. House parties. I know that there is a muni code chapter out there. Can staff just clarify for us what's happening in the city versus what we're trying to say in this staff report around short term rentals and where we might rectify that in the future? Currently. Any residential use or any other use that creates a noise that is in excess of what the noise ordinance allows. It can be investigated, incited if they are found to be in violation. I think what we were looking for here is based upon the feedback that we heard through our community outreach efforts, is that short term rentals in particular sometimes created noise impacts that may necessarily be over and above what you might experience in a regular residential neighborhood setting. So we wanted to put into place some protections that put a little bit more regulation around the short term rentals, because we did have the concern about making sure we protect the character of the residential area and minimize any potential impacts. And so the noise issue that we laid in place was in addition to making sure that the renters or the guests would be made aware of all of the regulations around the rental of the unit, including the noise issue. And the other consideration regarding noise was just the number of persons that were in the unit. So in addition to restricting the number of occupants in the unit, the intent was to just make sure that activities were not occurring during the rental of the property that might result in excessive noise. So that's that's the gist of how we came up with the regulations. Okay. And then the limiting to ten people per household was a number that we based off of just wanting to lower the amount of people for noise or is there specific reason. It was noise was one of the factors there. But the other factor is generally the fact that you we wanted to make sure that the size of the unit was or the number of bedrooms in the space in the unit was commensurate with the number of people that were residing in them. So it's a I would say broadly, it's just kind of a safety issue that you don't want to have an overcrowded unit that we think contributes to deterioration of the unit and other negative impacts to the unit as well. Okay. It's Mike. In parking. And. Parking. And I know that we talked about parking earlier and the parking is not something that we feel we can regulate because of the land use. Correct. So that is not something that that staff is recommending. I'm trying to get the the light easy things out of the way before we talk about the big thing. So bear with me so I can do this slowly. For house parties, what I would like to see if council is open to is having staff come back where we address the existing policy and look at something simple, like having the number of special permits for big events. So that we're not saying you're not allowed to host anything. So like I'm staying in a short term rental over Christmas, I'm having a Christmas party. I need to go get a permit for that instead of banning it completely. And that we can talk as a council about what we think is a reasonable number for that. For. Just to go back up to the top. So on option two. So if I based off of option two, I support option two. And I know that there's some things that are that are challenging with it. And so one of the the things that stuck out to me was the number of units being up to six stars or 25% of a total unit. And so walk us through what that looks like for, I mean, my district, the majority of the units say their ten unit buildings. And then I have on down in downtown, I have a 400 building unit. So one of the options we discussed was making it 10% across the board for any unit and not having a specific number like six. That's something that we can do that staff would recommend moving forward with. I'm sorry. We would actually like to recommend a sliding scale. So. That under 50 it would be 25%. With a max of six. Units, a development with 51 to 115% or a max of eight and then plus 10%. With a max of ten. Mm. Okay. I want to hear what my council colleagues have to say just on that. I talked to staff, I talked to the city attorney. I talked to Tom a little bit today. And so I think what is more comfortable for me versus this kind of piecemeal. Up to two stars or three if this in 25 year six there is that we would get to a place where we would say 1% of our housing stock across the board and that if we had 10% of every unit that way, we're not having units that have six or only have two whenever they actually might have a bigger capacity. So one of my challenges is my downtown residence. There is a very large percent of my downtown residents that live here half the time and live in Florida half the time. And so I don't want to limit the number in those areas where they have a bigger capacity for them versus a lower income building that I might have closer to the Alamitos Beach area. And so this, folks, is why this is challenging today, because we are literally this is a massive policy. And so I want to not ask for you guys to vote for those things today, but give us some direction. If those are our requests, come back with how we would implement those. Because I know that this is going to be too much for council colleagues to really dissect each little piece. So does that make sense? I mean, I think we might be able to dissect. Okay, but let's try it. I'm getting some very eyebrows. So I just wanted to make sure. I think I just want to make sure. I just want to make sure. Just to clarify, I mean, maybe we can do that. You wanted the clarification at the end. Clarify. I think the 1% issue makes sense to most folks. I think. That of the sliding or. Changing a sliding scale to a percentage, which does not have very much. Practical, immediate effect. I don't think what we currently have is Mr. Motor. So as we understand, those are two related but a little bit different issues. So as we understand there's a concept of saying we would put an ultimate limit on the number of stores in the city at 1% of the housing stock. That would be to prevent owed, you know, too many conversions over time that this becomes kind of a runaway ordinance and you start going to two to 3 to 4%. So that's one issue. Staff would be very supportive of that. We can bring that back as part of the of the ordinance. The other is the issue of and I think it was appropriately brought up that there are some small buildings, but then there's also some very large buildings. And so we could do a sliding scale, as was mentioned by by Lisa, to try to to equitably distribute among those larger buildings that, you know, a larger building could have a little bit more without having as much impact. It could be 10% across the board. That really is a policy issue from the council. We recommended the 25% or six, whichever is lower. It could be 25 or six, whichever is higher, it could be 10% or a sliding scale. So we're looking for some direction on that. And you could bring those options back also. But I, I, I understand what the councilman saying there. We could ideally what we would like to do is get some direction tonight on some basic framework for the street and come back with an ordinance. We can also you can also ask us to maybe pick one, come back in the ordinance, and then we could also come back with options, you know, you know, just to talk about it. But rather than we're trying to avoid bringing back three or four different ordinances, we'd want to bring back one ordinance. But if you want us to research aspects, we can do that too. Yeah, there's just so many options here that I want to make sure that we as a council, all of us, I know that I've been paying close attention to this, but that we all are understanding the impacts of it when we see. 10%, 1% safety and liability. 10%. So on enforcement. One of the conversations that I've had both with the platform Airbnb and note, that's the only platform that's reached out or engaged with us at all. And that I've had with some other folks is the idea of a third party verification. And so I know when we talked about how we would verify and what that process looks like, there's still a lot of questions that staff has. So this again, is another piece of this that I feel like is not fleshed out and ready for primetime, per se. So I would like to ask that staff take the next hundred and 20 days or sooner if they can get it done sooner to meet with at least three platforms. And a third party like Vertu fi group. There's other groups out there to talk about how we can make sure that the is getting the information that we need. Not too much information. Not information that's going to result with a lawsuit, but basic information that's going to allow us to regulate this industry and collect the right amount of top end and fees that are required. So that was one piece out of this that I didn't feel really comfortable with. And I don't necessarily think that we have to go down the same path that other cities have gone. If we have an opportunity now to go with one of these newer routes. On the fines. I know that that staff had made some recommendation on fines. One of the things that was brought up, I think, if we're talking about a lot of these hosts are people that live in their buildings. The outreach for this, you know, I'm not really clear on how how thorough that's going to be. So one of the options I wanted to propose to my council colleagues was that the first instance actually be a warning instead of a $500 fine and that they have 30 days to register and apply for a business license, that the second violation be $1,000, the next violation would be 15, and the third violation would be 2000 and the registration would be revoked. Following with the the remaining recommendations that staff has on that process. But really, the main thing is that that first one is not a fine, but it's a fix, that warning. So just for clarification, it would go from a three fine to a four fine. You get one warning, then it would go to 1000 for the first warnings that your first fine. Second fine would be 1500 third fine would be 2000. Okay. I'm sorry. On the ACR registration, I know that one of the biggest challenges is making sure that it is a simple process and that hosts are actually going on and registering. So I know that staff has not made some recommendations that costs would be that that is our cost recovery fee and I wanted to go on record was saying I think it should be as low as a fee as possible so we can make sure we get more people registering on the platform than not and that that process be a simplified process. Someone just go on record with that and hope that when this item comes back that you guys have fleshed out what those numbers look like and what we can actually do. I know, tier two we address. That's one of the things we talked about with Toti and it was brought up in the audience today is that hotels get a benefit whenever they pay into Toti, they get advertising. And so I know staff will work closely with Steve Goodling and with our tourism, our CVB board to say that on the same website that says here we have, you know, the Hyatt and the Westin, that there's a platform link that says here's an Airbnb or whatever other links there. So the hosts feel like they're getting something for their investment. And I do want to point out that the Convention Visitors Bureau is really seeing a change in the convention business in the last couple of years. So there is conventions that really their members want to do short term rentals instead of stay in hotels. So, you know, the convention center is is embracing that. There are people who like hotels, there's people who like stars. And so they're really embracing that whoever wants to stay because they're all coming to Long Beach to spend money. So they would certainly embrace that. Well, and that's you know, I think that that is the hard part of the discussion today. And so I just want to address that because I haven't addressed it yet. I know that, you know, the hotel workers are seeing this as a as a challenge and that there's one is affordability. One is the challenge with the hotels. And I mean, I'm somebody that travels a lot. There's many times I want to stay in a hotel and there are times I want to stay in a short term rental. You know, they offer different things. So hosting a Christmas dinner, that's my short term rental, not doing that at a hotel. And I know that our hotel and tourism market is strong. I feel comfortable that it is going to continue to thrive. We've got, you know, six projects in the works right now looking at downtown. And so I'm really, really trying to be mindful about creating a positive policy that is not going to overburden us with excess of staffers, but is going to be mindful of those homeowners that are already doing this project. So I want to be mindful of that. And just to to reference that. So to be clear, for next steps, I think, as I mentioned, that this isn't fully fleshed out, that that there's a lot of information that we do not have as a council. And so when you do come back, just making sure that we come back with the enforcement piece, that we have a staff report and recommendations from you guys on the registration fees and the business licenses. And so that was one other thing with the business licenses. I wanted to ask if there was a way for us to not require a business license for hosts that rent less than 30 days. And I think that our city attorney might have had some challenges with that. So if you could elaborate on that. Councilwoman Pierce. That's one of the things that we're looking at right now. Currently, the way the business license taxes is structured for these types of short term rentals, there's actually an exemption built in the tax. For. Fewer than four units. So we would have to look to see if we could even impose a business license tax for 1 to 3 units at this point because those taxes were adopted by a vote of the people. So that's one of the things we're looking at. It doesn't mean you couldn't charge fees necessarily, but it wouldn't be part of the business license tax. Okay. So that that goes back to my point of making sure that when this item comes back, the only way that I'm able to support having up to 1% short term rentals is that we're creating some fees and some funding that has a nexus tied to affordable housing. So if this comes back and the staff report comes back and says, we can't do fees, we can't do these registration, then I'm going to I'm going to be in a challenging spot. So I just wanted to make sure that that was really clear. So I hope that we can find some avenue to support our affordable housing. So in the report, you guys talk about inclusionary housing. And I know right now we've just brought on our our consultant. They're out doing community engagement around inclusionary housing. Can you talk about one more time what the the nexus in between regulating our short term rentals and affordable housing might be? We know that there is some limited nexus and that's the purpose of doing the study so that we can more fully establish that relationship. We feel that the short term that there is some opportunity to create a a some level of funding for affordable housing. But we really will rely on a study to determine what that level should be. And that, of course, would be in conjunction with looking at the cost recovery to put in place the the staff efforts in the implementation of the program overall. So it would really be balancing the amount that is going to cost recovery. The amount that would be left over would be something that we could consider for affordable housing. We just need to have a study to determine what those amounts are. Okay. And when you do that study and look at those amounts, I know that we looked at inclusionary housing. I also would like to ask staff to maybe explore if there's some nexus with period to maintain existing housing so it doesn't get taken off the market. Just to make sure we're looking at any options in case the funding isn't a big enough number to have a real impact on on developing new housing. And I think I mentioned earlier that it's pretty clearly spelled out in the options that were laid out for you that no currently dedicated and covenanted affordable housing would be eligible for a short term rental. So none of those would be taken off the out of the interest. Yeah, I understand. So with that for the vote today, if we vote and we make some of these changes or give a little bit better direction to staff, and we haven't figured out that enforcement mechanism yet. What happens next? So just walk us through. We vote today. Everything that city staff will do. Well, essentially what we would start with is taking the items that come out of the council's motion and we would tackle them one by one. We do the fee assessment to determine what the registration fee for short term rentals, what an appropriate fee would be. And I literally your request about special events. We would work with the city attorney's office to determine what mechanism makes that practical or feasible. We did ask specifically that you give us direction. You said you're not sure what the number would be, but what we would do is just look at the feasibility of implementing something and you could later on determine what the number of days that would be appropriate. And again, we would literally go down your list of items or the items that come out of the council motion, and we would address them one by one. It may be that we don't come back directly with an ordinance. Maybe we provide a24 from or something that could elaborate and give some of the preliminary responses that we found and get further direction. So all of those are possible ways that we could address it and bring you back something that is really responsive to the council direction. That's great. So we wouldn't start collecting any totty or anything until this council gives a direction with an ordinance. That is correct. I just want to clarify that for for everybody. Well, actually, that's a little bit different than what the staff recommendation currently is. So we are asking for authorization to enter into the contract to start collecting those based on what is there today. So we had held off on that for a long time while we went through this policy process over a year and a half. We did put a small amount of money into the FOIA 19 budget, and so the staff recommendation tonight is to start collecting that total. We can certainly wait, but then that would have some financial impact. So I want to make that clear. Let me let me clarify one thing also, because I think it's important. So the council voted as a body to include revenues from Airbnb as we balanced the budget in this last cycle. And so I just want to make sure that one that we're aware that that is something that is being expected through the general fund at the same time. There I think there is there's interest, which I support, which I support. And having a discussion about how as the ordinance comes back, how and if we should be dedicating some of those funds and how those are dedicated. And so I think that's a conversation we should have and and I support. But mindful of the fact that we already made the decision to include some of those funds that are going to be coming in for other general fund purposes. So I just want. Yes, that's correct. Fire engines can't spend the money. We don't have it yet. So I think that, you know, in the very beginning, I wanted to make sure that we weren't collecting money before we regulated. And I had that very honest conversation with the platforms as well from the very beginning. I don't want to get us into not wanting to regulate too much because we've got some money already. I'm going to stop there. I think I've said a lot and I want to hear where the council colleagues are. But, you know, I think a fine balance in between protecting our rental market and ensuring that we are able to have a tie to that market is going to be key. So what's going to be important for me again, is really understanding the nexus with the affordable housing, where those funds could go and how we're going to use those. Thank you. Notes on Pearce before we move forward. I know you didn't phrase that necessarily in the form of a motion, although it's on the monitor. Was that meant to be a motion basically for staff to begin preparing an ordinance that we will bring back, that incorporate the items that you talked about and possibly more. With friendly amendments? I would honestly, because the way that this has been presented, it's been a little bit difficult to have a full conversation, I think. So I like the Linda Tatum's, you know, put an end to from for let us make sure that we have that data and then come back with an ordinance. So that would be be the process I would prefer. So I just want to I just want to caution us that let's I think actually, Councilwoman, that we are on our way pretty I think your comments were fine. And I think. They should they should a. Draft an ordinance. But I think we need to see some information before that ordinance comes back to us. And that's you know, that certainly can be expected. I just want to make sure that we are coming out of here with some direction about where we need to go. Yes. So, yes, I think so. I think then that. That helps out. So we read all the things you just said as your motion. So to adopt kind of the staff recommendations option to with the following changes that we talked about. And if I need to read them, I can read them for the for the body later. So we have those written down. So we would understand that to be a motion. Thank you. Okay. Well, let's keep going to. Prepare a draft ordinance and bring information. Back. And there's still might be conversations about the ordinance itself. Let's let's keep let's keep going. So we have a we have a base. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. May. And thank you to staff for your excellent presentation and the great work that you've put into this over the last over one year. I really appreciate the engagement. I appreciate the inclusion from every council district. And I want to thank my residents who have come out to community meetings, ones that I've hosted in ones that the city have hosted, who have provided petitions, who have provided us with comments and been very engaged in this topic. I'm very appreciative of that input. Personally, I do want to hear from my colleagues, but personally I'd like to move forward with an ordinance motion tonight, certainly something that we can tweak when it comes back for first reading. But I think that asking my I mean, I have residents here who've been here all night. It's late and expecting them to come back for a another meeting to, you know, talk about these issues a lot, again, is just really a lot to ask. So I'd like us to at least have some direction on where we're headed tonight. And I know Councilwoman Pierce has put a lot of work into this, and I appreciate her collaboration as well on this. I agree with all of her recommendations as to option two. And one of the things that she and I talked about and I know she didn't mention really tonight, but I want to highlight is I know I appreciate that that staff put them into different options for us because it was for the ease of discussion. But I think as you'll find, there will be things that we liked about one or the other that we want to mix around. So I don't I want to understand that the option to is not going to look much like your option. Once we're done with it tonight, probably. So one of the things so I have a couple of questions before I share some of my thoughts on this. In regards to the option three, which is really option two with the additional provision that it would allow communities, small sex sections or communities, however they're geographically defined, to be able to petition similar like we do with parking preferred preferential parking districts with two thirds vote to be able to limit the short term rentals in those communities. So my understanding is we cannot those communities, even with two thirds vote, could not prohibit hosted testers. Is that correct? That is correct. They would be prohibiting any unhosted short term rentals. Okay. And that's because we have access priorities with the coastal areas and things of that nature. That is correct. Okay. I will say I've heard from so many residents, both hosts, as well as residents who are neighbors to skiers. I don't I have not yet once seen an issue with a hosted short term rental where the resident, the owner is in the house and they're doing more of a home sharing type concept. That doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue in terms of quality of life impacts tends to be when the entire house or property is rented. Unhosted. And so that's the the issue that I think neighborhoods would want to try to mitigate if they could. The other question that I had is I want to hear staff's thoughts on the idea of requiring a business license if it's a hosted ACR and the homeowner or occupant is at the home during the rentals. Why would it be necessary for them to get a business license? I think what you heard us earlier just with the city attorney's response, is that we recognize that there is a something of a conflict now between our initial recommendation and realizing that currently long term rentals only require a business license if it's four or more. And we think that it's an appropriate fix to go back and just make them equal. So if it's anything less than three units, then I think we would certainly be exploring not having a business license as a requirement. And I think maybe something else to think about when you come back with that is I think there's a real difference between Unhosted and hosted in terms of the business license. So so what I'm saying is that if it's a hosted and the person's in the home and renting out a room in the home, why would they need to get a business license if they're using it as a vacation rental and, you know, exclusively renting it out, then it is more of a business operation than just sharing their home. So, Councilwoman Price, one reason that you might want to have them get a business license is for tracking purposes. Mm hmm. So that you can make sure that you're collecting the total for each of those. So the idea would be that they may get a business. We may require them to get a business license, but not charge the business license tax. For tracking purposes. I see. I see. So if there was a way to maybe call it a STR registration or something like that, as opposed to a business license that might be more appropriate. And I think that's what some other cities have done. We could look at that. Okay. Um, you know, so one of the things that I would like, I'm going to make a friendly to the motion and I've talked with Councilman Pearce about it. I would like neighborhoods to have the option to limit or ban Unhosted stickers if they get sufficient signatures. But I would like the staff recommendation when it comes back. So that would be option three to some degree, even though we're now modifying option two. So it's kind of a blank slate at this point, but it would be whatever we agree on with option two, but allowing neighborhoods to opt out. But I think we need further clarification on what that geographic boundary would look like in terms of the neighborhoods. Certainly, we don't want to be we don't want to make the neighborhood so big that it's impossible to obtain two thirds of a vote. But we also don't want to make it too small. So that block by block, we have different regulations because that's very difficult. So I would like that to be included as an option of for staff to come back with a recommendation on what a reasonable geographic limitation would look like. And again, it's only for Unhosted. So I don't know if that's a friendly that. You accept? Well. I'd like to hear from the city attorney, and then that's included as part of our back. Well, it's going to be an ordinance back, I think. So it would be helpful to get direction tonight if we don't get direction tonight specifically on that issue, we would definitely assuming that the friendly is accepted. We would bring back as part of the ordinance some form of geographic boundary with the justification for why we chose that particular geographic boundary and council after first reading, if the boundary we drew was too big or too small, you could certainly give us direction to go back. This is such a complex area. I mean, it would be great if we could get it passed on first reading. I'm not really anticipating that, so I'm sure we'll be making a couple of other tweaks and this could be one of them, but we'll bring back some boundary. Can I address the friendly just quickly? Sure. Yeah. So I think I want to make sure that we are not taking a whole section of our city off the market, thus creating a pressure on, say, my district. So. So that's why I like to see what you guys come up with. I would, you know, if it's a very small pocket versus a census tract, which tends to be a little bit larger. And I'd like to hear from my council colleagues. I also think there might be some comments down the road around 80 years and stuff like that. So I'd like to hear everybody's comments on what units they feel like are appropriate before we kind of say like, put this in stone in the ordinance. And so, as I understood Councilwoman prices friendly, it wouldn't take anything off the completely off the map. It would simply limit it to allow it to to be were it have to be a hosted facility. So they would in all areas of the city, there would be something or there possibility for something, but in some areas it might have to be hosted. So this would be would you be talking about non primary or primary? Primaries would always be allowed. It is the be unhosted that would not be allowed if we got the approval, the geographic. Approval to opt out. Okay. Can I add this one thing? I know that we have a Councilwoman Pierce, so I think there is an opportunity because I view this this component of the ordinance important because I understand what you're saying. I do think there is probably a way of crafting that piece that Councilman Price is talking about in a way that could work. I mean, at the end of the day, we are this council is not going to be banning these stars in these neighborhoods because legally it's not an option. So I think the next question then becomes how how are you able to create a policy where you can have some neighborhood input on what happens? But but yet recognizing that we don't want it to be a situation where if a community is all homeowners and they can, you know, all us dealers can get banned, but then how do other communities do the same thing? So I think we can I think staff can find a some creative ideas or solutions and on getting us there because I think it's a concern that we had heard before was a complete ban. And I think what's what's being discussed now is not a ban. It's really trying to target the non hosted sites right that were there aren't local Long Beach homeowners but as we know, these are oftentimes some are local folks, but oftentimes they are purchased from other folks that are just renting out or Airbnb being their house from from afar. So is there a way, Mike, as I'm actually interested in this component as well, is there a way of of coming up with some best practices on how we would do this option that Councilman Price and Pearce are talking about? Mayor, I think where we would start with best practices, we take a look in those coastal cities that have dealt with this issue already and see what the Coastal Commission has actually permitted those cities to do. And from the coastal cities that I've looked at so far that have gotten approval from the Coastal Commission, it seems to be a situation where they do allow cities to limit it to hosted only, and that seems to be best practice. Maybe council member Urunga has more information than that, but I think that would be one of the best practices that we would have a legal ordinance. So look, start there. Because I think that I'm glad you brought up the Coastal Commission. I think the coastal question because this would have to go to Coastal four four for that approval. That's right. So I think I'd be interested in that as well. I think if if if this is happening in other coastal cities, it is. And I don't think that's an unreasonable opportunity for homeowners. Sure. Give me 1/2, councilor. So so I do I would like more information if we're able to come up with a way of doing it, I think I don't I don't see the harm in that. So just this was just my $0.02. Councilmember Pearce. I just think that that's something we can explore. So let me go. Councilmember Ringa. I just want to make a quick. Interjection since it was brought up. And my name was mentioned as part of the Coastal Commission. I forwarded a a. Best practice. Ordinance that was adopted by Pismo Beach a while back, which was recognized by the Coastal Commission as an exemplary type of ordinance that was that fit all the criteria that we're talking about here tonight in terms of stars in a coastal zone area. So I think that that's something that you might want to look at in terms of a of a best practice example along the coast. And of course, because of how we're set here, we're not we're a coastal city, but we have, you know, our coastline, our coastal zone, the coast. What about a mile, mile and a half, two miles. And, you know, other areas are a lot bigger than that because it's completely a beach city. So, I mean, I think that would be an excellent starting point for looking at how we can address the coastal zone part of of this ordinance, because it's going to be obviously bifurcated to a great extent because of the inner inland areas where we have these issues as well as the coast. So it just that I'll put it in there and maybe something that you can look at. So let me go back to Councilmember Pearce and Price. I know that there was a a friendly on on that issue. And so I think we're going to have staff bring that back as part of what's coming back. Okay. All right. Well, if you accept that, that's okay. Because of what price for you. And mayor, just to clarify that, is that just to look at the one best practice. Is that says limiting on hosted or is it also for us to look at different ways to achieve that same you know, to to do that. I mean there might be other ways such as. I think I think it's both. I mean, I think you want to give us tell us how we open. To other ways to just make sure that we we're addressing it. Okay. Understood. Yeah. And just on that note, I appreciate Councilman Aranguiz comments on this, because one of the things for coastal zones that's very unique is many of them have high density and parking impacts. And so when we have an hosted, then there is a potential there to have additional cars taking available spots on the street or even in the beach, lots and other noise and other types of impacts that that really are detrimental. Again, I think getting a petition by two thirds vote is much harder than a lot of people think. I mean, we see that with preferential parking districts or even when residents want to do like a one way street. Everyone always thinks everyone in their neighborhood thinks like them. But when it comes to them signing a petition, that's not always the case. But I think neighborhoods having that option to be able to have a meaningful voice and what impacts they might have is good. It's a good option. And so I'd be interested to see what the best practices are. And my support of an ACR ordinance would most certainly include an option that allows residents to have a voice through a petition process. I like the sliding scale idea. I'm just sharing with my colleagues that I heard it for the first time tonight and I like it. I think it makes a lot of sense in terms of the number of units. I also like the 1% limitation. I mean. It's much more lucrative to have a short term rental than it is to have a long term rental. And what that does is it really limits the supply of long term rentals we have available, especially in the coastal zone, because there's so much money to be made per night for a short term rental in the coastal zone than to have a house that's, you know, workforce rates or affordable rates in the coastal zone. And so I think being mindful of the fact that we do want to have options for our residents to have housing that they can actually afford. They cannot compete with short term rental rates on a monthly basis. So I think having a 1% cap citywide is a good one. The the biggest problem that I see with any ordinance that we establish is enforcement. You know, I don't want us to be in the position where right now we have a ban on SDR, someone , a resident, calls us and has a complaint. The burden is totally on them to go and investigate, you know, find the listing, take pictures, you know, be the be very, you know, slick and identifying and grabbing evidence. It puts our residents in a very difficult situation where they're in a. Conflict situation with people who might be staying in the house next door to them. I don't want to do that. So whatever we do and I'm I've talked with Councilwoman Pierce about that, Councilmember Pierce about this. I like the idea of coming back and talking about the enforcement piece in a more detailed and robust way, because I think it's generally touched upon. But but I'd really like to understand how are we going to enforce this? And I'd like the taxes that are collected to go right back into enforcement, at least a part of them. I anticipate the taxes that would be collected would. Would exceed the. Costs that would we would need for one or two people to help enforce. And where that money goes in up above the enforcement mechanism, I'd love to hear my colleagues thoughts, but at the very least, we should be putting that tax money into enforcement mechanisms. And really, I do. I fully expect that whatever option council comes back with will include the platform to work with the city. I know there's pending lawsuits going on. I'll be watching those very closely. But the platforms have to be part of this process and engaged with the city. It can't just be completely our burden if we don't have full access to data. So I'm open to seeing how, how what that looks like and and whether there's third party vendors, which I'm hearing is an opportunity for us to be able to work with maybe a third party vendor to help us collect some of the data . I'm open to all of that, but to me, a partnership between the platforms and the city should be something more concrete. What is that going to look like? And so I, I fully support Councilmember Pierce's recommendation that staff meet with the platforms more than just the main platform that's come forward and engaged with us, which I'm grateful for, but with all of them, because it's also not fair to put all the burden on the largest platform. That's not fair to that platform either. There are a lot of different platforms, and everybody should be sharing in this in this process of setting forth policies and procedures. So I think we do need to come back with a more robust and specific enforcement plan. So those are my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. Whatever we do. I'm hoping that this council is supportive of us coming back in about a year or so and really using this as a pilot period so that we can figure out what's working and what's not working. Have there been impacts in neighborhoods as a result of this ordinance that we need to address? So I look forward again to hearing your thoughts on that as well. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to start by addressing a comment from the audience regarding a survey that says I put online. I actually went out into the audience and saw the survey. It was not conducted by my office. But I do appreciate that neighborhood associations have taken the time to put surveys out there. It would also be helpful, though, when they do put those surveys out there that they communicate the results to our offices because we actually didn't have access to that private survey. So it was very interesting information and I appreciate the dialog and thank you very much. I want to kind of just start with an overarching discussion on. Buying a home is your one of your largest, most likely your largest financial investment of your life? And the number one thing that I have learned as a council member is the most important decision you make in buying a house is not how many bedrooms, it's not how many bathrooms. It's not any of that. It's who are your neighbors? The number one complaint that I get is I bought a house across the street from a park, but I didn't realize there would be cars and people in the park all summer or I bought a house across the street from a school in the summer and I didn't realize that when school started there'd be pick up and drop off and my driveway would be blocked or these things. And when I bought a house next door, I didn't realize I lived next to the the grumpy person in the neighborhood. And now I know why they're divorced three times. These are actual comments our office gets. And part of that goes to it's about who your neighbor is. And so we currently have a short term rental in our neighborhood that used to be a long term rental that had a horrible tenant. And so the neighborhood is like jumping for joy that it's a short term rental. Now, however, there are other circumstances where there were wonderful neighbors that live there and they were not renewed on their lease. And now it is a short term rental in that neighborhood. And that street particularly is very upset because they don't want a short term rental. So it's all about what you had before and what you have now in that comparison and knowing and understanding and whether you live next door to people who own their home, people who rent a home, whether they're visitors through a platform, whether you live near a park or a school, every single thing brings different pluses and different minuses. And so I think it's a good starting point. I would love for the ordinance to be as simple as possible. I agree with some of my colleagues who have stated if it's overly complicated, it's hard to monitor, it's hard to enforce, and it's hard for us to really get our arms around to explain to people who may want to get into this market, people who may need this money. I mean, I'm fortunate that my mom was here with me tonight and she was in the back and we were watching the meeting together. And I was kind of talking through her with her what what it would look like if she turned her rental property into an Airbnb and why people do it and what the platforms look like. And we were kind of doing that in context with the comments on the floor. We really appreciate all the comments tonight, so many well-informed neighbors, but there are a lot of people in that age group who could benefit that don't understand it because our ordinance could potentially be too complicated. So I'm all in favor of simplifying if the sliding scale is used or the 1% is used, all of those are great . I have a short statement that I want to read that I compiled after reading through the emails and talking to the neighbors that I was able to get to, many of you know, I didn't get to everyone. It's a heavy night on agenda items, so I had a lot of people. Short term rentals can have a big impact on neighborhoods and cities, both positive and not so positive. And as we've seen in the public comment tonight and in the news, we need to be aware of both sides of the issue. So because of that, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. I'd like to direct staff to track the implementation of whichever ordinance we pass and the impacts of the stars, including the number of registrations, the number of complaints, resolutions to the complaints, total tax received, and other relevant data that can be reviewed at a council meeting in October of 2019. So we'll have the data from last summer included in that and then we can see the full impact over several months. And then at that time we can say we love it the way it is. We'd like to make the following tweaks, we'd like to get rid of it altogether and all of those. So now that we would all at least be on the same page, that whatever we pass, let's be invested in making it the best we can, and let's continue to learn through that process so that a year from now , or a little less than a year from now, we can sit down and have a talk about where we've made the mistakes and what improvements we can make, but that we're all on the same page to know that another set of changes could come and what that timeline is, so that we can all be in a position to plan our future, because this type of ordinance impacts people's finances, and that's a really important concept. So I would hope that the maker of the motion would be open to that. Yes, definitely open to that. I have a couple of questions that you mentioned from last October. From now to next October? From now until next October. Okay. And I think whenever we talked about that third party verification group, I think staff will really find that there's a plethora of ways to track data daily that on on any day you could pull up the dashboard and see where we're at on that day. And so I wholeheartedly support that for sure. I think if I can add just two points to that, we can we can certainly do some of that. When an ordinance is in place, it's going to be easier for us to get that data. So right now, we don't really get a lot of the complaints that we get some, but we don't really hear about everything . We also don't have much of a way to track them without paying a consultant, which we did as part of this effort. And they, you know, it was it was a pretty intensive effort over three weeks. So the more this occurs, once the ordinance goes into effect, the easier it is on staff. But we can do our best to bring you back what we can. So if we could say a year from the day that the ordinance was implemented, that we have 12 months. So the reason that I was hoping to do October of 2019 is because one budget and two, we also would get through the summer months, which for short term rentals are really the bulk here. I mean, if it was Palm Springs, our bulk of months would be the January through March. But in Long Beach, coastal city, it's really summer. So I was hoping that summer would have passed. They would have had a short amount of time to gather that and bring it back to us so that we would be able to make some strong decisions. So I'm fine with bringing it back in October for the budget. I think as we move forward to having that year evaluation, at least for the first three years, where every year we're looking at it and assessing it, our housing market's going to change drastically in the next several years or so. And in future years I'm open for it to come back as a two from four like that. It wouldn't have to be a full council meeting, but I think in this first review period to have that additional open comment from the community and engagement is just really crucial. Absolutely. So we will bring back by October 2019 what we what we know, what we have based on the information we have, knowing that it may not be as robust as we'd like. And then once the ordinance goes into effect, we would do an annual review with the information that was requested. So my next comment kind of goes to one of the first items I brought to the City Council. When elected in 2014, I brought a refund of your business license to the table because one of the things I feel strongly about is, one, getting all the businesses above board where they all have the licenses. And then also if you're going to open a new opportunity in our city that we would not want to burden you with those cost in their first two years. So we did that business license. We tried to do a waiver, but the city attorney advised us we could do a refund of those fees. And we we instituted a policy where we would refund your fees. But I do believe that registration is key. Not everyone uses the same platforms, whether you're using a far below or Airbnb or whatever. Some people register their homes on multiple sites for multiple types of renters that are looking in different sites. And so for that, I feel that the registration process is really important so that we can track better. I'm supportive of a reduced fee or zero out fee on some of them. It's interesting to talk about 1% of our housing stock. We don't even know what the housing stock of Long Beach is. If you call the county assessor and ask how many units are in Long Beach, they cannot tell you because it's so complicated. So the registration process would at least get us to a point to kind of know, but we need it to be as simple as possible. And so I'm really supportive of a registration. I'm also really supportive of a warning and then a very severe penalty if you don't register, because otherwise there's no incentive to get on board. And we've seen this in Manhattan Beach and some of the coastal cities that people are hiding their addresses and moving things around and and really trying to hide under underneath the radar. We need to be above the radar. I would also say that if the platform is not willing to work with us, they shouldn't be able to book locally. There's so many opportunities with local platform or with these platforms that they could collect the tax for us. They theoretically could even do the registration for us. But it gets more complicated when people are registered on multiple sites. You don't want people to have to pay multiple registration. So with that, I'd also like to warn the Council Against and I know we talk about this and Mr. GROSS or as he called himself earlier, Mr. Sunshine is not here right now. I am completely supportive of bringing back a component of adding staffing once revenues hit certain targets. But I would be careful about directing staffing. I'm sorry, directing revenues, as we've heard about with the directed revenues we were doing for marijuana, they haven't come in as planned. There's all sorts of different fluctuations. So if we think a staff member is needed, just pass a staff member from the general fund and just call it what it is. And in the future, then you still have that flexibility to add or subtract as you go. So I would just generally as chair of budget oversight and having heard Mr. GROSS say it, probably at every meeting we've ever had with him, I'm just going to say it for him so that he doesn't have to do it next time that he warns against that. And I support that warning. Lastly, about the option three, add on from Councilman Price. I appreciate that. In our neighborhoods, we have some problem neighbors and whether there are short term rental or whatever the case may be of what causes them to be a problem. What I wouldn't want to do, though, is I have a street. Let's just say we went with a 20 foot radius. So you take a house within 2000 feet. That's where you'd have to do the petition. What I wouldn't want to do is say like a housing track. And if this housing tract votes no, all houses in the track are banned. What I would like to do is if you have a bad player to be able to collect the signatures to get them to go away. Kind of like the dog barking. And the reason I say that is if you have a home housing track that has three good Airbnbs or FRB, far or whatever, short term rentals, and then you have one bad actor and that petition circulates. It takes the income away from three people who might be snowbirds or other things. And so I just want to. I want to hit a nail on the head. I don't want a pepper spray a problem, if that makes sense. I mean, this is the problem. Whac-A-Mole. Move on to the next problem. If I could do that with some of the other neighborhood issues we have, it would be so much easier. But I would also like it to be an easier process than our current barking dog complaint process because that people are not fulfilled and not able to resolve their issues. So I want to just make sure that we kind of look at that and how it's directed to the one person. So that would be my feedback and appreciate the discussion. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So a couple of things. So, number one, the turnout in the public testimony clearly shows that this you know, this is an issue that people care about pocketbook issues. So we'll take it with the utmost seriousness. And so I acknowledge all of you for coming out. I also acknowledge Airbnb for coming to the table because I understand there are multiple platforms that engage here. So that needs to be acknowledged. And given that it's a pocketbook issue. I'd like to just frame and say that, you know, the narratives that I hear about are the narratives of abuse. You know, take an entire, you know, entire buildings and turn them into pseudo motels. I think this ordinance, what it puts forward, prevents those apartment motels apart tales of different different ways of referring to these things. So I think that's good. It addresses abuse. The other thing I hear about is the speculation someone who was not a Long Beach resident, you know, owning, you know, five, six, seven properties in other cities and are simply speculating. And, you know, the problem with that for me is that those revenues generated. They're not you know, there have been if anyone in Long Beach, they're not staying in Long Beach. And that's that's you know, I don't think that we should be in that business and we should be keeping our properties as our housing market as stable as possible. So anything we can do to limit that speculation, I clearly support. But also say that there's value in having Long Beach residents and working with Long Beach residents if it's unhosted. You know, this policy is going to change over time. So you want to build up some. You want to give them a shot to see what they can do in terms of maintaining a standard of quality, quality of life and responding to their neighbors when there's a complaint and in following and monitoring this ordinance and not necessarily attempting to game the system so that I think there's value in that. I also think, you know, when I saw that map, the great majority of these properties, they're down in districts two in District three. And I think the two council members are doing a pretty good job understanding each one of those issues. And I think that's great. And so I just want to make sure that, you know, you know, the few just north of them that I think those are families that are just, you know, trying to make ends meet or have an extra room or going from, you know, their first home to their second home. I think we should make sure that as new technologies emerge, as these disruptive technologies emerge, we we make sure that it's accessible to working families as well and that they can benefit from this these economic opportunities. So I do want to want to lift that up. Speaking of local, in meeting with them and meeting with individuals, some of the hosts that came in, you know, I heard stories about how they're you know, they're proud to highlight different attributes about their neighborhood and proud to highlight, you know, where to get your groceries or where to get local food. And I see a big opportunity here for the city to partner with these hosts and with Airbnb to create. And well, I shouldn't say the idea yet, but the idea here is that let's create some some real local partnership to support local businesses. And and, you know, we can think about partnering with Kiva businesses. It's the businesses we're supporting through crowdfunding. That's when the community comes together to support and deploy resources, these small businesses. There are other things we can do, like leverage new technology to also support these small businesses. So I think in this too, from in this report back, I'd like for staff to do some thinking about leveraging this power that was just created through this platform to really amplify the local business, the local impact for those local, local businesses. And so, Councilwoman Pearce, I know we chatted a little bit about that. Is that something you'd like to think you would include in your motion? Absolutely. I love it. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Just the policy points that I'll call out that sound that sound good to me. The concept of the registry, you know, we've got a lot of experience in registries in our city. You know, we were involved in creating the foreclosure registry, the vacant lot monitoring registry, you know, the vacant building registry. So there's experience there. And I think this makes sense in this particular case and in the foreclosure registry case, you have almost full compliance from the banks on the foreclosure registry because they threatened of a fine and they've never had to actually levy the fine. It was $1,000 a day fine to banks who leave these foreclosures in your neighborhood, you know, with, you know, vagrancy and weeds and all these things, they've never had to find a bank because the banks responded by just by the threat of a of a fine. And so that makes sense. Having a registry makes sense. I think the 1.1% cap on the house or the housing market, that that does acknowledge the housing stocks on the search situation with the housing crisis. So that makes sense. I think what Councilwoman Pierce said about taking a good look at evaluating whatever the verification process is makes sense. I look forward to hearing what comes back there. One question about the shift from 25% to 10%, just from a practical standpoint, when I think 25% of 25% can be rented out, I think in a four unit, that means one unit. I think 10%. I think of a bigger building. So how would a 10%, you know, we should think about how does 10% happen when it's less than ten units? So one of my concerns outside of a duplex is that those units that are 8 to 10 are typically what somebody like me would run versus somebody that owns a condo on Ocean Boulevard that is a bigger unit. Therefore, those condos are probably higher cost. And you're not removing a lower cost housing? No, I get that. What I'm talking about is 10% of a eight unit is not a full unit. So what happens if. Right. What happens if it's a fraction? Right. The 25% means at least I get a Lexus. At least one unit. Mm hmm. Right. So I think maybe up to ten, you got to say 25%, and then it turns into ten after that. So I think they get to there. So they're sliding scale point. So they're going to present to us the sliding scale. I think it'll fix that time. That makes sense when I'm when I'm saying to get two. Whole units and round up. But definitely look at different ways of that that we are we do think about that a 10% of a four simply before doesn't even get you. Yes. So we do want to look at that in the slide. And we're going. To rule out when I Airbnb out the bathroom. Great. Well, look, it seems like this conversation is headed in the right direction. I know that there's a lot of interest. I know that the majority are in two districts. But let's be frank. All of you have lobbied all nine of us. And so there are expectations that we become familiar with this policy. We understand it because this won't be the first time that we see it. And I know that there will be changes, but it seems like things are heading in the right direction and I'm supportive of the direction we're heading. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. It's been a long night that thanks, everybody, for hanging in there. Everybody did such a great job and I think my council colleagues, Pearce and Price for their comments on this issue. So I'm certainly of the mindset as well. You know, obviously this is a huge disruptor in the market and with a disrupter, we often sometimes turn to regulation and we don't often have to do that. But I think I'm sort of in this middle space. I come from downtown, everybody loves R&B, Airbnbs and downtown, but we have to do so mindfully and with respect to the community. And we absolutely hear that tonight. First and foremost, I want to say the housing and business opportunities to individuals and the city of Long Beach, you know, looks good with this. The 12% total, obviously, is is something that was mandated by voters. I would just like to reiterate the points of of ensuring that what the information we get back I do want to support affordable housing in any way we can, whether it's through the linkage fee or the 6% that we if we can create that or add that to an existing housing trust fund, that would be ideal, in my sense, to to do that. I think this is the whole gist of of what everybody is talking about on both sides. That's the first and foremost thing. Second thing related to affordable housing that I just had a question on and I wasn't clear in the presentation. ADDUCE Does that include new ADU use or is it existing? Adus Because I have an issue with just the state's loosening of reforms on adus. It. Looking forward. It was proposed to include any idea whether it's existing or new. They would both be treated as an idea, new or. Proposed. Okay. So on the ad use, Councilwoman Gonzalez, we currently, as you know, banned them in the ADA ordinance for short term rental purposes. So if we bring something back that where you want to include ADOS as part of the, you know, acceptable uses for short term rental, we'd have to bring back to edu ordinance and amend that as well. I just wanted to make sure we banned it from my memory that we did banned it. We didn't do ordinance when it came out. Okay. Just making sure of that because it was unclear in the presentation. It just included adus for primary residents and I thought that was. So is that existing then? ADOS. I'm just making sure. I'm just trying to clarify it. So our current. Ordinance, we require everybody that gets an approved EDU to sign a document that certifies that they will not use it for short term rentals. Okay. So then I just want to because the presentation says, the staff report says a bit differently. So that's why I want to make sure we're on the same page to ensure that. So that is the case. So current law right now, if you have an EDU, you're not allowed to have a short term rental. And it just is you actually are not allowed to have a short term rental anywhere in Long Beach. So when you did the ADU ordinance, we banded so that you would have the ability to make a decision in the future going forward. We are recommending in the options that an edu be an allowable use so that it would be allowed to be a short term rental. We would consider that a hosted model so that you're actually because you're on site and that's in your backyard or or however it's. Attached at this point that we're suggesting. Okay, we're suggesting that it be considered part of the hosting now. So that would be something the council would vote on and decide to include or not include. Yeah. So I would just. I would just like us to think about. The existing, you know, grandfathering those in and then any additional because I just feel a little awkward in creating additional ADOS that we've loosened reforms on that were intended for affordable housing that we're now putting on the market for short term rentals. That's where I feel a little. A little off with, you know, what we've made in past policy decisions so. Council when it wasn't clear is your proposal that any new ADOS not be allowed as hosted ACR? Is that what you're saying? Well, here's what I'm yes, I'm I'm going in that direction. But I'd like to get some numbers on what how many of the ideas that we have got permits that we've received so far, and we can make that determination at that. Okay. I just I feel a little shaky on that, just given the fact that we had that policy specifically for affordable housing. Thank you. Okay. And then the next is, I believe in the consistency with noise and events. I think noise and events should be consistent all around. Whether you're a homeowner, that doesn't the long term, short term doesn't matter. Absolutely. That needs to be consistent whether no matter what. And on the parking situation, I was actually looking into the city of Palm Springs and I was unclear as we talked about parking and not being able to regulate parking the city of Palm Springs. I believe if you have a short term rental and or want to host an event which we don't have here, but especially for just in general short term rentals, they have a plan where you are allowed one car per room. So if you have four rooms. You're allowed four cars. That's it. I think that to me seems like a reasonable suggestion, but I don't know what that looks like on the enforcement side. I know that they're given a parking permit. And I know you had mentioned something about. Zoning. I think that's something we can go back and take a hard look at, particularly we'll look at the Palm Springs ordinance. I think I just want to acknowledge that might be problematic because once a unit is is approved and it's already up, it essentially has its land use approvals. And I don't know that we could ask for additional parking spaces just by virtue of it becoming a short term rental unit. But we can certainly look at that and we'll bring you back some suggestions based upon what I think is the direction you're going. Yes. And I just think that would be, I think, alleviate a lot of the neighborhood issues, especially in parking impacted neighborhoods. I think everything else we've covered the highway outreach. I'm just personally interested in that. A lot of houses have kind of back and forth said that they do want stars. So I'm just interested in knowing whether this information will live on our website like fake news, how that will look outwardly. I know a lot of other cities just have that available and I think that it needs to live somewhere. Just for clarity, once we get this all figured out. And then lastly, a lot more platform accountability, data access. I'm also just very curious as to what the lawsuits will provide. I also think we just got to be, you know, just tread a little lightly here. We have bad actors in every industry, even in this. You know, I've advocated for many years the apartment association knows the slumlords that exist in my my district. I want us to be as proactive on them as we are on the bad actors here in Airbnb, which I know are very few. But, you know, I just want to say that and ensure that we're consistent in all respects. So thank you so much, everybody. Thank you very much, Councilmember Pearce. I still have a long list of things to go through. Okay. First, I want to. Make some clarifying points. Can you speak about the Mello Act and how that might impact short term rentals in the coastal zone? I know not everybody up here is a mellow eyed fan, but you are aficionado. That. That is currently on our work program and we have the. In looking at the the 29 housing policies and that's something we are just starting to to scratch the surface. So we will be looking at that really carefully. And I think the first step is to probably do a24 from and just bring you back to current status of where we are on that. Great. And just including how stars might be affected in the memo as well. To the point of the eighth use, I just want to say I like I like the idea of grandfathering in those that exist now and limiting those in the future, because that was done as a as an attempt to get more affordable housing and to increase our housing supply. I also wanted to clarify. I know that we have some different language and how we're talking about hosted and hosted versus primary resident and not primary resident. And so making sure that when we talk about excluding areas of non unhosted that we're talking about non primary residence of people that don't live in those buildings. Going to Councilmember Price's point. That's how staff understands it. Yes. Okay. And then also the 1% I know when I spoke with staff earlier and I wanted to make sure it was clarified that the 1% is for non primary residents. That would make up two to that point that you guys had that as well. Oh, so that wasn't clear. So 1% is only on non primary residents, so you could go above the 1% if you. Live in your home and you're. Understood you can write that in there. Yeah, that's clear. And then the part that I'm totally left off, even though I did have it in my notes as I wanted and I've talked to many groups about this was also including in the enforcement, the private right of action, an administrative subpoena. And so I think that those are the things that we're comfortable with now. And knowing that when you guys come back, we'll talk about the data and we'll talk about the the fines and penalties. As it relates to two platforms, if that is the case. And with that, I'm very excited, guys. I hope that we can. I look forward to getting lots of data and reevaluating this a year. And I want to say how much I appreciate staff, particularly with working with me today. I know I was very busy in meetings and committees and trying to to process some of this. So again, thank you guys very much for coming and meeting with us and working with us. And I really do think that this is going to be something that protects housing, that gives the city, you know, a path forward. So thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Price. Thank you. Just briefly, I do want to clarify the the petition the neighborhood petition option that that I'm envisioning is different than petitioning to get a bad actor removed because the bad actor would come as a result of the fines and penalties where the final penalty is that you can't operate an SDR for a period of time , like a year or something. What I would hate for us to do is have neighbors petitioning against a particular home owner. I just think that's a really could be a confrontational situation. The petition concept that I'm talking about is the option three. So I just want to understood. Thank you. Well, we we do have a motion in a second. And I want to just add that I think this conversation is actually going in a really good direction. I think there's a lot of information that we're getting back. It's clear that that both those that are those that are hosting want to be regulated and want to follow the rules and want to be a part of of the process. And it's also clear that regulations are needed so that we are following what all other cities are doing around Airbnb. And we also know from those of us that use Airbnb, that the services that's being provided by many folks is, is really great service. And people many people are choosing not to stay in a traditional hotel experience because they want to be in a neighborhood or they want a different experience. And so I appreciate that that interest people appreciate that there is so much interest in Long Beach. And at the same time, I want to thank those I've talked to a lot of Airbnb hosts that are also understand the issues around housing and understand the issues that that we have around availability of housing stock. And so the conversations around funding and how we get to bringing some some additional revenue to address those issues, I think are also important. So just think, everybody, we do have a master motion on the floor. I think you have written it down as we as we went along, which I appreciate that, Mr. Modica. So please cast your votes and actually we'll do a roll call vote. I'm not sure if Councilman Austin is there, still is comfortable and he's got someone else. And so there you are. Okay. Okay. All right, let's start. Let's start with Councilwoman Gonzalez. Council Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Suber now. All right. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Councilmember Urunga. Councilman Austin. Hi. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare resolution to set operating days and hours for Parking Meter Zones 1 and 1A, pursuant to Section 10.28.130 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, to Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays, during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., for a maximum of two hours, at a rate of $1.50 per hour. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_06212022_22-0709

Thank you. We're moving on to item 40. Item follows report from public works. Public. Public Works Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare resolution to set operating days and hours for parking meters Zone one and one A to Monday through Sunday, excluding holidays during the hours of 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. for a maximum of 2 hours at a rate of $1.50 per hour. District three. Tom Price. Thank you. And this item comes to us by way of the Belmont Shore Parking Improvement District. And they the Belmont Shore Parking Improvement District, they. Went through a process to vet this proposal. They considered all their finances. They opened it up for public comment. And it's the recommendation tonight that we adopt the street change. And I would ask my colleagues to support it. Thank you. Councilman Austin. I support the city. There's a motion any second. Is your public comment on this? No public comment. Team members, please go. Ancaster votes. Emotions carry. Thank you. We are now going back to our hearings. So we have our first our first hearing up, which will be item 21.

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment and Modification Agreement between the City and County of Denver and OPG Green Valley Ranch Partners, LLC to increase the loan amount to support the construction of The Reserves at Green Valley Ranch, comprised of 144 affordable housing units located at 17800 Green Valley Ranch Boulevard. Amends a loan agreement with OPG Green Valley Ranch Partners, LLC by adding $60,000 for a new cash flow loan total of $2,160,000 to address escalating construction costs at The Reserves at Green Valley Ranch, comprised of 144 affordable apartments units in Council District 11. No change to contract duration (HOST-202161347-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-4-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-22.

DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0251

11 eyes council resolution 22 dash to 14 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Please go ahead with your questions on resolution 251. Thank you. I saw host here. Can you let me know if this new development is in the H-2A area that has been recently in the news? Britta Fischer, executive director for the Department of Housing Stability. And this is a rental housing development. So it is not a member of the WHO. It is it in the metro district. Yeah. I'm not sure. When you say the Metro, are any of the metro districts. I would have to get back to you on that one. Okay. Is there a way for us to if we don't know if it's in the Metro District, do we? Have we ever built our affordable housing in a metro district and been able to. Avoid the tax increases that sometimes come when it's built out. When a metro district is built out in levying a higher tax. So if I understand your question correctly, you're asking, is affordable housing within a metro district able to avoid cost increases from metro district that it's within? Yes. I'd have to do some research on that. In particular, I don't know that it pertains to this particular contract, but we could certainly get back to you on that. How long is this project supposed to be affordable? Uh, I mean. Just check here. Rene, do you happen to know that? I want to ask my colleague, Rene Gallego to join me. She's the deputy director of housing and Opportunity. Good evening, counsel. We should verify this in going back, but I believe it's our typical affordability terms of 60 years. The covenant terms of 60 years. Okay. I'm I'm a little bit nervous just given the media around the HRA and the metro districts and how eventually the tax increases in the Metro District get passed on to even affordable housing payers . And so I'm curious about what we're doing to mitigate that. Obviously, we want affordable housing, but I would love to make sure that host has a plan when we're building in metro districts, given that that's becoming more common to make sure that we're not letting those people who are in those units suffer when that cost increases. So I'll support this. But I do want to raise that issue because it is becoming more and more of a hot topic nowadays. It seems like our metro districts wait a little while before they impose the higher taxes. And so now that some people are experiencing that, I want to make sure that we're also mitigating for that on our side. So if you guys could get back to me with that information and perhaps our plans to ensure that we always protect our affordable housing residents from those Metro District increases, that would be really helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I don't want to step on the toes of the council president because this is her district and I am in the exact opposite end of the city from it. But I believe that the Green Valley Ranch Metropolitan District, which has existed I think, since 1972, covers the entirety of Green Valley Ranch. Sorry, I. Can correct that. So we have more metro districts in District 11 than anywhere else in the city. And so we can certainly share a map out to councilmembers about the different metro districts. The issue that has been covered in the media lately is not necessarily related to a metro district. It's related to a homeowners association that is perhaps employed and paid for through some of those additional mills that come through the Metro District. But it's not the metro district that we're looking into. It's the practices of the homeowners association, right? Yes. Because I read those articles and it it's the way that is involved in the foreclosure, not the metro district. Correct. Brita, if you're still available, I don't know if you can answer this, but my recollection is that an affordable housing developer, typically that's in a metro district typically would negotiate some sort of what we call pilot . Another acronym for those playing acronym bingo payment in lieu of taxes as part of their development. Does that do we know if that's the case here? Thank you, Councilman, for your question. And I don't know what is in play on this one without some further research, so we'll have to get back to you. But you're correct. There are often agreements that would be in. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Brita. And thank you, Councilmember Flynn. See no other questions. We'll go ahead and move on tonight. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres, please go ahead with your questions on resolution 252, please.

Recommendation to adopt the Mayor’s proposed budget recommendations, as amended, to the FY 16 Proposed Budget. (A-10)

LongBeachCC_09152015_15-0891

Thank you. Now we're going to move on to the continued hearing, which is continued hearing one, but beginning with item 15, which Vice Chair Lowenthal will walk us through the next few items and then we will take a break from the budget and then come back to it after we've gone through public comment and some other items . So. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Frank is just handing out. Some material for us. So Councilmembers Item 15 is the mayor's fiscal year 16 proposed budget. It corresponds with a Dash ten and the motion is to approve the mayor's proposed budget. And investment advice. If you want to just walk through, even the emotions are, Oh, no, no, I want to make sure that. I will go through the item. So for the mayor's recommendation, we have $600,000 from general fund fiscal year, 15 state mandate reimbursement funds, and the use will be toward opening three branch libraries on Sunday for a total of $183,000. Increased crime analysis resources for a total of $100,000. My Brother's Keeper Project for a total of $30,000. Arts Council Support for a total of $50,000. Be Safe program for a total of $186,000. And then improvements to 309 Pine Avenue for $51,000. Secondly, there's $100,000 recommended, which is a drawdown from fiscal year 16, general services beginning funds available. And this would be for the telephone system at $100,000. Lastly, $95,000 drawing down from fiscal year 16, refuse beginning funds available to be used for one time purchase of two clean team trucks at $95,000, and the amount is in total those three items, $795,000. Those three source items. Okay. So we have a motion in a second. Any public comment on the first item? Saying None. Please cast me. Please. Oh, yes, please. Absolutely. Come forward. Sorry, I will. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Council members. My name is Margaret Smith. I reside in Long Beach, 6516 East Bay Shore Walk in the third district. And I am speaking tonight as a board member and vice president of public affairs for the Long Beach Public Library Foundation on behalf of libraries, supporters and users throughout the city . We are extremely pleased, pleased that Mayor Garcia has included in the 2016 budget recommendations the $183,000 for expanding sun hours to three branch libraries. We fully support the recommendation of library director Glenda Williams to select Bayshore BURNETT and North Libraries. We thank Mayor Garcia for his leadership and commitment to expand library access. We thank Councilmember Susie Price for initiating the pilot program that opened Bayshore for Sunday hours last February. It was a huge success, drawing over 400 people per Sunday to a small branch library. And these 400 people checked out over 250 items every Sunday, 400 people in 4 hours. That's a hundred people an hour coming into a small Bay Branch library on a Sunday afternoon. We hope the council will support this recommendation so that the value of Sunday hours to our community can be further demonstrated and documented. And we hope that in future budget discussions, we can expand Sunday hours in each council district so that all our libraries will have access on Sunday in this information age. Libraries and branch libraries especially, are more important to all our residents of all ages. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. I'd like to just take a moment to acknowledge a number of things in these recommendations that I'm proud to have an opportunity to support tonight. I think we just heard a little bit about the three branch libraries. I made a request that we spread these out across the city. I was very glad to see that Library Services put out a memo that really distributed these Sunday hours across the city. So everyone in town has access to library hours on Sunday. So I'm glad to support proud to support that and want to acknowledge Councilmember Price for taking the initial step to get this process, move this process along. Secondly, the My Brother's Keeper resources, a lot of times we take part on we embark on initiatives, but we don't put the resources behind it to make sure it's successful. I think this is a very worthwhile cause to invest in our boys and young men of color throughout our city. And this recommendation of $30,000 I am proud to support tonight. I'm glad to see the resources to be safe, invest it tonight. Which which is significant and and where by once we adopt this, we're going to go ahead and start thinking about having the be safe games next year like a competition multi-week competition, the be safe games at Highland Park for all ages. So this is something I'm really excited for, for the whole community. And then finally, I think it's really smart that we're investing in the to clean teams. Dumping is a significant issue across town. So that said, I'm very pleased to cast my vote in support of the mayor's recommendations. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. I want to thank the mayor for the recommendation for the Sunday library hours. I, too, hope that this is something that we can incorporate into our city throughout all the districts. I'm not sure if all of my colleagues would be interested in having Sunday hours at their branch libraries. But I can tell you from personal experience, it has been such a huge success at our branch library and I hope that it is citywide. I was there this Sunday and I was there with my family for about an hour and a half. My husband was reading a book. My two boys were reading a book. One of them explored the computer for a little while, and during the time that we were there, we heard the librarian announce every, you know, 10 minutes or so that another computer had opened up, which made me realize how many people in the city go to the library because they don't have computer access to Internet, which is something that a lot of us have and take for granted. And every single computer station was packed. There were people there from age 3 to 90 in the library, all within the same space, all residents of the same community enjoying the space together. And it just to me, that's what those are the kind of programs and values that we should be promoting in the city. Just a space for people to congregate that is sponsored by their city, brought to them by their city, supported by their city. I think it's just a really great offering. So I want to thank the mayor for for making that recommendation and to my colleagues. I would say that I urge you to to think about this for your district. If if one of the libraries isn't going to be yours for next year, because you will absolutely have my support if that's something that you want to bring to your district. And I also want to thank our library staff for the recommendations that they made, because I think the libraries that are selected are spread out in a in a geographically desirable way so that residents throughout the city can have the opportunity to enjoy the Sunday hours regardless of where they live, without having too far to travel. And I really am grateful that the that the geographic spread is so wide. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to our library team. And I support this motion completely. Councilwoman Mungo. Thank you. It gives me great pride that the city of Long Beach and our libraries are so successful. Today on KNX 1070, when many of us were sitting in multiple hours of traffic, they did a report on library usage in the region, and our Long Beach statistics far exceed that of anyone else. As other libraries are on the decline, our libraries have been innovative and we have several successes in the technologies we've brought into the libraries, including our 3D printers and our ability to download either digital books or audiobooks through our Overdrive media program. And even though we are offering this great service on our own, we are still in a cooperative partnership with L.A. County to continue to expand and be able to use our library cards in all of the libraries throughout the region. So this is this is really an amazing thing. As this came up on the agenda, I had the opportunity to talk with a bunch of neighbors about homework help. And I know that was in our budget study. And homework help is available online through our our county with our Long Beach library card after school each and every day. And then you can still go into our libraries and get that one on one help. And those are the things that are really, really important in being able to deliver to our youth the opportunities to learn and our seniors to share that space. So I'm very excited about this. I'm very excited about all the great work that the Library Foundation did over the last year, and I really appreciated working with you to raise those funds, and I look forward to the projects that will be delivered. So thank you. Continue to be innovative. Thank you. And just as a reader, I know this was discussed A, B or C, but I think it's worth just restating. My recommendation was to fund three libraries on Sunday hours. The recommendation on which libraries were selected was left up to the librarians and the library staff. And so that was something that was that was done through their work, separate of of of the council. Councilman, you ringa. Thank you. I want to add my voice to the kudos that's going out for the recommendations that are stated here. I want to especially focus on the three that Councilman Richardson mentioned, the be safe, the the My Brother's Keeper and of course, the libraries. Those three are addressing our issues with our youth. That's very important. I also want to mention that in the BC program, there's a big concentration in the West Long Beach area, an area that needs a lot of support. And I hope that this B.C. program can really be expanded in that in that district. I had the honor and privilege yesterday of participating in a program put together by the Job Corps yesterday. It was called the Youth to Youth Initiative. It's a new program that the Job Corps is putting together to basically address the issues of youth, to youth, get used to youth violence, whether it's gang or not, doesn't matter. It's talked about bullying. It talked about relationships with kids among themselves. And it basically addressed all the issues that youth face while in school or well in the community. And I would like, if we can somehow next year look at that program. It's an initiative that is taking place. And one way that we can support how we can support that program in the future and other programs such as that that address the the youth and the violence between youth and among youth so that we can address our future crime. Because as we know and I can't remember the eye, it is a tired kid. It's good kid. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. I got a lot of stuff over here. Mayor, thank you so very much, as well as our financial services team and all of our community, community members and departments. This is a very comprehensive recommendation that we're bringing forward, and it touches every single one of our districts, but also creates a very citywide approach as well for the first district, which also means for the whole city of Be Safe is very important for us and our kids, like Councilmember Muranga mentioned LED lighting. We've talked about that so, so very often streamlining our street, sweeping. There's far too many individuals that are waking up way too early just to move their car. Welcome to Long Beach Science, which is important, and I think those need to be made in Long Beach. So I hope that certainly happens. And our innovation hub, which will be in downtown but will be open and available to every single resident and business owner. And I hope it really becomes a real center for innovation. So, again, thank you to our mayor for all this. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I just wanted to weigh in and say and I'm glad that we got to this point, this has been a relatively smooth process. And that is a good thing and certainly a. An improvement over years past where we were dealing with very tough budgets in the Army when I first got here. And so kudos to Vice Mayor Lowe and to the BRC. Mr. Mayor, your budget in itself, I think it's thoughtful, it's balanced. And when I say balanced from a standpoint that it addresses many of the needs that we have as a city. And I'm particularly enlightened by the support for the BCA program. Obviously, the My Brother's Keeper project, the three libraries, the branches need that. I mean, I wish we could do do more. I think this this budget does no harm. It could be better. But in light of what we know in the future, it's a safe budget and a responsible budget. I did want to just just just weigh in on the, um, the strengthening our policing citywide. I mentioned this in our, our hearing a few weeks ago that, you know, there have been some, some remarkable gains by our police department. I see Chief Luna in the crowd. Hello, Chief. Our police department, I think, is is top notch. However, I think with the the uptick of gun violence that we are experiencing as a city, that we we need to really dial in and pay attention to doing all we can to to prevent gun violence in the city as well. And I know I know that there is a $2.2 million allocated to one time funds, and that's rather open ended. I'd just like to just express my my desire for a portion of those funds to be least allocated toward getting guns off the street through prohibited possessors. I'm not I'm not convinced that gun buyback programs are necessarily the answer this time. But we, we did a, um, earmark and actually, um, I believe it was $250,000 in the budget before last to go after prohibited possessors. Our chief actually laid out some, I think some very impressive data on the work that our police department did in getting those those guns off the streets from, I would call it the low hanging fruit. I mean, that's that's what we need to be going to be to begin with and obviously doing more to mitigate and and and deal with the gang violence as well. So those are my comments and I'm looking forward to supporting this budget. But the chief is available. Could you possibly respond in terms of how you expect to use these resources? And we'll let Chief Luna come down and make a few comments. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council member, council member Austin. The if you're referring to the. $2.2 million, I would I would like to see as your chief is for that to be discretionary. As this year progresses. Every year we address. Excuse me and will continue to address emerging crime trends. And because our system in the police department is to be very visible and accessible in our community, we're consistently out in every part of the city. And from that perspective, we're very responsive not only to our community, but to all of you in regards to things that come up. It can be a burglary problem. It can be an auto theft problem. It could be a a gang violence problem, whatever the issue may be. We have been very fortunate in that all of you have given us the resources and the discretion to use them as we see fit. And when I say as see fit, it really is responsive to our community needs. Thank you, Chief. And I think also at the councilmembers is is just adding is that, you know, he's interested as part of the program and as part of all the work you're doing that we're also looking at how we remove guns and remove access to guns within our community. And I think that's something I know you and I have talked about. I know it's part of the work you're doing and perhaps there's a conversation that council can have. There is other things from a policy point of view that we could be looking at in the future as well. So I think he's referring to as long as that's part of the mix. Chief. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I think this is extremely robust, you know, budget item, because I think I also would like to thank our vice mayor and the mayor, you know, for this, because I think each one of these items, it seems to me that you have really taken time and looked into it and took a look at the whole city and looked at things that we need. And it's very important, especially the three that I really think of, like as My Brother's Keeper and the one with the library. Because the fact that I could only think that individuals who cannot afford to go places, you can go into the library and travel all over the world. And I just want to thank, you know, our staff and everyone who's really taken time with this budget and letting everyone know, because I can remember so much money was taken from our libraries, but that that has been put back in because of the mayor's, you know, situation, I think we're going to be able to do things that we wasn't able to do. And hopefully that this year will come out the way we're hoping and everyone will be, at least for a moment, satisfied. So thank you again, mayor and vice mayor, for this again. Thank you. And then to close this up, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's been said many times, but I wanted to also express my thanks to you for taking a very holistic approach to these expenditures. It does touch every aspect of our city, whether it's the libraries or the crime analysis or the programs such as My Brother's Keeper or Be Safe. It does take a very broad stroke across our city, and even though it's not a lot of money, it does end up impacting all nine districts. And so I want to personally thank you for that, for taking that approach. And it also shows that you've been listening and hearing from not just your council colleagues here, but also the constituents. Thank you. Thank you. And we've done public comment. And so please go ahead and cast your votes on the motion. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Next item, please.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents and take all actions necessary to implement a First Source Hiring Pilot Program (Long Beach First), to apply to awards for non-professional services above $100,000, and construction projects between $100,000 and $500,000 for a period of two years. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09152015_15-0927

Thank you. And moving on now to item. And I believe we're going to do the first source item, which, if I can have the clerk read, should be item number 11. Report from Human Resources recommendation to implement a first source hiring pilot program to apply to awards for nonprofessional services above $100,000 and construction projects between 100,000 and $500,000 citywide. Okay. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Mayor Councilmembers. I'm going to turn this over to our executive director of the Workforce Investment Board, Nick Schulz. This is a fantastic program that we've been working on since back when we were first starting with the play. This was something that we're doing on a parallel course. Our time energy went to the play and then worked over to two local hires, and I think we have something we're quite proud of. I'm going to turn this over to Nick and I understand the new name is not first sources. Now Long Beach. First source. Nick. Long Beach first. Good evening, honorable mayor garcia and members of the City Council on April 7th, U.S. Pacific Gateway to lead a study on how the city could qualify local residents for employment opportunities generated by city contracts for services and construction projects not covered by the recently executed play. You also asked us to engage the community with regard to our research and to return back with a recommendation, which I'm happy to do tonight in our secondary and some primary research we found promising and expanding practice across the country called First Source or FCA. It's taking root and what it is, it's a pipeline process, process to move locals to job opportunities created through municipal contracts. We actually studied seven cities in the secondary research portion and some outreach that we did to the cities directly to understand their program or their ordinance. And just for your information, those cities were Somerville, Massachusetts. Cleveland, Ohio. Berkeley, California, Baltimore, Maryland. Denver, Colorado, Washington, D.C. and city of Richmond, California. We chose those seven to focus on because in in the course of our research, there was something on paper, a specific program or ordinance that the city had either a report or a specific frame of reference for, rather than just an effort that had been labeled. As we went through our research, we found fundamental tenants. Present in all those seven cities that we thought were important to bring and weigh the value of with the public so that those seven best practice sites all had a defined city action, either an ordinance or a dedicated program related to first source hire. There were specific compliance requirements required of contractors in relation to the first source program. The outreach and the recruitment mechanisms used to push the opportunities out to the community and the residents was clearly defined. The types of positions and number of jobs in those in those first source programs was also clearly defined, and the threshold at which a contract would be made subject to first source was also clearly defined. After we did our secondary research, we set about to gather community feedback and present that research in a manner so that the long, Long Beach residents and interested parties would have an opportunity to respond to that and let us know what specific requirements would be acceptable or they thought would be best utilized for the City of Long Beach program. We're now referring to that program as Long Beach. First and just briefly, our outreach included a 1 to 1 or facilitated dialog with the Ministerial Alliance. On April 30th, 2015, we did three community outreach events on July 27, 28th and 29th in the guidance center on center in central Long Beach District nine field office in North Long Beach in Silverado Park in in west Long Beach . After these sessions were completed, we came back and. Put together the following recommendation for you to consider. I won't read you all the bullets, but the highlight of our recommendations, and again, consistent with what we find to be best practices nationally, are that Long Beach First would apply to all contracts for non professional services above $100,000 and also city construction projects including right of way between threshold amounts of 100 and $500,000. Long Beach first program will require qualified city residents be given first consideration for hire through a referral system. That referral system would be administered by the Workforce Investment Board, Pacific Gateway. Long Beach First would cover all net all net new jobs created through the awards of the contracts previously referenced. The period of reservation held for Long Beach residents to get the first crack at those jobs would be ten calendar days. The ten day local reservation period would run concurrent with other contracting processes in order not to delay the beginning of any work or contract or preparation. All outreach methods, including canvasing, traditional social media, activation of existing networks, email, mailings, etc. would be used to. Mask the community to refer residents to the opportunities. Again, Pacific Gateway will act as the essential intermediary between all the potential sources for referral noncompliance with Long Beach. First will result or may result in liquidated damages assessed per day at the discretion of our city manager. And as we move forward, we also found that we believe there will be minimal administrative costs associated with the implementation of a pilot process. We're asking that you consider this recommendation as a pilot process for two years when we would come back to you with a subsequent report that would include administrative and overhead costs that we would track during that time. That would conclude my report at this time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank think I'm actually now going to turn this over to Councilwoman Gonzalez, who's the maker of the motion. And I guess she's going to make some comments and then we'll go from there. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Nick, for your staff report. First of all, I just want to say I'm really thrilled that we're bringing this full word. It has been renamed as Long Beach first, because I think it will truly represent that Long Beach locals receiving Long Beach jobs first. And so, you know, I've often said and I will say it again, you know, as far as us being able to create jobs, we can't do that directly. But we can certainly look at good policies that can support those good jobs. And so while this is a pilot project, we must also work to find creative ways to fight high unemployment rates, especially in places like the 90813 with rates of 19%. But also, this is a program for all residents and also localizing our economy where the play doesn't cover. I think this will do a good job of that. So hiring local language residents can create so many more benefits, as many of us know, improving quality of life for those families, adding to our economy and tax base and much more. It's also of great benefit to our business owners as well, who have local residents in their employee group. So I want to thank the folks that are here, the Ministry Serial Alliance, Local Hire Coalition, the PHC Building Healthy Communities or Cambodian associations. There were so many community groups that came together in various parts of the city to be able to put their opinions in place, to talk about how to formulate a good plan for local jobs. And while that is all said, I also want to thank PG, Wynn, Pacific Gateway and Nick Schultz for their hard work in this as well. I think we learned, you know, the place served a different purpose. Construction jobs over $500,000. The first source, the Long Beach First program, looks at taking a different approach with different professional services, with different types of jobs. So I have a few questions. Nick, I can barely see you there. First off, I wanted to ask about how I know there's been a lot of talk about youth and perhaps maybe a gap in finding youth employment. Can you emphasize how this would help or how we can maybe collaborate with other programs? What can we do in this sense for from the first source program? Well, it certainly dovetails with some other efforts in the city and specifically some other efforts that we're involved in. I know the mayor's internship initiative comes to mind, so the opportunity for us to engage with with the contractor at the point that they're ready to to do business with the city, gives us another avenue or another venue for it to talk about the benefit of internship and engage them not only in their hiring needs, but also in helping us to find a place for an intern in the city of Long Beach. Great. So we could certainly partner with that program to make this a more robust program, especially for local youth. And I think it's important, as we've worked on the play, we're now undergoing a study for the minimum wage. I think it's important that we emphasize local are our local youth. Next, I wanted to clarify a few things, because there's a few things that seem a little unclear in the report. So what would. I mean, many of us know, but just to clarify or give examples. What would be non professional services and also the referral system, how that would work? So I'm going to defer to the city attorney on the distinction between the professional and the non professional services. But let me let me handle the piece. As far as the the excuse me. The referrals. The referrals, yes. So it would work typical to to how we do with either our internship program or the PATH program that we're building with with Councilman Richardson's office. So there are various sources that are that have an expertize with with target populations who are disconnected or who do workforce development services for people looking for a first job or to to change and actually move to move to a higher wage job. So just as in our name, Pacific Gateway would act as that intermediary or that gateway. So at the during the ten day reservation, we would use the available forms of outreach to outreach to our community partners, let them know that the position was open, what, what the requirements of the position were, and then arrange to handle that referral of all the clients to the community as a single point of contact to the contractor or the given employer at that point in time. There's two advantages to that. One, again, the single point of contact aspect for for the employer, the opportunity to open and close the windows seamlessly. And second of all, it's Pacific Gateways ability, given some of the tools at our disposal through our federal funding to actually be able to track the higher forecast or look out over time and see that the person is still retained in the labor force in subsequent quarters, post employment and see that they're earning wages if there's increased wages, those type those types of things. Okay. Councilman, there's also a question on what's. Not professional. Services. Yes, that would be. Primarily custodial work that we would offer landscaping and tree trimming, things like that, as opposed to professional services, which would include engineers, attorneys, nurses, things like that. Okay. Great. And then the noncompliance. How would that be enforced? If a business is non-compliant. And I see that there's. A discussion here about that. But I don't know what the enforcement would be on the back end. So I cannot speak to how the liquidated damages would be calculated. I think that specific to size of contract in each individual circumstance. But we would move to have the process of a liquidated damage being assessed and initiated by the fact that the specific employer or contractor completely failed, neglected or refused to engage with the first source process. Okay. But we would have some sort of we would have a tracking mechanism. We would be able to know if if it was clear that they didn't. Participate or had. No, uh. Opportunity or no inclination to participate. Right. Right now, what we've engaged with procurement to do is actually to embed the first source language in in bid requirements and then actually to have the first source language at Long Beach versus, excuse me, language in the act, the actual contract. And there would be an introduction or a bridge to Pacific Gateway at the point in time when the contract would be executed with procurement and they would already be cognizant of the requirement and have the opportunity to reach out to us to ask any questions when the bid process was initiated. Okay, great. Thank you. And another couple of questions. What I just wanted to clarify that at this point, we can identify a significant fiscal impact. I mean, of course, there will be staff costs, but I mean, there's nothing on the front end now that we can foresee would be a major impact to the city. Our our major concern when we did the research was could we find anywhere that this limited the number of bids or increased cost of bids? And in the cities we studied, we could not establish that that was the case. The other thing, in terms of staff time, it's mainly staff time in a modified process and some of that process is in procurement, but that's somewhat negligible. Once the language is in inserted into the documents and this is core staff time for Pacific Gateway with with a private employer or somebody who engages with us to source talent . This is the process we use with with any employer. So the city and a city contractor would be no different. And it's just an enhancement of the of the number of employers in our portfolio. Okay, great. And then last question. Last question was the departments and the separate legal entities that are excluded, can you or someone explain what those are exactly and why they're excluded? The two that are excluded would be not under the jurisdiction of City Council, the harbor department and the water department. Just and it's just those two at this point, I think. And also the affordable housing projects, I think those are federally regulated. Perfect. Um, okay. Cause there was also, I think there was a, uh, perhaps I was getting it mixed up with something else, but harbor water and affordable housing. Okay. Thank you. Well, I would encourage my colleagues to support this. I think, you know, this is certainly a win for the city. I think this is similarly what we've done with the play, but it's looking at other nonprofessional, uh, opportunities for people that certainly need these jobs. So I would ask that my colleagues support and thank you very much. Mayor, if I could expand on the answer to the Councilwoman, I think other separate legal entities may include the successor agency or the CIC or the oversight board. So there would be possibly other non entities that aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the council. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Sure. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I want to start by thanking Councilmember Gonzalez and the other signers. I believe it was Councilmember Ranga and Councilman Brand Jews, I believe and we worked really hard for a number of months on this to make sure that it's meaningful and it's tangible and that it has an impact on folks. We intentionally asked to call this Long Beach first because that's just it. We are. This gives Long Beach residents a shot at going through the process for all net new jobs first. And I'm confident that if Long Beach residents are given an opportunity, I'm confident they will rise to the occasion. So I am in complete support of this. The focus group in North Long Beach was very well attended. I believe staff did a fantastic job, so I'd like to acknowledge Pacific Gateway and their whole team on all of the work that went into putting together a really comprehensive focus group and making it and making the results of that reflect in this in this pilot today. President Obama's My Brother's Keeper program that we've talked about for months now. Milestone five is providing youth and young adults access to jobs and the White House and Policy Link List's first source policies and agreements as the top recommendation to meet Milestone five and have a direct impact on youth and young adult employment employment. And I think that this is smart that we this this policy allows us to align policy with some of our initiatives, like My Brother's Keeper and like the PATH program, which which diverts disconnected young adults into the workforce as an alternative and keeps them on the right track. So for those reasons, I'm in complete support for this. There were some comments that compare this to the project labor agreement. I'm a bigger fan of this than I am of the project labor agreement because I think this is what broader and more impactful to get directly to jobs. So I'm really interested in this and I want to see see how this rolls out. I have a question. I see that we're asking for to a two year pilot. Are we? I would like to see some some check ins on how we're doing, some analytics on how this process is rolling out, maybe on a every six month basis. So. Mr. City Manager And maybe, maybe could you respond to that? Councilmember We can certainly provide you a report every six months on. The. Performance measures of the program. Sure. What sort of measures would you think that reflect? The number of people that have applied, put up their names with the workforce, number of people who have been referred to projects, the number of net new hires that have been created when we award contracts, things like that. Great. And then the second thing is, I know that Councilmember Garcia excuse me, Gonzalez mentioned that the other agencies it may not it may not include. And that's and that's fine. But I want to just have clarity that it doesn't stop them from doing something similar, having similar agreements at the same time. They could very well do so. Correct. I believe they could very well do so. And I think in the research we've seen maybe similar entities to to those that we're excluding initially voluntarily participate. Great. So so that's it. Again, I'm in complete support Ion and I want to thank again Councilmember Gonzalez on her leadership and all of the city council members for their hard work on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Munger. Yes. I want to thank Mr. Schultz for his hard work on this. I appreciate the dialog that we've had. Many people cite statistics that only a third of those that are employed in Long Beach actually live in Long Beach. And I think that this is a great step in the right direction towards helping our local and helping our neighbors work close by and reducing our emissions, helping them spend their money where they live, not having to venture out into other cities for those jobs. And so this is fantastic. I'm very supportive, great work and I look forward to the reports. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I've had the opportunity to meet with staff regarding the recommendations. And from what I understand, this policy will allow for workers throughout all of Long Beach to be given the first opportunity to obtain jobs that are tied to our city projects and programs. I believe this is sound policy. I support this policy because, one, it applies citywide and is not limited to any particular area where the applicant lives. And two, it gives companies an eligible pool of local candidates, but still allows them to exercise their discretion in accepting or declining to hire candidate based on the company, culture and environment . This discretion and making hiring decisions is critical to a sustainable policy, in my opinion. I thank my colleagues for bringing this item forward and I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you. Count summary Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions. I know some of them have already been addressed by Councilwoman Gonzales. When we're looking at the point with the, the, the noncompliance issue, um, I still have some issues. Issues questions about what is that definition of a non-compliant contractor. Um, there are, you know, it's complex. There's a lot of issues going on here. For example, when we're looking at a contractor making a, an appointment or giving being given names of qualified residents that Pacific Gateway has already vetted to a certain extent, what is that good faith effort, quote unquote, as it says here, that they're going to look at these individuals and then hire them? What is what is the definition of a good faith effort? What is. So as as the recommendation is presented, it is actually to to that the resume and from their decision on the resume either bring that candidate in for interview or decline to interview that particular person. The freedom of the hiring decision is still in their corner. But again, they would need to take time to sit down and that the referrals, the qualified referrals that were passed along. And when you say you have the a local reservation period of ten days, is that I see it in the portion where you have maybe two portions. We're talking about unions like you have regularly. Isn't that too short of a period? I mean, most contractors and most employers nowadays require that an applicant go through a life scan or some kind of background check, a drug test before they get they get selected, which is ten days enough. Ten days has nothing to do with with the process when when they choose a candidate. The ten days is the is strictly the reservation period. So they cannot open that vacancy up and begin to source other applicants for the ten days or we or until we notify them that the qualified pool of local residents is exhausted. So it would be your responsibility to get Pacific Gateway responsibility to vet these potential employees. So it's it's a joint responsibility. It's a joint responsibility between Pacific Gateway in our community partners and again, to get the most access to the available jobs to the most residents. We need that community partnership to finalize folks. We need time to activate that. We need time to make sure they have the job description in hand to do the screening of their database of clients. We would actually then be the single point of contact to make the comprehensive referral list of the folks from the community who qualify to be evaluated for the position. Okay. And when it comes to the non professional definition, I heard custodian, tree trimmer, gardener, those types of things, those are. Low wage occupations. Is there a of an opportunity here to create a living wage type of opportunity for these contractors? I know some of these contractors are going to come in and in nonprofessional $10 an hour, not a living wage. Is there going to be a requirement that they provide at least a living wage opportunity for these individuals? Again, some of the things that you referred to will be subject to prevailing wage anyhow. So that's that's certainly a living wage. When you look at union jobs that that aren't covered or are below the threshold of of a play, I believe those are already living wage jobs. So I think we have we have that covered in those regards. The other thing I would say is that there are some residents who will qualify for work who need a first job, who need some stabilization service, stabilization of a first job. And we wouldn't want to exclude any of that in how we approach that. But yes, as always, and our metrics are driven by ensuring that the majority of folks we serve are in living wage jobs. Well, I certainly hope so. That's that's important to me in regards to individuals that we are hiring, especially at entry level positions, that there's an opportunity for not only to provide for their families, but to also have an opportunity for growth in that area as well. Other than that, I want to thank the participants here, the building of the Community Alliance, Legal Aid Foundation and others who participated in the in these work groups. Certainly your input was very important and I hope that nothing's perfect. I know that because it never is. It seems like, you know, the city council where we're trying to do things right and most of the time as I think we get it right. However, I'm looking forward to two comments from from the audience. Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank our Lena for bringing this forward on the diocese, because the fact that I, I think everyone realize how important it is for jobs and we talk about first, you know, I want to thank the Pacific Gateway as well as all of the organizations involved in the community feedback session. And I would also like to thank the Ministers Lyons for their involvement, because sometimes it still takes a village. Every day I've had, you know, young men approached me on, you know, the streets, you know, I need a job in this program like this allows me to give them, you know, the young people, you know , an answer like where you truly deserve that. And, you know, and the biggest part about all of this, I think that in vetting all of these jobs, I'm hoping that we can even go even further because, you know, and I know that most of these jobs they will be speaking about, the first thing you're going to ask you about your background check, you know what that involves in various individuals and that will almost eliminate them completely from these jobs. I'm hoping that we will take this and take it very seriously to let you know that we talk about Long Beach versus job offers, that these individual have enough, you know, a passion and concern and know that if you say you're talking about hiring me, please, when you vet this, you know the application that these people will not be thrown out because of their background. You know, a lot of it is because of the fact that, you know, first time, you know, they ask you, have you ever been involved? You know, I have a felony. You know what that does to any, you know, applicant, it throws them out of the loop. So I would just hope that we can go a little further and hope that we can get a little more to help these individuals get further down the line. And thank you again, Nina, for bringing this forward. And I think this is one of the better things that we've done for the community, for the city of Long Beach, giving them a chance to know that we do have a program that we will be hiring here in our local cities first. Thank you again. Thank you. Public comment now. Any public comment? Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council My name is Derek Simpson, resident of District two, executive director of the Long Beach Community Action Partnership. And also tonight is a member of what has been a local hire or coalition started coming to these meetings and speaking on this subject on April 7th and been very involved since that date, speaking with many of you as council one on one, try to understand this process so that I could speak intelligently to the community about what's going on, how they can get involved and how they can be supportive. I have to tell you that even though I was really involved, I was also disappointed to find out that as I attended some of the meetings that were mentioned, that though I thought we were going to be able to speak to the local hire policy as a part of the play. We were told, no, that's not going to happen. And because Long Beach first was the subject at hand, and I applaud the staff for the work and the energy that they put in to it. But the fact remains that we have a public project labor agreement that's passed without a local hire policy. And just as the councilman just asked Councilman Richardson, how will we measure this? Can we get six months reports on this? I don't know that we have a report that will come back to you that says, in fact, with this play being passed as it is, how will we measure that jobs are being made available through the play, such as they will be made available with this Long Beach first. So I would ask at a minimum that you consider tonight, just as you've considered adding a reporting process and six months for language first that you consider adding also maybe an annual report to see that maybe some of what we've been expressing is our concerns for six months in these meetings and as a result of even what one of the councilperson said about showing up for something only when it's about their agenda item. I showed up for meetings even when I didn't need to be here because I wanted to see what was I missing, as intelligent as I think I am. Clearly something was not clicking with me on this whole subject. And so, though I'm no longer a member of PG when the only commission that the mayor appointed me to. I'm here as an individual representing Long Beach Community Action Partnership, representing this local hire coalition to say to you as a city council, we indeed need to at least consider how we measure what is said is actually getting done when it comes to a policy that's local hire policy for the project labor agreement. I stand ready to help anyone behind the rail in this process and any member of this city management team in this process to make sure that it happens. Thank you. Thank you, Derek. Next week, a police. Good evening, Mayor. And city and city council members. My name is Brian. There's a meeting. Um, I live in the first district, and I'm current instead of Columbus City College. Um, I'm happy to say that the City Council is taking up the issue of jobs for our community. It's important that we have policies that prioritize hiring Long Beach residents, especially those living in areas of high unemployment. And I'm speaking tonight because many people in my community, including my mom, struggle to find work. Um, as a result myself, I think that it's very important that there are jobs available because having a job is key to a better future and a better life. Whether it's this first source hiring program or the labor agreement that targets work hours for local residents and disadvantaged workers, it's important that the residents of most cities jobs get them. We also need to be able to evaluate how well this policies are working to benefit residents who live in parts of the city that are most impacted by unemployment and the problems that go and the problems that go along with that. And with our age, it's going to be important to develop ways of doing outreach that find those who are hard to reach and who might not have regular computer access. These policies are just the beginning of what we need to do to address joblessness in Lombard. As a city, we need to continue to look for ways to build upon the strategies, efforts with our jobs available. The unemployment rate goes up and residents can see a brighter future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, public speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Alexander Herndon. I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and our Long Beach office. I'm here tonight to raise just a few important points that should be addressed through a local hire policy. And we feel merit discussion one last time. What we understand it's not the current will of the council. We feel the local hire policy item represented a missed opportunity to resolve some key unanswered questions regarding implementation of the place local hire requirements. These unanswered questions include what steps a contractor needs to take before they hire outside of Long Beach and what the penalty would be if they don't follow those steps. How the city will monitor the success of the place. Local hire requirements through periodic reporting by contractors. The city specific roles and responsibilities with regard to ensuring proper implementation and success of the local hire provisions, and how the community can participate in oversight, monitoring and evaluation of the play. Resolving these questions in a local hire policy could translate the good intentions of the play into meaningful hiring for Long Beach residents. And so therefore it echoed the recommendation for an annual report to be given regarding the PLA local hiring component and for that report to be given at a public meeting, a meeting of the Council so that the public has an opportunity to review that information and to weigh in from the community perspective. I would also urge the Council to appoint community representatives to the two vacant seats on the Joint Advisory Committee called for by the play again to ensure community oversight and transparency in this process. This would give the community and the Council the opportunity to learn from any failures and build on any successes as these policies unfold. So what? We applaud you for taking the first steps to establishing local hire programs for the city of Long Beach. We feel that more can and should be done to ensure that Long Beach jobs go to Long Beach residents. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. My name is Tania Reyes Ranga, and I'm a former city councilmember and a 25 year workforce development professional, ten years here in Long Beach and ten years in West Orange County service delivery area. Working with the Workforce Investment Board, I was first director of the first Work Stop Center Workforce Center in the County of Orange and later consulted with the Department of Labor on how works for centers can be more integrated with union apprenticeships and nontraditional careers for women. A little of my background and why I'm so concerned about this report, this report submitted to you either gives the council members from the one, six, seven and nine districts what they requested and it was seventh. Nor did it give the community what they needed in regards to assurances that the city understands and has the will to develop a local hire plan. The request on April 7th specifically stated, and I quote, for a specific, comprehensive local hire program that will work to give people the tools and resources to secure a good job with good wages and benefits. The report was neither specific nor comprehensive. One local hire was never addressed or defined. What is local hire? No definition can. No definition, even through the council even know that the council requested. The Council request included an attached map delineated delineating unemployment clusters by zip codes. No definition of local hire was given or even referred to in the report for purposes of play and non-players. Two. There was no definition of low income and no verification process for low income eligible residents. It was neither outlined nor suggested. Three The scope is so narrow 100000 to 500000 nonprofessional and construction projects and did not include any detail regarding the scope of the universe and universe and the number of jobs that may be available for the definition of local hire jobs and how they would be quantified on any tier one hires was submitted, as it were, for non-player hires. Five. There are no goals, no measurements, no enforcement, only good faith efforts and first considerations. And most of all, there was no job coordinator identified other than the vague reference to the Pacific Gateway Center. Six. Utilizing the Pacific Gateway Center as an essential intermediary is duplicative as workforce centers are already charged with this task. And this report doesn't provide the Pacific Gateway with details and specifics on goals or measurements of success. The community had high hopes for this report, but soon after the first community session, it was clear that the city had no intention of having a local hire policy. And the first source hiring pilot program does anything but make Long Beach first for those most in need. I want to thank the local hire coalition and the ministerial alliance and the over 20 churches who were involved in the push to get the city to detail a local hire program. I also want to thank councilmembers Gonzales, Andrews, Warren and Richardson because they were doing what they were supposed to do, and that's watch out for the well-being of their constituents. I'm only sorry that the city could not deliver. I expected much more because, quite frankly, our residents deserve much more. Thank you. Thank you. I'm turning it over to a public comment. Please come forward. Is there anybody else in public comment? Because I mean, of course, the speaker's list. Okay. Speaker, this is close your last one. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Council. My name is Steve. I am a fifth district homeowner and fourth district business owner. My only suggestion here is that the service industry, bartender servers and all of that throughout our city are included into this whole process, especially through the convention center and its contractors that locally that were we're forcing those agencies or contractors to hire locally. These bartenders and servers make approximately 15 to $30 an hour once you include earned tips. And it's a very, very good living. And I just want to make sure that that's who were included into all of this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to take a moment and just respond to Derek Simpson cap and ask the city manager just to respond to the question about the question about the Pele's actual live reporting. I remember that there was report back mechanisms put in and and these are separate things. But I just want I don't want to sort of run over that. So. City Manager, could you just quickly respond to that? Mayor Councilmembers are required to come back with an annual report. That's what I thought. So there there are these are distinct issues, but the play does have annual report mechanism. And this what we're asking for isn't, you know, an elaborate report, another convening at city council. What we're looking for is a report like a written and analytical report here to City Council on the results of a, you know, first source or Lambie's first. So I just want to make that distinction. Thank you. Councilman, Councilwoman Gonzales. All right. Well, I thank you for the comment. I mean, you all are, you know, telling it like it is, which is always so wonderful. And I know that many of you have been here for so long. I still do think that this is a program that we can all stand behind. I really do believe that. And it's not perfect. We have opportunities now to look at it. The play, it's never you know, nothing is ever going to be perfect. But I still do believe that we will. We have a local hire element in there that was pretty fruitful. And we have a lot of many of our city staff here who are Long Beach, local residents themselves. They live here in Long Beach and they care and they're invested in this as well. They are staff members that have really put together a great framework for our residents and our business owners and in making sure that they are keeping your your community input in mind. And although, you know, we'll continue talking about this and make sure that it evolves and it's a progressive policy that will encompass all of the things as as it goes along. I do still thank you for your comments in that sense. So thank you again to Nick. I know that he worked very, very hard on this. I think after the play was complete, I think we talked about an alternative. And his experience in organizing an FSA in Alameda County I think was very important for us. So I just want to thank him again for that as well as our city staff. And I failed to mention my thanks to my council colleagues, Councilmember Andrews and Councilmember Suranga, who really worked hard on this as well. So appreciate it. Thank you. Before we go to the vote, I'm going to a couple of comments. The first is I want to thank start by thanking Councilwoman Gonzales and the members that brought this forward. It's, you know, within the span of of eight or nine months, the city has had have gone from having no project labor agreement and no local source hiring agreement to having both. And we don't you know, we don't always get exactly what what everyone wants out of every agreement or ordinance. But I think this is something that the city should be very proud of. I think the community put in a lot of work and want to thank the community members. That did put in a lot of work. I'm a little disappointed that there is some disappointment from from some members of the community. And I think there's this actually is a very good effort. And I want to thank the councilwoman, but also the members that were involved. I also want to thank Nick Schulz and the entire team at Workforce Development. You guys did great work with the outreach. There was a lot of effort. I know the amount of hours you guys put into into doing this. And and I'm pretty proud of the fact that Long Beach after tonight will have both a project labor agreement and a first source for local hire agreement, which I think both are pretty significant. And so I want to thank you again, Councilwoman, and the other members that were involved. And please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Let's go to item ten. Is item ten or is that item. Actually. Item ten. Ten, correct. All right, Madam Kirk.

A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Hitachi Vantara, LLC to increase compensation, extend the term and amend a provision regarding the Denver Police High Activity Observation (HALO) video and surveillance system. Amends a contract with Hitachi Vantara, LLC by adding $144,200 for a new total of $2,447,569 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-21 for support and maintenance of the Denver Police High Activity Observation (HALO) video and surveillance system (POLIC-202057090). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0084

Thank you, Councilwoman. The next item up is Council Resolution 21, Dash 008 for Council Member Cashman. Will you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0084 on the floor for adoption? Yes, Council President. I move the council resolution 20 1-008 for be opted. Against and moved. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, for the second questions or comments by members of council. Council members say to Barker. Thank you. I'd like to go on record with a vote for this one. This contract is to pay for the ongoing maintenance and perhaps replacement of Halo cameras throughout our city. We've had several instances of cameras that did not detect crime over and over. In. Specific locations, and I have consistently requested data showing us the return on investment with our Halo camera systems and have yet to receive that. And so I would like to make sure that there I vote no on this because there is no data proving that we should continue with this mechanism for deterring crime in our neighborhoods. And until we have specific data in our high crime areas proving they're effective, I think we should be considering alternative technologies. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Not seen in the other hands raised for comment. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CDEBACA No. Black. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Can each. I. Ortega. First I Sandoval. I. So you're. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. Ten Eyes. One Day. Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0084 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0088. Council Member Cashman. Can you please put Council Resolution 20 1-008 on the floor for adoption?

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

BostonCC_08102022_2022-0682

Thank you. Consultation. Consultation seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of docket 0351. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say no. Docket 0351 is passed. Mr. Court, can you please read docket. 0682068 to the Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on May 25th, 2022, docket number 0682. Or for a home rule petition regarding electronic application and transmission of absentee ballots for absent uniformed service services voters submits a report recommending that the home rule petition are to pass in a new draft. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Counsel Arroyo, chair of the Committee on Government Operations Counsel. Arroyo You have the floor. Thank you. Counsel President Flynn The Committee on Government Operations had a working session on July 14, 2022, on Docket 0682, a petition for a special law relative to an act on electronic application and transmission of absentee ballots for absent uniformed uniformed services voters, which was sponsored by Councilor Evan Murphy. And at Flynn, I would like to thank my council colleagues for attending Counsel Murphy and Counsel Louie ten. I'd also like to thank members of the administration Robert Santiago, Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of Veteran Services. Anita Tavares, Commissioner of the Boston Election Department. And Sabino Piemonte, head assistant Registrar of Voters for the Boston Elections Department for their participation, as well as the law department for reviewing and providing language suggestions in preparation for the working session. This home rule petition would authorize the city of Boston to allow absent uniform services voters defined as those located outside of their voting district. For absentee ballots electronically. During the working session, we heard from the administration on the limitations of snail mail when sending ballots to uniformed services voters, including the amount of time and the potential changes in assignments and locations. Additionally, to ensure we included all branches of our armed forces, the Air National Guard and the Army National Guard were added to the second whereas clause as well as including overseas citizens. So the title to the title as did not exclude similarly situated individuals protected under the federal law the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act. Lastly, the Committee reviewed the changes by the law department, which was only adding the phrase a secure electronic voting system. In the second section of the second sentence of section one before the word email. As Chair of the Committee on Government Operations, I recommend that this docket ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Royal. The chair recognizes counsel and Murphy. Counsel. Murphy. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you, Chair Arroyo, for your leadership. And I won't repeat what you said. We did have a great session to work through the language and make sure that, as you know, Massachusetts citizens have a right to vote in all elections, even if they're deployed or stationed overseas. And this is going to help those who are overseas make sure they're able to vote. So the uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act is a federal law that guarantees voting rights for the United States military, who are known as uniformed service voters. So I am also urging our my colleagues that we pass this home rule petition so that we are allowing our military to vote when they're out of their district. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor Murphy. I will speak very briefly on this. I just want to echo what Counsel Murphy, Counselor Arroyo, highlighted the importance of making sure that military personnel serving overseas have the same rights as anyone else does in the state. So this would be a tremendous opportunity accomplishment for service members so that they can vote electronically while they're in various other locations outside of the United States. I want to thank my city council colleagues for supporting this. I want to say thank you to my city council colleagues for supporting veterans issues. I want to say thank you also to may as well as well and Commissioner Santiago for their important work as well. Counsel Arroyo seeks acceptance of the committee report and a new draft and passage of Docket 068. To all those in favor, say I like you. Mr. Clerk, can we take a roll call? Vote, please. Roll Call vote on docket 0682. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. A council book. Councilor book. Councilor Brady. Councilor Brady. Councilor Coletta. Councilor Coletta. Yes. Councilor Fernando Sanderson. Councilor for an sense. And yes. Council 30. Yes. Council three. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Council Lara. Lara yes. Council Illusion Councilors and yes. Council. Let me here. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. And Council. World. Yes. Council. World. Yes. You. Thank you, Doctor. 0682 has passed and a new draft. Mr. Clark, can you please. 3086240685 together, please. Economy 060862 The Canadian Suit City Services Innovation Technology, to which was referred on July 13, 2022. Docket number 086 to message in order for your approval in order to reduce the fiscal year 22 appropriation for the reserve for collective bargaining by $145,115.

Cleo Parker Robinson Dance to present the opening of their photo exhibit and premiere of Carmen.

DenverCityCouncil_04302018_18-0450

Yeah, thank you, Councilman Cashman. Looks like we have no other announcements, but we do have one presentation this evening. Tonight we have a presentation from Clear Parker Robinson Dance to highlight the opening of their photo exhibit, the premiere of Carmen. Many of us know her as Mama Cleo on the northeast side of Denver. So you want to come up to the. First of all, thank you so much for having a moment. And I just want to thank our wonderful Councilwoman Ortega and, of course, our our chair, who is in our district. And we're so proud. Now, I have an extraordinary weekend, but we have our ambassador of Mexico right with us. And I wanted our Ambassador Rendon to please come and join me because it is rare that we get her with this wonderful exhibit that we will be sharing at first at our theater starting on Friday night, Friday night. It begins the exhibit. And this is an extraordinary exhibit of Amalia Hernandez and her daughter is carrying on that legacy of the national dance company Folklorico de Mexico. And it is really 100 years that we're celebrating and not 100 years of Cleopatra Robinson dance. I've only been doing it for 47 years, but I've been in a building that's almost 100 years. But I would like for you to say a few words, if you would. Thank you very much. And good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, city councilors, for receiving us here this year. The consulate of. Mexico is celebrating the 125th anniversary that it was first established in Denver by precedent for future years. And we are having some activities along the year. First of all, we are going to start this weekend with a picture for the exhibition of Amalia Mendez, the founder of the ballet Folklorico de México. And she has set the example for all the girls all over the world. So we thank you for hosting this announcement and we need to tell you about it. Thank you. Thank you. With our opening. We have three premieres and they happen in Denver first and then they will travel the country and the world. And that is what we love doing, is sharing the magic of the powerful artists that we have. So our first work is at La Malattia of Cordoba, and I think it's really amazing. A historical work that we will be sharing starting Friday night will play Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So we want to invite the council to be there. We then have another work by Donal McHale, and Donal McHale is one of our American choreographers and he just made his transition one month ago. But he left a legacy of work that Broadway, New York, everywhere around the world knows his name as a choreographer. So we carry his work as a lead, a legacy work. And then my last work is Carmen and I will be performing Carmen. I choreographed it with a bossa nova approach. I did it with the symphony in 1989 or somewhere along there at Bettcher, and we opened it there, but we're doing it at our theater, bringing a sense of jazz, celebrating jazz in this country. And so we want you to join us. One of the things we realized and I wanted to thank Janelle Ayanna for making this connection between our companies in Denver and in Mexico City. She has just done a phenomenal job and of course, our staff, but has said has made material available for you. So let us know if you can join us, because it is a historic moment and we thank you for this time. I say. I say. I say. Thank you so much. Madam Ambassador, you are welcome here any time. Thank you so much. And of course, Mama. Cleo, we hope next time you can perform. Because, you know, once, once a month we have a performance for our Vision 2020 Plan for the Arts. So. Thank you. Okay, great. All right, we have. That was our presentation. Madam Secretary, you have any communications?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street in Northeast Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 539 to E-MX-2x (planned development to urban edge, mixed-use), located at 3435 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.

DenverCityCouncil_02282022_21-1528

No items have been called out under. Let me see. Under. Bills for an addiction. No items called out. There are no bills on final consideration this week under pending. Councilmember Herndon has called our bill 20 1-1528 for a vote. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Thank you. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 on the floor. And move the council bill 21, dash 15 to 8 to be taken out of order. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. We need to vote to move this item out of order so that we can postpone final consideration due to the posting requirements. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We don't have anybody else in the queue to ask questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528, please. CdeBaca AI Clerk. All right. Flynn All right. Herndon Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Work. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 12 Hours. 12 eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1528 may be taken out of order. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 on the floor for final passage. And move the Council Bill 21, dash 1528 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone, please. Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, Dash 1528 with its public hearing be postponed to April 4th, 2022. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 21. Dash 1528. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you. Council President. This item did not meet the posting requirements, so that's why we have to postpone final consideration to the date stated. All right. Thank you. You don't have anybody else in the queue, so we'll go ahead and continue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 21, Dash 1520. CdeBaca. I. Herndon High. Cashmere Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black Eye. Clark. All right. Flynn. All right, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 21 Dash 1528 with this public hearing has been postponed to Monday, April 4th, 2022. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered for induction or ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Hines, would you please put the resolutions for adoption on the floor? Yes, ma'am. I move that resolutions be adopted in a block for the following items. 20 2-0180 20 2-0181. 2220 2-018 220 2-019 720 2-019 820 2-019 920 2-0170 20 2-018 320 2-0190 20 2-019 220 2-014 220 2-0020 322 Dutch 020 422. Dash 0260. 20 2-0123. 20 2-019 422. Dash 0195. 20 2-0261. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And we haven't moved. We're going to need a second if we can get one. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. I ask I. Flynn All right. Herndon Hi. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted. Our pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, dash 0028, changing the zoning classification for 1468 Tennyson Street in West Colfax and a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 004 for changing the zoning classification for 3178 South Dayton Court in Hampden.

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

LongBeachCC_10102017_17-0821

Motion case. Item to maintain. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Outdoor Environmental Education Facilities Grant Program. Kit is in motion in a second. Councilmember. I believe this could be a short staff report that has a comments afterwards. Is there a short staff report? Steve Scott and Meredith Reynolds, Mayor and members of the City Council. We're really excited to provide you tonight with a brief presentation on a $500,000 grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Outdoor Environment Education Grant Program for the completion of the Willow Springs Outdoor Education, Trailhead and Trail Network. The Willow Springs Outdoor Education Trailhead Project and Grant Application was developed in partnership with the Office of Sustainability and will help serve as a center of sustainability operations, enabling them to provide programs, host events, and create educational opportunities that promote environmental stewardship, sustainable practices, and hands on sustainability. Focused training for at risk youth. The project will recreate the Environmental Visitors Plaza and California Avenue Trailhead Project originally envisioned for the 1907 Southern Pacific Depot building, which was unfortunately destroyed by fire last year. This Re-Envisioned project will serve as an outdoor environmental classroom and shaded gathering area that connects to the various park amenities, while maintaining the original Environmental Visitor Center and Trailhead concept of communicating and educating visitors about native habitat in the history of the land. The project will include a large shade structure and interpretive signs in an open outdoor gathering area and will provide an introduction to local habitat. Habitat Insight, Sustainability features history and direction to the park's trail network. It will also include additional wayfinding and several adventure planer nodes with logs and boulders. An educational signage focus on sustainability and environmental stewardship. So we're excited that this project will help further implement the Willow Springs Master Plan, which was adopted by the City Council back in 2013. This grant. Opportunity. Is going to help supplement the existing city funding that we have for this project, which in total would be close to $1,000,000. We look forward to breaking ground on this project a little bit later this year and expect to hear on notification of the Grant Award in April of 2018 by the leader at the latest. That concludes our staff report. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Yeah, I'm a transformative customer. We were in the. Thank you, Mayor. As was stated by a by Mr. Scott, it was a project that was in the making and unfortunately got sidetracked by the fire of the depot last year. But I'm very happy to see that we have the almost now close to $1,000,000,000 to be able to develop this Little Springs Park area and looking forward to having it activated and having people being able to enjoy some more open space that is very much needed in the seventh District. So I want to thank Mary Knight and her team for searching this out. And I wish them very much success in being able to get that grant and get em looking forward to a ribbon cutting, hopefully very soon. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez. Just congratulations to our parks team as well as to Councilmember Wodonga. This is a great plan. Thank you. And public comment on this. Seeing none members, please go out and cast your votes.

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

DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0921

An amendment for a vote and amendments. All right. On 921. All right. Madam Secretary, I think Councilman Sawyer is stepped out for her proclamation. Can we do Councilman Flynn's first? All right. If you could put 921 on our screens. And Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you will, please put Council Bill 921 on the floor. I move that council bill 921 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I moved to amend Council Bill 19, Dash 921 with the following particulars on page two, strike line seven and eight, and renumbered subsection 24, dash 401. Accordingly, on page six, strike lines four through seven one, line eight, strike C and replace with B, strike lines 12 through 19 one, line 20, strike Perin three and replace with Perin two and on line 32, strike 422, Perin B Perin three and replace with 422 Parente Perin two. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn. I can't believe I have to comment. Nobody understood that the the meat behind all those striking and additions and rememberings was that I fully support this bill's main intent, which is to make it illegal for retailers who sell tobacco products to sell to people under 21. Right now, the ages 18 to 21, I fully support that. I think I and a number of us were a little taken by surprise with some other elements in the bill, which may be which may be subject of a broader discussion, which should be subject to a broader discussion, but were included in this bill. And that's adding distancing requirements to the sellers of tobacco products. And if this were to pass without this amendment tomorrow morning, 84% of every store that sells Cigarets, every 7-Eleven, every King Soopers, every corner store and Diamond Shamrock will find itself in violation. We have a grandfathering provision in here. And we were told by the agency that while it's a simple matter to keep track of 84% of all the stores in Denver from year to year who would have to reapply to keep their grandfathered status when the principal goal is just not sell to people under 21. The goal isn't to to reduce the number of stores that sell to people over 21. At least we weren't told that was the goal, but that could be the effect of this. And the number of stores, particularly smaller neighborhood groceries and outlets like that, for whom selling tobacco legally to customers over 21 may provide a good part of their profit margin and and their revenue for the year. This is something I think this is a policy shift that really should have had broader discussion rather than being embedded in a an ordinance that says it's illegal to sell to under 21. Those stores will lose their license if they sell to under 21. And I think right now that's sufficient. And I would welcome a broader discussion subsequently. So what this amendment does is it takes out only two of those prohibited locations, daycares, because right now, the way it's written, if a if there is a corner store within a thousand feet of a daycare facility, remembering that daycares can be established in people's homes, they can be established from time to time. They can move around. I don't know many toddlers who are going in and trying to pass themselves off, as you know, 18 year olds these days. But daycare seemed not to be appropriate. And it also takes out the distancing between and among. The stores themselves. So if you have a store on the corner and right within 500 feet, there's a King Soopers, which is a category killer as far as sales of cigarets. Suddenly, that small retailer will find himself in a situation of being grandfathered and having to reapply every year for that status in order to keep it. I don't believe those are necessary at this time and there should have been a broader discussion rather than learning about this when it came to counsel in the committee process. We are. This amendment does not affect the distancing requirements that are established in the ordinance from schools, places where children 18 to 21 and under 18 are known to congregate. So rec centers, pools and schools. That's kept in the bill that distancing requirements simply takes out the daycares and the distancing among the retailers themselves. And I would ask members to please consider supporting this change and then engender a broader discussion as to whether this is a regimen that we should have. And let's have the discussion on that and not embedded within an ordinance that simply wants to stop selling cigarets to people under 21. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. If someone in. Here. Who could speak about the in someone here who's in favor of the the proposed bill and could talk a bit about distancing requirements. And demographics regarding cigaret vendors. Thank you. And also, I guess the first question I would have is about the stakeholder process itself. So if you could, you know, mention who you are and who you represent, if anyone. And and then I'll I'll I'll continue. You bet. My name is Tristan Sanders. I'm a public health manager in the Department of Public Health and Environment for the city. And I worked with a group across the city to develop this bill. We did do a stakeholder engagement process over the course of about six weeks, eight weeks. We invited every single retailer in the city and county of Denver that we know of to come to two open listening sessions where we discussed the main provisions of the bill and including the proximity restrictions. We took feedback from everybody. We had a lively discussion about the merits of the different points. And what is before you is what we came up with, given their feedback. And so I think I heard you say this. I just want to make sure that I didn't misunderstand. So there were retailers who were invited to the stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process did include the thousand foot setback, which includes daycares and other retailers. Yeah, so we invited all retailers. We originally had proposed a 1000 foot setback for all of the proximity restrictions, including from other retailers. And based on the feedback that that would be too restrictive as far as the commercial property available for new retailers, we did some mapping and we looked at the number of parcels across the city that would conform and not conform with those restrictions with a number of different scenarios, eliminating them altogether, looking at 500 feet, looking at a thousand feet. And again, what's before you is what was essentially agreed upon as a as a compromise to move forward with those distancing restrictions. So was the setback for retailers, is that a different number besides 1000? Yeah. So the youth facing facilities, the city owned rec centers, pools and schools is 1000 feet, the daycare centers is a thousand feet and the distance from other retailers is 500 feet based on our revised bill. So the 500 foot setback does that is still does that also include 84% of all sooner store owners? Yeah. With with those proximity restrictions, 84% of current retailers would be needing to be grandfathered into those proximity restrictions. And just to comment about that, everybody has to apply for a license. Everybody would have to apply yearly to renew that license. The grandfathering restriction is specific to their location. So as soon as we have the addresses of people that are grandfathered on July 1st of next year, that is the list of addresses that are grandfathered in perpetuity. That won't change. It. Oh, well, that's okay. Thank you for that. So if I am one of the grandfathered addresses and I forget to reapply a month late or a year late, then I still get my application renewed. Not if it lapses. So the location, as long as it's a continuous license, would be grandfathered. But everyone has to apply every year. Everyone has to apply every year. So it isn't as if some folks are having to remember and other folks aren't having to remember. Every business owner has to apply and has. Is this different or is this something that has happened like in the past as well? So like is it part of a part of the process everyone must renew their. Even in, you know, last year or the year before the year before that. This is fairly standard practice for licenses. It is an annual renewal and there's a process that exercises as license takes to notify people of when the renewal date is. They get notification, you know, a few months ahead of time, a few weeks ahead of time at the date that it's expiring. They get notified at the record, but the address, the email, the phone number, etc.. So I think that at least three notifications using multiple communication methods. Maybe you. So I think we're working out those details of the license, but I think we can probably say at least two notifications leading up to the point of the expiration. Okay. And then would there be at least one additional notification after the expiration? Hey, did you forget since. Yeah, well before the. Hey, you've lost your license. Is there a a did you forget you don't have a whole lot of time to apply. It's on. Sorry. Yeah. Please go to the microphone if you're going to talk. Thanks. Sorry for the backseat chatter. I'm Eric Rogers from Department of Excise and Licenses. It does tend to vary by license type because we are moving some of our licenses online. So for example, our short term rental licenses get several automated reminders that your license is needing to be renewed. Some of our other licenses that aren't online yet get fewer than that. And so I'm sorry, I can't I'm not sure exactly how many each license type gets, but this license would be going online. So I would my understanding would be that it would get at least as many as short term rentals, which I believe is three . And would there be one more notice? You know, like you're you've lapsed. If you want to apply, you better do it quickly. Otherwise your grandfather status will be gone. I don't believe we have done that with other licenses, but that's definitely something we could look into. Okay, thank you. I want to go back to the 84% and the distancing requirements. So. Why is there so 84% of all the stores are located next to each other? That seems like a lot of stores if they're, you know, at all, the city is jammed up within 500 feet of one another. Is it can you tell me, are the and those watching can you tell all of us a little bit more about what those neighborhoods are like or, you know, fire? Why are all the retailers close to each other? So we we have certain parts of the city where there is a tremendous amount of density of retailers. It happens to correlate with the density of youth living in our city, and it happens to correlate with the number of violations in our compliance program of sales to youth. And there's a lot of research and data that suggests this isn't coincidence, that where there is more opportunity, you will have more lack of compliance with selling to youth. In fact, there are three sections of our city, I believe, in Council District one, seven and nine where there is a three mile square radius that has each one of them has over 20 retailers just in that three mile square radius. As opposed to that, there's actually an entire council districts that only has 17 total retailers. So it varies significantly across the city. And the only way that we can ensure that it doesn't become more dense after July 1st of next year would be with these restrictions in place. So I think I heard you say and again, I want to make sure that I that I understood it correctly. You said that the locations of cigaret retailers is highly correlated with locations where youth live. That's correct. Is there a way you can statistically identify that as opposed to just the value statement? Is there, you know, like. Well, I mean, I guess you've you've got maps, but are there other ways that you can describe that in a numeric fashion? That's. That's fine. I'm going to get on the spot. No. Okay. Well, fair enough. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for all of your hard work on this. As a parent and the city of Denver, I'm really grateful to you for all that you're doing to protect our kids. This is really fantastic. And so I really appreciate that. But that said, I also see Councilman Flynn's perspective on moving these motions. And for two reasons. I think, you know, when we were talking about the daycare centers come 2040 and Blueprint are really telling us, you know, that we want to have more local businesses in neighborhoods, in walking distance of our homes to get people out of their cars at the same time. Our our information is telling us that more daycare centers are moving into people's homes in our neighborhoods. And so it's sort of hard because we see these two these two trajectories they're going to cross at some point. Right. And so how do we how do we speak for future business owners? This is a tough one because we want more daycare centers. We need more daycare centers. I was talking to someone today who mentioned that down here there are only three daycare centers in the downtown area. I mean, there just simply are not enough. And so, you know, we need to be able to find a way to to to make both of those things work. And I think that by moving this amendment, Councilman Flynn has come up with a compromise that makes sense on on that perspective and that part of things. And then in terms of the the 500 foot between businesses, you know, as long as these businesses are maintaining their their the law. Right. As long as they're selling to people who are over 21, then then they should have the right to do that. As long as if they're not selling to kids, then, you know, we are already taxing our businesses at such incredible rate. We are already putting so much pressure on our small businesses. And now they're looking down the pipeline at, you know, having to keep up with minimum wage. You know, our our our cost of living has not kept up. And, you know, our our wages have not kept up with our cost of living. It's again, this to me. Councilman Flynn is reaching a compromise here with allowing law abiding businesses to provide, you know, people who are over the age of 21 who are making a terrible choice to smoke, do not smoke. People don't smoke. But if you choose to smoke and you're over the age of 21, you know, then then these law abiding businesses are making money at that and they should be allowed to do that no matter how far away they are from another law abiding business. So maybe so to me, even though I'm so grateful for this work that you're doing and I'm so happy that we and so proud that I get to be one of the people who votes yes today. On raising the bar and raising the age of smoking to 21. I also I'm going to support Councilman Flynn in in his motion because they make sense to me in striking a compromise here on some issues that our city is facing that I think are going to are going to be tough as we move forward. And so thank you for all of your hard work. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for also bringing this to the forefront. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. To our council, McKinney. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of questions before I comment. Mr. Sanders, thanks so much for the maps you provided me. You shared that you had a robust stakeholder process. Did you share those maps in the stakeholder process? We did not have these maps developed for the stakeholder process. When where they developed. They were developed prior to committee and after the stakeholder process. And after we receive that feedback, we've posted revisions on our website. When you came to committee A.O., if you recall, I asked you how much the noncompliance was. And do you recall at that time that you said you didn't know it, that you weren't able to provide that information during the committee meeting? The rate of noncompliance. Right. That how many nonconforming businesses with the rules create that you were unable to answer that at committee. So the other question I wanted to ask you about is you I appreciate you also shared, in addition to the maps, you shared some of the background information. I read what you sent me. Change labs, I think, was the source. Did you do a profile of all other cities that had similar restrictions to the ones you proposed in this bill? We did research on other cities. That had similar restrictions in the bill. Did you find a single city that had restrictions on schools, daycare centers and distance from each other? There are many cities in California that have similar proximity restrictions, if not more. And then there are many cities not in California that don't. I didn't find any that had daycare centers. Is that something that's not mentioned in any of the research that you sent me? So is that can you can you share if there's a gap between what you sent me and you did some other research that you didn't send me in daycare centers? No, there's. So we looked in totality of the three at what was available out there. And like I said, many had additional proximity restrictions. None were exactly the same. Yeah. I guess what I would say is, having followed up on what you sent me, I did not find a single city that included daycare centers, pools, recreation centers and all of the locations. I also and this is I'm going to move to comments. So thank you for your your time. I think that the appropriate way to proceed with policy is to say to the public, we have a desire to protect you from acts and here's what we're going to do and propose that in this case, I worry that we are creating a false expectation when we're creating an expectation that we're going to protect you from something. But then 85% of businesses will continue to exist. So, in fact, if you're a firm believer that people should not, you know, be selling tobacco in these locations, but that truthfully, it's going to be continuing to happen, then I think we're setting a false expectation. In my recollection, I do not recall a time when we as a city have in one vote created 85% noncompliance rate in one single vote. So to me, it's about one that the data was not matching up with the recommendations to that. I just don't believe it's it's good government to say to folks, hey, I'm going to make this thing illegal, but really it's not going to be illegal because everyone's going to keep doing it. And I think the other points that, you know, Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Flynn have made about small businesses and just the idea that we really we had we had a committee meeting on this, the council gave very strong feedback about needing licensing. I appreciate how much the department reluctantly agreed to go to that step, but then you skipped us in the process. And again, the data just doesn't match. So in my opinion, this is a prudent amendment because it's it's telling the truth that we're not going to create standards, that we're really not going to be in a position to enforce. So I'm no fan of smoking. No fan of of of youth tobacco use. I think the licensing is key here and I think the licensing going with the G 21, one of the things I'll just comment on real quick so I don't have to chime in on the bill is that we had a conversation, a committee about signage. Even though it's not a requirement in the ordinance. I think there was strong feedback that you need to have a sign that says 21. So I hope you achieve that through rules or regulations or model signage. I think it'd be very confusing to have a sign that says 18 and up when we're passing a law that's 21. So I hope you solved that and I'll be excited to support the bill if this amendment passes. If it doesn't, I I'm going to struggle. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you so much. I don't have any questions for you trust. And thank you so much for meeting with me in between committee and and today I am incredibly supportive of the age increase the licensing requirement also pleased that additional inspectors are being proposed to be added to the team to make sure that retailers are informed of the changes. The compliance is met. I have a couple of vendors in District three that appear to have historic violations. And so I appreciate that you'll be holding them accountable and and the incoming licenses accountable to that in Council District three. Just to echo one of the issues that Councilwoman Sawyer brought up, we have a number of childcare providers that operate in-home. And the movement is to actually get them licensed and to get them providing education and training to the children in the families that they serve. And and and that's the friend and friend and family and friends and family. Neighbor and neighbor care. Thank you. And it actually is a growing movement throughout the city, but we definitely see it in play in District three. And so some of the some of the mapping that was done doesn't reflect those in-home providers. And so our density is greater. The distancing between retailers was one that concerned me, but not quite for the reasons that were mentioned here. For me, it just has to do with who is providing other things in District three, like fresh food and groceries. To my neighbors, we can count on one hand grocers in District three to major and a couple smaller. And so a lot of my neighbors rely on Mart Corner markets. And other retailers for grocery needs. And so I really do worry as we try to and advocate for a grocer for more grocery options, that this might become a barrier. And I don't want that to be a barrier for our conversation for fresh food. And I hate that these kinds of things are pitted against one another. But I am grateful that the changes are being made in support of a higher age limit and better enforcement. That piece just makes sense for my district. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm going to go to Councilman Sandoval because should benefit. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and offer my support. And I have a senior in high school and their ability to get tobacco products is real. I have this conversation on a daily basis. I find Jules and I have this conversation with 17 year old, 16 year olds, 15 year olds. And as I was thinking about this amendment, Northwest Denver is a bit different than Council District three in Councilman tours this area. But we share West Colfax and we also shared northwest Denver has more access to grocery stores. And so because as you sit up here behind the dais and you vote for all of city council and all of the city and county of Denver, I have to offer my support for this amendment, but I also have to echo councilman clenches sign. I think it's it's not okay for people to go into these stores and not see it's illegal to sell to 21. You have to same as a liquor store signage is really important and our teenage kids we're in the area era of instant gratification. If they want a song, they buy it. If they want to Google something, they are able to do it. And so with that, we have to keep up with the times. So they have to see that sign because if not, they won't know they're not there's no education going to be done about this amendment or about this bill for 21 and older. So thank you, Councilman Flynn, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinney, for bringing up the signage issue and thinking councilman. President. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Flint. Rebecca. Thank you. Just a quick question. Interested in the way the bill's worded? I want to make sure I understand how the grandfathering will work. It says that the distancing requirements do not apply to any location that has submitted an application. As of July 1st of 2020 and that these rules are effective January 1st, 2021. So I'm curious, how many locations are there? I'm trying to remember from committee there were 500 and some such proximately 586, approximately 586. I like that it varies, give or take. So how many of them are aware that they may be within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another seller of tobacco products? How many are aware today? Yes. I mean, do they know? Could not answer that. So they don't. Know. It was in our presentation and engagement with stakeholders. However, between now and the application period, our team will actually be visiting every single retailer personally and. They of those 586, give or take, how many came to your stakeholder meeting? So we had somewhere around 17 to 20. However, many of them represented multiple locations. Right. Okay. Like this. Several like a smoke screen. Like a 7-Eleven. That's right. Okay. So what I'm what I'm wondering is if and this gets to what Councilwoman Torres was talking about, if if there's a new retailer who wants to come in and they are after July 1st of next year, say, sometime in 2021, and at a store is going to open up and they want to sell cigarets to over 21 and they are not within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another retailer. They would be given a license, correct? That's right. If a daycare if they met all the other requirements. If they met all the proximity restrictions. Yes. And applied after July 1st. Yes, it would be okay. So if a daycare center then opened afterward. After that new store sometime in 2021. We're bringing in the lawyers. I'm really in trouble now. I'm bored. So if a if a daycare center moved in within 1000 feet of this new store in 2022, they're not, according to the bills written, they would not be eligible for grandfathering. Would we deny them their renewal the next year? So on sabbatical from the Denver City Attorney's Office, I work in prosecution and code enforcement and I advise the Department of Excise and licenses the way the bill is currently written. The standards of denial, the approximate locations our restrictions are located in. The standards of denial. Yes, those standards. Of denial apply to applications for new licensing. So in your. Scenario, if they applied for new licensing and they complied with proximity restrictions. At the time of application for that new licensing, and then they received a license. Then they would have the license that would not affect their renewal if a new daycare center opened up so they could keep renewing every year. Can I suggest then that this is not worded to actually accomplish that? Paragraph three says this subsection B, which is the the reasons for denial based on proximity, shall not apply to any application for a retail store license submitted on or before July 1st, 2020. Are you saying a renewal application doesn't fit under that? That's right. So that that the word application in that section is referring to a new license application. Okay. It doesn't say that, but it was. So a renewal is not considered a retail tobacco store license. A renewal would be considered a retail tobacco store license. But by the standards of renewal have are the standards of denial of renewal have different standards. Okay. I hope that you can appreciate that. I think I believe that that's unclear here, that it would not that strictly speaking verbatim it would not apply to. Sure. And so the language was copied from other ordinances that we have, for example, for marijuana. It works the same way in in marijuana as it says that any application should not be granted in these particular locations and that the. Grandfathering language is different for marijuana. But we've been interpreting it to say that application. That sentence refers to an application for a new license. And trust. And I think the only other thing I would observe in in reference to Councilwoman Sandoval's district, where you had a high concentration and a high concentration of violations, I think the way I read this, it's not the proximity restrictions that will winnow down the number of retailers. It's getting people on violations and then pulling their license, removing their ability to. To sell. If you're talking about narrowing the number of retailers overall, it's the compliance program that may do that. But this includes a very aggressive compliance program. Retailers. Right. Right. So the way to reduce the concentration, the proximity restrictions don't reduce the current concentration. Let's say what what does that in the in the instance of northwest Denver is aggressive enforcement and pulling the licenses. Okay. At what? How many violations would it take for a retailer to lose their license? Completely. Yes. So in a in a renewal application, that is one of the standards of denial, where if they have any violations, we can consider that. Oh, but also at two violations they would get a 30 day suspension notice at three they would get a 60 day. Okay. For and subsequent would be up to a year. Do we do that now with 18 and under sales? We do. And how many retailers have lost their license? I believe we are at 48 retailers across the city that have been restricted sales for up to 30 days that have been issued. Some of those might be an appeal. Thank you. So so I guess, Mr. Perez, what I'm saying is this amendment would not inhibit in any way the enforcement of that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, if you don't mind, if you new people have jumped in. I'll get back to you in a second. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure if this is for Ansel or for Tristin, but I wanted to ask what restrictions there would be on any of the grandfathered addresses. Is it just on expansion of operations, physical improvements to the building? Help me understand what those restrictions would be for someone who is grandfathered in that maybe was thinking about, you know, expanding the business. They've got the physical space to do it. They want to do upgrades to the building. What what are those restrictions? So entrepreneur from the Denver City Attorney's Office, again, just for the record, the. So currently there's no there would not be any new application required if you wanted to, for example, expand the floor plan of your business. Use that for marijuana, for example, we require a. Modification application that's not required for retail tobacco licenses. So the only restriction right now on so there would not be any restriction on grandfathered locations down in the restriction would apply to applications for new licensing. Okay. And then on the restricted sales for people who had been, you know, identified for for having multiple violations, is the restriction on the sales just on the tobacco product or is it a restriction on them being able to operate at all if they're selling other food products, etc.? No, it's just not tobacco products. They're required to remove all tobacco products from their store and not sell sales of tobacco to anybody is not allowed under that suspension. Okay. And then when the public meetings took place. Was the input from them to include daycare centers, or did that come as a recommendation from your department? So we came with the recommendations of what we were intending on, including in the bill, and we asked for their feedback and we listed each proximity restriction specifically and asked, I will say the majority of comments that we got were about the distance from other retailers because as Councilman Flynn's noted, there's 84% that currently would not phone compliance. Without it, though, they would be grandfathered. We didn't hear much, actually, if anything, about the daycare restriction, though. Do you think they understood the implications, especially if you didn't have a map to be able to show, you know, where we have daycare centers across the city. So we we displayed the language that we intended on, including we did not have a map at that time. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll comment on now on the bill as a whole. And so I won't have that chime back in when we go go through whether or not the amendment passes or not. It's interesting because as I look at this, are we have a bill before us not counting the amendments. It's going to say we're going to stop selling below a particular age and we're going to create distance requirements for future retail tobacco licenses. And so we have a current standard that says only X number of retail tobacco license will be able to move forward based off of our distancing requirements. But we have an amendment that essentially wants to lower the distancing requirements. So we're going to say as a city, we're going to allow more. So we're saying we don't believe you should sell to above 21, under 21. Excuse me, but we're going to make an amendment that is going to allow us to put more store stores out in the city. And to me, that seems counter to the spirit of what we're actually trying to do. When I have spoken with constituents, I've not had one constituent say to me, I need more places to go buy retail tobacco. And so for me, supporting this amendment doesn't seem prudent because I don't believe that the statement that we're trying to make as a city, because you can still open a retail location, you just may not be able to sell tobacco. And I'm actually okay with that because there are certain parts of my city maybe you should sell fruit instead of tobacco. And my colleague, Councilman Hines, was asking about the notification process. I can assure you no one is going to let the tobacco license lapse. Why? Because they make a ton of money off of that product. They're not going to forget that. So I can't support the amendment moving forward. Councilman Flynn, I would hope my colleagues would not. I think it does send a mixed message. But I appreciate the colleagues. I appreciate the conversations and hear from one of my colleagues. Do thank, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Nine tobacco. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Mr. Hernan or excuse me, Councilman Hernan. There was no map. Retailers. I maybe this is for you. I would imagine that the retailers are aware of where the other retailers are. Would you say that to be the case? I mean, it's not me speaking. I mean, so they they know they know that they're in a location where they'll sell cigarets. Otherwise, if they were in a location where they wouldn't sell cigarets, they wouldn't be there for very long. I would imagine. Then I guess I'm hesitating because the nature of my question. I realize this call is calling for speculation that probably the department is not in the business of making. So is there a retailer here that that was in the stakeholder process that might be willing to speak tonight? Figured I'd ask. Thank you. Okay. So I guess the comment that I would make is. It doesn't take an MBA to know that you should know where you are in relation to your customers and where you are in relation to your competition. And while I respect that a map kind of drives that home, I'm not sure that a map makes the difference between. Whether, you know, whether a retailer does. I mean, I think at some point, if you if you aren't aware of where your customers and where your competition are, then natural selection will weed you out soon enough anyway. So I respect my colleagues in their reasoned decision. And I, I also I want to be very I want to be very clear that I want to make sure that we have transparency in government. And if there was no in fact, the reason why I was going to oppose the amendment is because there was this stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process had these you know, the language there from the beginning is that we didn't change the language at all in the stakeholder process. I mean, it was it was draft language that was taken to a PowerPoint. So yeah. Okay. So the revised to be 500 feet, that was the only change on that. Right. So stakeholder process was there. We had the information from the very beginning, the language. So I think what's what's giving some of my colleagues pause is the transparency around that stakeholder process. And. And yeah, there was the language. But maybe they could be posited or theorize that some of the people didn't really fully understand what the language was. And I guess my point is, I think that even without a map, I think that cigaret retailers would likely know where their, their customers are and where their competition are even without a visual display. So I'm sorry, I'm kind of working through this real time, but we're also getting information real time. So. So thank you. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Sometimes I don't see anybody else in the queue. I do have a few questions. This one, I think is for you or no trust. And if you could tell me on this task force, could you remind me, were there any seats set aside for council members to participate in their task force? No. This was city staff that worked on them. The bill we took the feedback from the first time we went to committee back in March or April, and we worked on the licensing component between then and when it went to committee most recently. Just a, you know, for future reference, appreciate if you give us a couple of seats on there. I do think that it helps if you look at things like green roofs that have task force and council members can speak to what happened to those those stakeholder meetings and some of the agreements that were reached and how they got there. Sometimes we speak our own weird language. Better to communicate that back. So just a recommendation for anyone considering task forces, I think I always think you get a better result when you include council member spots on there. Councilman Flynn, one of the things that you had mentioned was, hey, this wasn't really the intent. The intent is don't sell to anyone under 21. Setbacks weren't really robustly discussed. We didn't have all the chance in the data. But you're not proposing that we remove all of the setbacks? Only some of them. Can you walk me through some of your thinking on why? Why some of them? And why not just say no setbacks? Let's reset that and have that conversation and come back with that. Why keep some and get rid of others? Sure. Mr. President, I. I accept and agree with the observation that it is a good thing to keep new retail locations away from places where youth are known to congregate. And that is schools, rec centers and pools. I don't put daycare centers and the entire spatial relationship between the retailers themselves among among that category. Again, in that in that realm, the stricter enforcement and pulling of the license itself is what will reduce the concentration of retailers who are violating and are selling currently now to under 18 and after this passes to under 21. So I think it does make sense and it was persuasive in committee to have the thousand foot distance from schools, pools, rec rec centers, but daycare just didn't ring. Again, I mean, you don't have 18 year olds going to daycare these days. It's kids don't congregate. Kids who want to purchase cigarets don't congregate in the daycare. And plus, you have the problems with with the daycares being in-home and being having new daycares causing distancing problems with currently existing retailers. So it makes sense to me to keep the thousand foot restriction from schools, rec centers and pools, but not so . I don't see that reasoning applying to daycare or to or to. Among the retailers themselves. I am looking at when if I can expand on that. Mr. President, please. I'm looking at the presentation interest and made in March at committee and I don't see any mention of proposing distancing requirement in it. In March, we were only talking about raising legal fees to correct. And I think that's the intent and that's the purpose that everybody that I believe that'll pass 13 to nothing. Well, 12 to nothing tonight with one missing. I don't see anyone up here. I haven't heard of anyone opposing that and that that will be accomplished with or without this amendment. But because it wasn't brought to us in March, it wasn't even a topic of discussion. I first learned of it in the Safe House Committee when when Kristen brought it. I think that's a broader policy discussion that needs to be had separately and not muddle up the issue of selling to under 21 with these extra distancing requirements . Thank you, Councilman. And then, you know, I had this in my questions before. Councilman Herndon made a statement that I generally tend to agree with. I don't know if somebody from excise could maybe answer how many establishments with a marijuana license because we have a lot of grandfathered in there based on setbacks, have lost their license from forgetting to apply their rent a few people. You know the burden to remember. What if I forget? What if I haven't gotten them enough notifications? Councilman Herndon made the point that, hey, this is a big part of how I make money, so I know that's probably not likely. You know, I know in my district where we have a huge number of grandfathered marijuana businesses, I don't know of any who have forgotten to apply and lost their grandfathered status. So anti-tobacco from the Denver city attorney's office. I'm not aware of that happening. Marijuana licenses can be very expensive. And so they do keep track of those renewal dates. So I'm not aware of anyone who has inadvertently let the license lapse and then lost grandfathered in based on that. Okay. Thank you. And then I'll just as in the question, just another thing that, again, I do think I wish we would have really dove into this part of this, and I wish that we would have this as a broader conversation across marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, because I feel like sometimes we are talking about what seems like the same thing, but they are all stigmatized, are not stigmatized, looked at in different ways. And we're making different decisions not based on facts. I agree with, you know, Councilman Flynn's statement that there aren't a lot of toddlers coming in from daycares to purchase. I also don't think that and I could be wrong, we haven't had this data. There are a lot of kids at elementary schools who are trying to purchase and elementary schools. There are way more of them than middle and high schools and there are way more charter schools that can also move in and change how things are . Should we be talking about that? Should we be talking about all of these things and how they interact? And I worry a little bit of something similar happening to what happened with marijuana in my district along Broadway in particular, whereby grandfathering everyone and making new rules for everybody else. You now have an area that has a higher concentration of dispensaries than anywhere else in the city ever will. And if we're already are looking at a map that says these establishments are already added density, that research is showing is causing problems. Right. And not where we want them to be and where youth are. And now we're adding this in. It's it's it's protecting areas from ever becoming like that. But those aren't the areas. It's the same disproportionate effect. And I think what we haven't talked a lot about, I think looking at that mapping, it would be similar to marijuana mapping where we're going to see now we've institutionalized and added value to a license that's grandfathered has a higher value. If I can't get a new one anywhere in there, then where I can, that will continue to now institutionalized forever a higher density of these establishments in lower income communities, in communities of color than in other parts of town that will never now are protected from ever getting to that level of density. So I wish we were having a broader conversation about all of that. And what are the effects of a of these things and why are we treating setbacks for these things differently? And so I do think regardless of what happens today, the good news is we can change a lot of that across all of these things. And I do think that we should dove deeper into that and really have conversations that are data driven about who are we trying to protect, what are we trying to protect, and is this an effective way of doing that and what are the unintended consequences? So I just want to make one last observation and then we will vote on the amendment. I think it's very interesting that there's not a single retailer in here today. So as we're debating all this things and how it will impact retailers and losing their license and all this or not one of them here to speak up, which is unusual, I would say, when we talk about these things elsewhere, is when it's somebody who does feel like this is a real threat to their business. So just an observation. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call, we're going to vote on the amendment first. So this is on the amendment that Councilman Flynn has put forward. My secretary, Scott Flynn. I see tobacco. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon No. Hines No. Cashman. Kimmage Right. Ortega. No. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I know. Secretary, please cause voting in the results. Nine eyes, three knees. Minus three nays. Counsel Bill 921 has been amended. And now, Madam Secretary, unless there's somebody I know, a lot of people said they were going to make their comments on the bill as a whole when they made their comments on the amendment. But if there's anybody who was waiting to just make their comments on the bill speak now or we're going to do a roll call on the bill as amended. I don't see anybody. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 921 as amended. CdeBaca, I. Flynn. Hi Gilmore I Herndon. High. Tide. I. Cashman Kenny Ortega I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer I Torres, i. Mr. President, all right. I'm secretary. Please. Because voting in those results. 1212. Hours counts will 921 has passed. Next up, it. Could you please put. Well, did I miss something? No, no. Just don't forget to go back. Yeah. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the item on our screens. That comes from Norman Sawyer. Called out, which was 965. Four questions. And, Councilwoman, go ahead with your questions.

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

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0587

Thank you. And Item 22. Report from Development Services Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to various sections of Title 21 zoning regulations read and adopted as read citywide. There are recues on this. Sorry. What was I. Do? Because, yes, this comes from a pure Socrates myself, working with urban commons. Thank you. Okay. There is again a motion by Councilwoman Pryce. Can I get a second, please? Take my customers in Dallas. Let's go ahead and do a roll call. District one. I. District three. I. District four. Right. District five I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. My motion carries. Thank you. I believe that concludes all of the items on the agenda. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, great. Then we will move on to a journey to meeting investors. Any new business from anyone? I don't have anybody queued up. So see? See? No, no queue ups for any announcements. I will just go ahead and then close the meeting and thank everyone for the day and will see everyone next week for the council meeting

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for the First Amendment to Lease No. 29263 with CDCF III Pacific Catalina Landing Long Beach, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for City-owned property generally located at 310-340 Golden Shore Avenue, commonly known as Catalina Landing, to extend the term of the Lease by 16 years, for a new expiration date of April 28, 2084. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_04172018_18-0347

Thank you. I believe we're on item 29. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Was here item 29, please. Report. From economic development recommendation to execute all documents necessary for the First Amendment to lease with Catalina Landing to extend the term of the lease by six years district to. Councilmember Pierce. I matter of fact is that staff that's going to stay. Here. Staff report first John Geisler and Johnny Vallejo. Hello Vice Mayor City Council. A Catalina landing is located at 310 340 Golden Shore Avenue in downtown Long Beach. The property includes four office buildings, a parking structure and an enclosed boat base in L.A. facility adjacent to those office buildings. August eight, 2015. The current lessee acquired the property upon purchase by its parent company, Colony Capital. Now Colony Northstar, Mr. Murchison is here on behalf of the lessee. The original lease established a rental rate with CPI adjustments every five years. Current ground rent under those existing terms is $1,166,400 per year and the lease currently runs through April 28, 2068. The current tenant has begun an ambitious and innovative Capital Improvement and Asset Enhancement Program, with an estimated investment of over $15 million through 2021. The improvements will include structural and placemaking improvements to the promenade, elevator and restroom upgrades solar and solar battery projects, allied retrofits, electric vehicle charging stations, improved suites in common areas, landscape improvements. Monument wayfinding. Signage, mural and bike share enhancements, free public Wi-Fi and more. To encourage this level of investment, the tenant has requested a lease. Extension of six. Years. In considering the. Proposal, city staff assess. The feature value of the extended term based on expected cash flows. And took into. Consideration the lack of fair market value adjustments in the current lease. To that end, the proposed First Amendment to lease number 29263 have been negotiated containing the following major amended terms and conditions. The terms shall be extended for an additional six years through April 28, 2084, the maximum. Six. Years allowed within the Caitlin's area. The amendment includes to fair market value rental adjustments on May 1st, 2043, and on May 1st, 2068 to reflect the fair market value of the premises based on the existing use and improvements, tenant shall make a one time lease. Extension fee. Payment to the landlord. The city in the amount of $1.9 million due upon execution of the First Amendment, and Tenant. Shall make a one time wayfinding fee payment. To landlord in the amount of $250,000 to be used exclusively by landlord to install and or upgrade gateway and. Wayfinding. Signage and make improvements to the general vicinity of the leased premises or remaining terms of lease to 1963 shall remain in full force. In effect, the city's fiscal consultant, Kizer Marston Associates, has reviewed the proposed amended terms and associated financial assumptions and supports approval of the proposed amendment. This concludes my staff report. Thank you. Back to council reporters. Yes, I want to thank Staff and Colony. And Mr. Martinson, I know that. This has been I feel like. I had this first meeting of my first week in. Office. So I want to recognize the. Skills of our city staff and really trying to make sure that we could get to an agreement that is. Beneficial to community members, where you have a community space, where they're working with. Us to make sure that it's a project that we can be proud of and really transform that into a space where people are engaged in the space where they're not now. As well as the wayfinding and some of. Those other efforts. So just I want to applaud you guys for really sticking it together and really going back and forth. I'm very excited to vote. Yes and ask my colleagues to do the same. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Very much looking forward to this and thank you for your work. Economic development. This is great. Draw public comment on this item. Good evening, mayor and Council. You have a very difficult staff to negotiate with and economic development. Okay, thank you. There's a motion and a second and membership is going to cast your votes. This is I'm really glad this is finally getting done as well. So it's good to see you. Very happy to have negotiated with you guys. Councilman Mungo, mike member Mungo. She's not here. She is. Where is she? Miss Mungo, are you voting yes on this or no? Okay, thank you. All right.

A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0863

All right. Well, you go ahead. You're welcome. All right. We'll go ahead and get those up in the queue. All right. Under resolutions, I believe, no items have been called out and under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council members carnage and Tories have called out Bill 863 for a vote and Councilmember King each has called out Bill 924924 for a vote as well. But it sounded like we wanted to add a few more in there and so we'll go ahead and get those added and then under pending, no items have been called out. We're going to go ahead and pause for a second. It sounds like online we have Councilmember Ortega has her hand up. It's not a president. I just wanted to clarify. On Council Bill 20 10855. The title of the bill refers to it as West 46th Street in Berkeley. But in the description, it's Avenue, and I think it's an important clarification that needs to be made to make sure that's consistent. It should be avenue. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for that clarification. And that was Bill 855 on the introduction. And so we'll make sure to work with the agency if there's anything we need to do and get that corrected when it comes up on second reading. All right, Madam Secretary, it looks like we've got the first item up on our screen here. Council Member Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 863 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 863 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Kenny, your motion to amend. Yes, Council President. I move to amend Council Bill 20 1863 in the following particulars on page one before line 22, insert section two, Dash 407 Dash Special Event. For purposes of this Article x x, the term special event shall mean a temporary event held on public property open to the public involving permitting by and coordination of two or more city agencies. In addition to the Office of Special Events on page one Lane 22, strike 2.407 and replaced with 2-408 on page one lane 27, strike two, dash 408 and replace with 2-409, page two, line 13 after city owned property insert where two or more city departments are involved on page two line 15 strike obtained and replaced with obtain on page two line 15 after from insert any on page two, line 15 strike departments and replace with departments on page two, line 21, strike two, dash 409 and replace with two. Dash 410 on page two, line 23, strike to dash 408 and replaced with 2-409. And on page two, line 27, strike two, dash 410 and replace with 2-4 11. All right, thank you. Councilmember Cooney has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Koinange. Thank you. Council President This amendment came from our discussion in first reading where questions were asked about when or how is it appropriate to add an additional permit and process to some event holders? And, you know, the answer given by the agency with really good intentions was that this wasn't for any routine rental of a shelter for an event in a park. It was where there was a more complex event that involved a park. And right of way or right of way and a special business license or something like that, where there was more complexity in reading the bill during our meeting, the language wasn't quite as clear as the description, and because some colleagues had concerns, I felt like it would be both reassuring to my colleagues as well as best for their record to have the bill clarified. To make very clear this is only for complex permits involving multiple agencies. So that's where all the language around permits is. There were also some typos where cleaning up at the same time for efficiency. So that's what some of the rest of this is. I would defer any further questions if there irony on the substance, but I believe what we're doing is matching the language to the discussion we had just with with a minor word clarification. Thank you. Council president. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ngige, at speaking to the amendment. Next up, we have Councilmember Torres. But I wanted to remind folks that were commenting on the amendment. At this point, we'll vote on the amendment and then there'll be time to make additional comments on the final bill as amended if that amendment passes. And so I just wanted to share that. And so, Councilmember Torres, I see you've moved to when we vote on the amended bill. Councilmember Hines, did you want to speak on the amendment? Thank you. Council President. I just want to ask one question to Office of Special Events. Is this do you consider this a friendly amendment? Thank you. Thank you. Council president. All right. We had an affirmative from the Office of Special Events that this is a friendly amendment. And so we'll go ahead. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Cashman. I Cashman. I. I. Councilmember Ortega. I. Thank you. Can each. I. Right. Flynn. I. Herndon High. Times, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. Council Bill 21, Dash eight. Six three has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval. Will you please put Council Bill 863 on the floor for final passage as amended? I move that council bill 863 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 863. Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the amendment to clear up some of the items. It doesn't relieve, I think, some of the questions that I have. And so I'll still be a no tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Not seeing any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 10863, please. Cashman. I. Ortega. I. Black. I see tobacco. No. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Can each I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer, I. Torres No. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. Three names. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Counsel build 20 1-863 has passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens as the Madam Secretary, is the council secretary is doing that? It looks like we're going to go ahead and go back and clean up the bill for introduction eight, five, five.

Approves a map amendment to rezone property located at approximately 1600 Raleigh Street from C-MX-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 5 stories) to C-MX-5/proposed DO-5 in Council District 2. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a map amendment to rezone property located at approximately 1600 Raleigh Street from C-MX-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 5 stories) to C-MX-5/proposed DO-5 in Council District 2. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.

DenverCityCouncil_02022015_14-0963

The existing context. This is a shot from the Coleman building on the east side on Perry Street over toward the west and sell signs like Park. Obviously, things are starting to happen. And then the existing land use, building form and scale east of Perry Street are primarily single family, some multifamily, all low rise, all low skill buildings . And then to the Southwest, where we actually have an existing parking structure on the site, there are some very small houses. Unfortunately, I couldn't zoom in well enough in the sun to get to those, but also similar scale housing to the west of the site. And then also a school building to the west as well. There is a pending rezoning that you may hear about, which is not the subject of tonight's hearing. But just for your information, is block one of these cell salons like redevelopment area and this is at the southeast corner of Stuart and 17th. Again, that will come before you and the future. The review criteria for the amendment to add the design overlay tonight includes all of our standard rezoning criteria with consistency of adopted plans, uniformity of our district regulations, furthering the public health, safety, safety and welfare, and then also justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. There is an additional criteria that is applied as part of our code where the City Council may approve an official map amendment for a property located within an approved GDP or general development plan area, taking into consideration the approved GDP. With that, a summary of the consistency with adopted plans. We've included comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the West Conflict Facts Plan from 2006 and the South Sloan's Lake General Development Plan, which, while it's not an adopted comprehensive plan supplement, it is a GDP. And as I explained, can be considered in this this pending rezoning proposal. The comprehensive plan always has standard support for infill debate and neighborhood development compatible with existing neighborhoods. But drilling down further into blueprint Denver and the West Colfax Plan Blueprint Denver supports. The site is an area of change where new growth should be channeled. We already know that's happening with the development of South Sloan's Lake. The concept is for mixed use. None of those things are really at task today, and in terms of the zoning, it is still going to be mixed use. Five We're talking about restricting the heights along the edges to be compatible with what our plan recommendations say. The West Colfax Plan encourages height transitions to existing lower density. Lower height was Colfax neighborhood blocks like Stewart and Perry Street. The West Colfax Plan designates the whole site as a town center and calls for compact development that radiates from a dense core to lower intensity at the fringe. Further support is in the South sounds like general development plan. And if you look at the the picture of that GDP on this slide, within the dotted line are the areas that are sort of called for as the core of the dense core. And then all of those edges and some of that within the dotted line would be the areas where the Doe five or design overlay is is placed. And your staff report also outlines in detail what those height transitions are. They're also on this slide. In sum, the idea of five an application of the DE five to the areas that we know as blocks one through six between 17. Canellos, Stuart and Perry Street implement the height limitations as recommended in our plans. The use this design overlay as we explained during the text amendment, but I'll reiterate uses a distance from the zone lot line and those measurements are in the Denver zoning code. The proposed DOE five mapping on the site provides context sensitive height, transitions to the adjacent neighborhood blocks and again does not change the base zoning of the site. The Math Amendment does result in regulations that are uniform across the district for All Lands Map Deo five, which at this time are only contemplated at this site and furthers the public health, safety and welfare, providing for context sensitive transitions that provide for pedestrian friendly environments at the street level where their experience of place is most apparent and where people actually can be part of the streetscape. This provides safety and eyes on the neighborhood. Justifying circumstances in this case so that it is in the public interest to encourage a departure from the existing zoning through application of supplemental zoning regulations. That is, the DE five that are consistent with the intent and purpose of and meet the specific criteria stated in Article 9.4.5.1. That is the article within our overlay regulations in general that design overlay districts implement land use and urban design recommendations and standards set forth in neighborhood or small area plans. They provide uniform standards for mitigating the impact of more intensive uses and reinforce desired character for newly developing areas. All three of these things in place at this site. The CMC's five and I say proposed here it actually is really an adopted now oh five will allow up to five storey buildings at certain locations, three in others and four on other blocks. As the graphic showed you, the DFI provides limitations on height to address compatibility between higher height, future development and lower intensity. West Colfax Blocks. We do put this through the Standard City Review with all of our departments. We've received no substantial comments from any of our other city departments. It really is substantially L.A., CSU Public Review. It has gone through extensive public review as it's associated with the South Sloan's Lake redevelopment and as it's continued progress and all notice was provided to applicable registered neighborhood groups, including the West Colfax Association of Neighbors, Denver Neighborhood Association, Sloan's Citizens Group, the West Colfax Business Improvement District, Northwest Quadrant Association, the I.N.S. and the Sloan's Like Neighborhood Association. Public Comments. We've not received any letters specific to the City Council hearing. We did receive a couple that I did forward to you later this afternoon that were from planning board, in case you were interested, that were really submitted at that time for the whole South Sloan's Lake approach . Overall, there was support for the approach. There were questions about the use of applicable city plans and how we use GDP's or don't use GDPs and concerns regarding the overall development impact. So some things were not as relevant to the actual rezoning discussion, but more relevant to some site plan. Specific questions that people had with that staff has done its analysis and is recommending approval to the City Council, based that finding of all rereview criteria have been met. Thank you. Ms. HOST We have six speakers tonight and I'm gonna call all six of you. You can make your way up to the front pew. Cameron Bergeron. Dan Shaw. Trevor Hines. Brian Levitt. Rabbi Aaron Wasserman. I apologize. It was cut off and Ben Stetler so you six can come up to the front pew and Mr. Burton, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. Thank you very much. Cameron Bertrand I work with EFG South Sloan's Lake LLC one. We are the property owner and we address at 475 17th Street. I just wanted to quickly say, as the property owner, since we are not the applicant in this instance, that we are supportive of what the City and Councilwoman Sheppard are doing here and feel like it flows logically from the city's West Flex Plan effort, followed by the general development plan and the design overlay to then implement what was in the general development plan makes an awful lot of sense and we think it has given a lot of assurance to both our developers, but also the surrounding neighborhood that what's coming is flowing from those previous planning efforts. So with that, thanks very much and we appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Dan Schorr. Yes, hi. Dan Schorr from the West Colfax Business Improvement District. So, yeah, I just want to indicate where our support for this map amendment, we believe that the what it does is it really memorializes what was in the West Colfax Plan and St Anthony's task force in order to integrate the neighborhood with the redevelopment site. It also and then especially with design guidelines that the property owner has issued, it works to attract more market rate development on the site, which is really important and which was recommended in the plan and also is very important to stimulate the kind of neighborhood serving retail that we've been working to achieve in and around West Colfax . And then finally so and then from the business development perspective, having market rate housing obviously means that you have incomes with greater disposable income and that as such, it just becomes a very important part of the revitalization of West Colfax. And then finally, by striking balance between existing housing stock and more intense development, the MAP amendment also supports to the plans vision of a neighborhood developing with sufficient rooftops to support neighborhood serving retail and services. And then finally, that also works with greater numbers of people. It also supports the West Colfax plans recommendations for a walkable, transit oriented neighborhood and healthy neighborhood. So we're confident that the code change proposed is really going to promote the kind of investment that the plan envisioned and that we've been working for. So we're very much in supportive support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Trevor Hines. Thank you. Hello. My name is Trevor Hines and my address is 278, a South Monaco Parkway, Denver, Colorado. I am the CEO of Denver Real Estate Development, together with my partner, Brian Jay Levitt. I've heard many people say that some 2000 people a month have been moving to Denver as a net migration. America's a free country, and many fine people, citizens and non-citizens, choose to make Denver their home to accommodate these people. The city itself is forced to grow. What was once sufficient in terms of retail infrastructure, office and housing cannot meet the needs of the future in a growing city like ours. This requires the construction of new buildings. The business of development is to build new buildings in areas with the greatest potential that is currently unrealized. There is no place I can think of that fits this definition better than West Colfax. Sloan's Lake Park is beautiful. Mile High Stadium is less than one mile away. There's a new light rail stop at the Dry Gulch and there's close access to downtown. And yet the residents of West Colfax are treated to elevated levels of crime, outdated retail and an overall lack of services. Denver has sprawl to the east and the west, the north and the south, and there are natural limits to this growth. The new generation of homebuyers that is entering the market is looking for more urban places to live. This means places that can be reached on foot, by bike, by train and by bus, and not just by automobile as restricted by the design overlay. We intend to build some 224 units on block one of the St Anthony's redevelopment, moving from two stories on the western portion up to a maximum of 12 on the northeastern corner . The design overlay in front of city council would restrict the rights of the landowner and reduce what could be built on the site. Nevertheless, we are in support of this motion because it would cement the form of what we intend to build as a promise to the neighborhood. We have conceived of a building that we feel is elegant and modern and sensitive to its surroundings. Under the current zoning of CMCs five. It is possible to build an even greater number of apartments on the site, perhaps 300 or so. The map overlay would pave the way for a development that could bring greater height and greater quality without excessive density. Thank you. Thank you. Brian Levitt. Good evening. My name is Brian Levitt. I'm the president of Nava Real Estate Development, 100 Fillmore, Denver, Colorado, 80206 Members of the City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Our company, Nava Real Estate Development is focused on building quality projects in the Denver community, where Trevor and I both live. In Denver, we have kids. We both have several girls who are going to school in Denver. And I actually am a product of Denver public schools, starting at Hallett, going to Cole, Thomas Jefferson and staying here. So the opportunity to develop West Colfax is a really great opportunity for us. And I think that initially one thing that really attracted us to us was not only the neighborhood, not only the chance to help revive West Colfax, which is really exciting, but as Trevor mentioned, to take advantage of one of the greatest assets in town, which is Sloan Lake Park. Now we've been watching the news and for several years now I've been studying the economy and clearly building for sale housing. Condo housing is a very big challenge right now. And to do that, we don't take that challenge lightly. For several years, we have been meeting with law firm specialists and have developed a very extensive strategy to try to put for sale condos out into the Denver market. We think it's very important. We're very excited about the opportunity. And what we found out is really there's one simple word that is the answer for doing this, and that's quality. And quality comes at an expense, but quality is also what we are planning to build here. We've hired Arnell Design and Munoz Alvin to build this great building. It will be LEED certified as everything we build is LEED certified, and this is going to be the one of the first. Well certified. Projects in the world. It's already registered right now, if we're fortunate enough to build it. So why Stone Lake again? The project, the master development overall? It's an incredible project. The Streetscapes, the Metro District, it makes it all real. And again, being right on the lake is incredible. The general development plan that we originally read several years ago spoke of height from 8 to 12 storeys high. And being a condo developer, I can tell you that we're not going to build what condos and if not bought for the building being 12 storeys high, we're not going to build a for sale product and it goes. Back to the quality issue. So we obviously we have taken part in numerous community meetings over the past year and really feel confident that we have tried to flush out any of the concerns and we've listened to the members of the community and we try to be reactive to them. We feel that this proposal supports the community goals of a balanced housing type at St Anthony's. It will help revitalize West Colfax and Sloane Lake. It will capitalize on nearby transit station and most importantly, will allow more Denver residents to live on the lake. So we thank you. We humbly request your approval of the overlay and eventually of the CMC's 12 on the 17th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Rabbi Aaron Wasserman. Thank you. Aaron Wasserman, President and CEO of Sheba Tourism. We are actually neighbors of the proposed overlay lanes development. So I want to thank city council and Councilwoman Susan Shepherd for the consideration of as a especially as a neighbor to the idea of lowering the density, at least at the edges. So there's a decent transition for the homeowners as well as the school and everyone that's right across from the property. So we are in a for this this overlay and hopefully a student city council approve this overlay to have the consideration of the community that's around their existing community. Thank you. Thank you. Ben Stetler. Hi there. Good evening. My name is Ben Stetler. I'm co-president of the West Colfax Association of Neighbors registered neighborhood organization in West Colfax of just north of 600 registered members. We can supports the mapping of the DOE five at the site because it implements the vision of a transition between new buildings at St Anthony's in the existing neighborhood. I am hopeful you will support the mapping of the deal filed this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Chapman. Yes, Madam Secretary, I was hoping you could put the pin this sort of simplistic graph up. Or is it Deirdre again that shows the height transitions proposed by this design overlay? Here we go. Okay. So I just. There's been quite a few things to discuss tonight, and I just wanted my colleagues to be really clear on what the design overlay is proposing this evening. And that is the pieces in purple. And the the green piece. Is that correct, Deirdre? That is on the edges of the overall development on both the Stuart Street side as well as the Perry Street side. And I just I just wanted to make that clear. And those numbers are stories. And those numbers are stories. Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Any other questions from members of council seen on public hearing on 963 is now including the time for comments? Councilwoman shepard. Thank you. So colleagues, if you're having a little bit of deja vu all over again, there's a reason for that. And that's because we actually voted on the text amendment. That is the companion piece of this. Was it two weeks ago during January 5th. So you may feel like you've heard this twice and it's because you have. I just want to confirm that for you. But I want to. The reason that I'm supporting this tonight, number one, as the companion piece to the text amendment. But secondly, there's a couple of different things going on at this site. And it's important to remember that this site is going to be sold off individually, the individual blocks to different developers. And so this tool is an opportunity to codify what the general development plan says, so that this will be literally in our code and provide that consistency of expectations for what exactly will happen as this site develops overall over the next two, five, ten years, and that we ensure that the transitions between the various projects and that that the new projects and how they transition to the neighborhood is codified. And so that's what we're trying to achieve here. I just want to make sure that people aren't a little bit confused. One of the speakers spoke to the zoning of BLOCK One, which is an item that will be before us later. So don't confuse what was said about that with what we're actually voting on tonight. And that is the design overlay that implements the three stories on Stuart and Perry and then the four stories right there next to the what, as many of you may know, is the parking garage that remains from the St Anthony's site. So I do support this tonight and I would kindly beg your indulgence to support it as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to add my support as well. I know this is a project that's been around for a very, very long time in the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. I know I attended many meetings when the hospital was still on the site and much of the meetings were taking place there. There has been lots of discussion around the issue of height. And I just want to commend Councilwoman Sheppard for her efforts in working both with the developer and with the community to define the edges of this project and make it clear for everyone, including other developers who may yet to come and build on this site. I'm also a very strong proponent of affordable housing, but in this area of the city, there already is a lot of low income or affordable housing, actually, a combination of both. And on this site, I think it makes perfect sense that there is market rate housing that will help ensure that we are successful in bringing many of the types of services that will serve these neighborhoods and keep some of Denver's tax dollars in Denver and not have them leave to Jefferson County because folks who live along the western edges of the city, by and large, for lots of different services, whether it's going to the movies or oftentimes shopping restaurants many times will cross over and spend money in Jefferson County. And if we can keep a lot of those tax dollars in Denver, when we deal with tough economic times, it means that we're capturing those in our Denver general revenue account and not Lakewood or Wheat Ridge or one of the neighboring cities. So I just want to also commend the development team who has really gone above and beyond in working with folks like Villa Park, the West Colfax Neighborhood Business Association. And tonight's presence, if you will, is a testament to that, because I think had. This been brought forward at the early stages of this project coming forward? You probably have a room full of people expressing concerns about height and maybe density and some of those issues. That all got worked out through this process of, you know, multiple meetings with the neighborhood. So kudos to your team and to our city staff who have been involved in this project. They know there was a lot of give and take with the neighborhood on many of these issues. And I think at the end of the day, this is going to be a good project, if you will. I know there'll be multiple projects within it that will benefit this whole quadrant of the city. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comment on 963 seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call. Shepard Sussman. But I can eat. LEMON Hi, Monteiro. NEVITT Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please cast your vote to announce the results tonight. Tonight's 963 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. There is no pre adjournment announcement, so seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Think. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.

Recommendation to hold a study session to receive and file a presentation on City’s Bicycle Infrastructure.

LongBeachCC_02012022_22-0120

Thank you. With that, we will move on to the study session. That's the first item of business on the agenda. We are at the top of the agenda. And so please, let's go ahead and have turnover to staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. We are pulling up the presentation on the bike infrastructure. So I will turn to Eric Lopez to walk us through this item with his team. Thank you, Tom. Mayor, members of the city council were actually. Update today. And then in our city, I have the engineer and acting city engineer. I will take us through some of our some of the planning documents are really important to this work. And then Bernd Leno, our mobility officer. Some. How can we go to the next slide? The. I mean, so the, the we spent a lot of time developing our bike master plan and we're going to do a very quick and easy refresher and similar with our Save three Long Beach Action Plan that was adopted in 2020. It really helps us identify a lot of our focus areas where we are having a lot of safety issues with vehicles and pedestrian safety. And it's really helped ground and provide us critical data to to recommend projects and really seek funding and make improvements in targeted areas. So we'll get a little bit of air into those two major planning documents. Then we're going to talk about two of our programs, our bike share and our goal out go active Long Beach Hub program. And then we're going to talk about projects both recently completed, some that are in the pipeline and we are expecting a lot of more funding opportunities that are going to be made available as part of the Federal Infrastructure Fund. And we want to be ready for that. So with that, Roseman will take us through the next slide. Carl. Thank you, Eric. Go ahead and go to the next slide, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And council members. You know, I've worked for four different agencies over the course of my career. And as you probably know, the city of Long Beach really is supportive of our bicycle community, folks who are out riding the the roadway network and the trails in the past. You know, we we really make a good effort here in the city of Long Beach to support those folks. And we do have a bicycle master plan. It was adopted by the city city council in 2017. It really focused on equity mode, shift sustainability and safety. As a city traffic engineer and acting city engineer, for me, safety is the number one priority. The plan really is to have a vision to shift 30% of all trips to bicycle trips in the course of 30 years. And we want to create an 80 to 80 bicycle network. It is connected, safe and convenient. When we say 1880, that really means we want a bicycle network that is comfortable for anyone to ride from the age of eight to the age of 80. All different types of riders and users. It needs to be comfortable and safe for all of those users. And of course, we want to continue to implement bike friendly programs that support everything that we're working on with the master plan. There's a picture of the front cover of the master plan there on the bottom. Next slide, please. Now, the the bicycle masterplan really goes hand in hand with the safe streets Long Beach action plan that we adopted in city council back in July of 2020. The Vision Zero policy's goal is to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2026. The plan focuses really on the vulnerable road users who are really at a higher risk folks like pedestrians and bicycles, bicyclists. The Action Plan focuses on resources, speeding design, education, data equity in different partnerships. Again, there's the front cover of the Safe Streets plan there at the bottom of the slide. And you can see the map on the right shows some of the what we call hotspots, where we've identified corridors or intersections where we have a high prevalence of collisions that are taking place. We we compiled the data that we have regarding the types of collisions. And we come up with these types of what we call heat maps. Next slide, please. So the safe streets, Long Beach Action Plan, really, we are we are looking at bicyclists who are overrepresented in the crash data, unfortunately. We survey feedback, emphasizing the need for separation between bikeways and vehicular traffic. We look at roadways with bikeways that are typically redesigned to reduce speeding. Bicycle infrastructure can improve safety for drivers as well as speeds come down on a lot of the roadways. You know, it not only makes it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, but it makes it safer for drivers who are in vehicles as well. And that's really important, again, for all users. Since 2020, some of our achievements we've received 19 million for roadway safety improvement projects. Last year we started a yard design education program and we were really kind of unsure how this was going to take off and whether it would be popular. But it has shown to be very popular. And we have staff who meets with residents delivering signs and instructing them how to put them in their yards or along the side the sides of the roadway. Also, we have been successful in reducing speed limits. So far, we've done 29 road segments just recently in the past nine months or so, and we're on course to do another 30 or so. And this is where we can legally and justifiably reduce speed limits anywhere in the city. We have a program where we are looking at doing that every year. So these are some of the things that we're looking at. Our next slide. Okay. So now we'll have Fern come in. She is the lead for the mobility team. Fern. Thank you. Now that we've discussed some of the city's guiding documents, I'm going to provide some information on bicycle related programs and then the projects. So go active. I'll be Hub is a city owned bike commuter bike commuter parking facility is located downtown that you can see here next to the first Street Transit Gallery. The city contracts with a local vendor had on movement to operate the facility, and we offer monthly and annual commuter parking memberships available to the public. We offer 24/7 secure and monitored indoor bike parking. There's also a restroom and showers available for members free monthly bike safety workshops open to the public. And then we also discuss bike registration. We have service and repairs, retail and other information on the city's bicycle network and programs that we we give out to people through this facility. Next slide, please. Now our bike share program has been very successful over the last several years, and I want to provide some program metrics from 2021 . We had almost 600 total buy from the system last year and we refurbish almost 600 also in 2021. We have a total of 96 hubs operating now and during the summer, when we have the highest use in bike share, we see that Belmont Pier, Juniper Lot, 54th place, the Aquatic Center and the Aquarium of the Pacific are the most utilized hubs in the city. We've had almost 50,000 trips last year and almost 250,000 total miles of road. And we've seen our active membership increase year over year with around 30,000 active members in 2018. 40,000 in 20 1940. 6000 in 2020. And as you can see here, almost 60,000 active memberships in 2021. And writers, they have the option to pay per ride or they can purchase a bike share membership. And we also offer student discounts available to one big city, Cal State. Anyone who has a dot edu email address. Next slide, please. In 2021, we signed a new contract with Heron Movement as our vendor to operate and maintain the program. The contract is through September 2023 and it also includes refurbishment of the recently purchased fixture. We intend to expand the bike share program this year starting in May, and this expansion will include up to 1500 new controllers that will allow QR codes to unlock the bikes. And we're also excited to introduce electric bicycles into the bike share program this year with about 100 to 150 added to the fleet this upcoming year. Also be adding in 700 non-electric bikes that will be refurbished and added into the system with the addition of new bike parking hubs installed citywide. And those have we'll be able to accommodate the new e-bikes and the existing non electric bike tricycles. Next slide, please. So this map shows the existing bikeways across the city. The rest from the map are the shared routes and the painted bike lanes and the green are the facilities that Karl mentioned earlier, which includes recreational paths and trails, separated and parking, protected bike lanes and bike boulevards. In 2021, the port completed construction on the pier and Jay Path, which is one and a half miles. And we completed a bike lane on Temple Avenue. And then in addition to that, short segments on Alamitos and Cherry were constructed by private developers as required conditions of approval for the adjacent development projects. Next slide, please. These are the upcoming bikeway projects that we have that are a citywide effort that we plan to complete over the next three years. The total mileage for all 15 of these projects is about 33 miles. The grant funded projects are big projects that were awarded funding through a Caltrans active transportation program. Skaggs Sustainable Communities Program and Metro Measure a active transportation program. The repaving projects are bike projects that were added onto the already planned repaving work. And the local return funded are bike projects that are not connected to a repaving project, but that are paid through local water and transportation dollars. A majority of these projects are separated bike lanes, but we also have a few others like Pine of the Bike Boulevard Project. And then, as I mentioned earlier, we are anticipating release of a few different grant applications this year. A Cycle six will open this summer and we do intend to apply for several bicycle projects through that grant program again. Next slide, please. I just want to talk about a few of the upcoming projects and a little bit more detail. You can see this one is an HP project at the downtown walkable corner. And the intent of this project is to improve comfort and visibility, both for pedestrians and bicyclists. And it also threw some of these both out to encourage safer vehicle turns. We have concrete medians that will help fortify the separated bike lanes along third and Broadway. And this is a really good example of the city's effort to upgrade our temporary striping and green bollard elements to more permanent concrete treatments. So you can see here we have 190 curb extensions and pedestrian medians that will be proposed throughout the downtown area. Magnolia, Alameda, seventh and Ocean are the limits. And that photo there is a rendering of some of what the intersections will look like. Next slide, please. Another ATP project. Here is our Pacific Avenue cycle track. This will extend from Ocean Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway, which is identified as a high injury corridor on the district phone reduction funding. So that map earlier on the screen. For bikes and pedestrians from a high injury network map. This project includes Bass Islands. You can see here on the photo on the right and shorter pedestrian crossings, separated bikeways and additional traffic calming elements. And through this project, we hope to have reduced vehicle speeding and reduce dwell time and then also create a more comfortable experience for bicyclists. Next plan. And then the third project that was awarded through ETP recently is the Pine Avenue Bike Boulevard Project, and this extends from Eighth Street to Willow Street, which will help us connect downtown to the Willow Street Metro Line Station, which is a gap that's identified in our bicycle master plan. And this is a project that will create a suitable bike route for each 80 people, ages 8 to 80. So we're excited about this one. Also, the bike boulevards will use SROs and other traffic calming elements to create a comfortable place for bicyclists to share the road with the local vehicle traffic that rides on the street. And we'll do this through vehicle diverter sprays, intersections, traffic circles, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions and pedestrian medians. You can see in the photo here, this is the proposed diverter at Eastern Time, and that's to help us with the reduced cut through traffic and speeding and improved comfort for everyone. Next slide, please. And so this is the last project that we wanted to highlight in more detail. This was included as part of a repaving project. This is Del Alma Boulevard. And this is part of our effort to move away from the bollards and the paint towards more concrete, more permanent concrete elements. This is a one way bike lane that's adjacent to a school and will help bring vehicle speeds down. This will be from Atlantic Avenue to Orange Avenue and it is a separated bikeway using concrete separated. You can see the photo in Portland here. And this is funded through local transfer and return funds. And another really exciting thing about this project is that it will connect our Orange Avenue and Atlantic Avenue bikeways. Next slide, please. So the Bicycle Master Plan has a target goal to construct 300 miles of bikeways by 2040, and we currently have approximately 165 miles. You can see in this chart that in order to reach that goal, the city needs to build approximately eight miles per year. In 2019, we had our highest recent year when we constructed three miles. That was in Second Street, Audenshaw and East Broadway. You can also see in the chart that we'll focus on building more Class four, which is the separated by claims in the coming year. So you can see the GRE at the top, how most of the future projects are the class for the gray and we'll have kind of a reduction of the class two, which is the second from the bottom shade of blue there. So we'll be converting most of the projects to pass for instead of be the shared route. So just so everyone knows. Class four are the separated by claims, and then class two are just the painted by claims as the separate lane, but not separated by any vertical element and then class three of the shared routes. That's where we have sheroes. And then one are the paths and trails. So that would be a separate path similar to the ones along the two rivers and the beach path. We also are trying to focus on what we are considering low hanging fruit projects. We have about 18 miles of those and those are existing class two lanes that we can upgrade to separated bike lanes. In the future. May our future. Next slide, please. So how we hope to achieve this. This goal is by continuing to get some of these projects awarded by Grantham, considering some of these is both low hanging fruit and more permanent projects. Over the past decade, we have focused more on the temporary materials birth, separated by claims as kind of pilot projects to see how they worked out and they've been pretty successful. But we do know that we'd like to transition to the bottom there, which is the best practice for some of these operated infrastructure projects, those ones there that have either parking or vertical kind of concrete separation. Those are more comfortable, more permanent and more esthetically pleasing for us to do in the streets. However, they are far more costly. As you can see the price comparison here between the quick build of having the best practice one on the bottom there . And then the next slide is just a last slide here. We want to show you some more examples of best practice bikeway design. These ones use more permanent materials and really make bicyclist and pedestrians feel more comfortable. Clockwise from the top left. That's San Francisco, California. That's the concrete median separated bike lane. And then Cambridge, Massachusetts, that's a sidewalk grade separated bike lane. Chicago, Illinois, that's a protected intersection. And then Saint Paul, Minnesota, that's the sidewalk grade separated by Clinton as well. And these are really important designs for us because we know that they attract a broader portion of the population and they enhance comfort for all users and improve accessibility for people with limited mobility. Next slide, please. Okay. Well, that concludes our presentation. Thank you so much for this opportunity to present an update on our bicycle infrastructure. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council that concludes our presentation were available to answer questions. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Motorcar and and to the staff to get you really a great job as you always do want to just overall to say that the work that's happened on this has been really incredible to see. I think you and I have talked about how important it is to continue our mobility projects or our production oriented projects and just great to see all the expansion. So just a huge kudos to the team and this market to you and everyone working on all these projects. I may have some more questions and I want to turn to the council to your question. So I've councilman's in the house first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Great presentation, STAFF. Thank you very much for all the hard work that you've been doing. It just really excites me to see so much good planning put into this. It's just such a great, great presentation. I also wanted to ask a couple of things. I know that in the past and I'm going to use my home as an example, there was a bike lane that was created there and now I am no longer able to access the vehicles that are wheelchair accessible to be able to transport me or they don't have somewhere to wait for me because they're blocking the bike lane. How did you guys take that into consideration? And if so, what is the plan for for something like that? Unaccompanied. And if you need me to clarify, I'd be more than happy to. I think I can address that, Councilwoman. And, um, you know, with all of our projects, there are always sometimes details that fall through the cracks. And that's something that that we didn't know about, we weren't aware about early on. You know, when we do have special conditions that arise, we always come back after the project is installed to try and remedy those situations, to mitigate those issues. So if you let me know where you need to have something done, you know, we can definitely try to help you out there for sure. And we try to catch these things early on in the process, but sometimes it's slipped through the cracks. Yes. Yes. Thank you. And being a big advocate for the disability community, I think that my my fellow disability community members would agree with me that we've been working really, really, really hard to actually be up for thought and not an afterthought. So I've been more involved with you guys and try to pinpoint things because it's not only in my house, you know, I've seen other seniors trying to get picked up, for example, by dialysis and they have nowhere to park because they are now blocking the bike lane. And when they are there and they're blocking the bike lane, the bikers have to get out of the bike lane, around the vehicle and back into the bike lane, which puts everybody involved. So. Mr. Hickman, I look forward to continuing this conversation off line and making sure that we address that. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. And with it, turn for the presentation. I'm sorry. There's somebody I want to make sure I get the claims right. Yes, sir. Thank you. So I appreciate the report back on the bicycle masterplan, as well as how it connects back to the Vision Zero plan. Because I think ultimately what I want to make sure everybody in some level of mobility have safe form of it. And I appreciate the opportunity to look into how we're not only just creating safer bike path, but how we're considering improving our stormwater in that way too, in order to efficiently, efficiently and capture water and make sure that they're clean. And one of the things that I think that is important, too, is connectivity. It's how are the bike paths ultimately also connecting to the L.A. River? Because I do know that there are some people who may want that as an optional commute into the city. So I want to make sure that that is an opportunity we look at. And I just want to make sure that we consider Rivers and Mountains Conservancy as an option of funding that does provide funding into that in addition to federal funding. So so thank you very much. Thank you. Council member Austin. Thank you. And also want to just move my. Appreciation to the staff for their view of the presentation on this plan. We we, I think, should talk more about our. But in active transportation models. And certainly I support the investment that we've been able to make thus far in our city. Been a long champion of active transportation and mobility connectivity throughout our city. I think that the priority, one big priority that we should should always not lose focus on and not just the safety of our our children, the young people, and making sure that they have safe access to ride their bikes to or from school to or from our parks, playgrounds. And we should put put them first. I think also what I hear from a lot of our our constituents is, you know, they'd like to see some consistent application. Right. You know, there are there are corridors where bike lanes look one way on one stretch and then they change to whole another design along the same street. And it may provide some level of protection and safety for one corridor, one section of a corridor, but it's that level of protection and safety changes. And so I think it's very, very important for us as we move forward to not just look at new opportunities, but we need to reevaluate the infrastructure, the infrastructure that we already have to and improve upon it and make it as consistent as possible. You know, I've had the good fortune of working with the traffic engineers, you know, literally over the last ten years on the city council. And I've understood that there are different philosophies and ways to do things. And so consistency is something that I'd like to see more of. And then understanding as I talk about the the infrastructure that we already have, we need to make sure that that that infrastructure is well maintained. Right. I don't think it defeats the purpose to say, hey, we're going to build new bike infrastructure. If the existing infrastructure bollards are missing. Paint is not not clear in on the on the streets. So I'd like to see us put a lot more emphasis on that that type of those type of improvements and ongoing maintenance. I think it would be critical to to improving safety, but also consistent with our our Vision Zero plan. Those are my comments. And I look forward to working with our traffic engineer public works department to to meet those those and in the weeks and months to come. Thank you. Councilmember a councilwoman price. Okay. So it's almost as if Councilman Austin and I had three determine what our our thoughts are going to be tonight. Because as he was talking, I was I cued up early because here's the thing. And first of all, thank you for the presentation. And I tell everyone at every community meeting, our traffic engineers are actual engineers. They're experts whose opinion we should absolutely rely upon and support in terms of what recommendations they bring to the table. And I do what in my field is called the foundation for their expertize, because a lot of times our traffic and neighbors make recommendations that are not popular with certain communities because I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but traffic is a major issue and every one of my community meetings and everyone has a traffic mitigation solution that they think is the best one. But a lot of times it's not the same one that our traffic engineer is. The one is recommending like stop signs. Everybody wants stop signs all the time to slow down speed. And we know from our engineers that that's not what stop signs do. In regards to bikes, we are at a bicycle infrastructure. We're at a place now where just a few years ago, we went through a very painful process, which I call the era of the bollard. And I know Councilwoman Mungo can back me on this. I'm sure all of my council colleagues, if they had installed in their districts, are aware of the era of the bollards. So I felt like I was because we have amazing city staff in terms of your education, your background, people that are very thoughtful and the recommendations that they give. And so a lot of times council members, I defer to city staff a lot because you have the expertize that that I don't have and I'm very mindful of that. And I don't want to second guess what you're recommending, but it looks like we're no longer using bollards. And so what happens to all the bollards that we have already in the city is the plan that at some point down the road will replace those bollards with that little cushion that we have. Talk to me a little bit, Mr. Hickman, about bollards, and promise me that you're never going to leave the city because we want to have consistency with every application. And if that's what the bump that we're doing now is, is a good application that everyone can stand behind, then I'd love to see that be the new standard, but let's let's talk a little bit about that because I don't like that there's inconsistency in look. For me, it's the look. It just makes the city look messy. It doesn't make us look like we have a cohesive plan. It's the same thing with the colors of the ADA ramps. Some are gray, summer yellow. I know we've talked about that, but consistency would be good as we move towards, you know, this concept of equity . Because I think it's really important that the city overall from one side of the city to the other side of the city has same access, same safety features, all of that. So, Mr. Heckman, can you talk a little bit about that? Yes, Councilman Price and Councilman Austin, I totally understand what you're saying about the need for consistency throughout the city. And as a matter of fact, we are currently right now working on developing citywide standard plans and citywide standard specifications that we're going to use on all of our projects. Now, in regards to bollards, yes. In the past there was quite a few green bollards installed on major corridors and we are leaning towards not doing that. And if you see bollards now, you'll be able to see them maybe at the beginning or the end of a particular segment or a or a block. But you're not going to see that long continuous line like you see on some of our roadways. So in place of that, we do need of some sort of a vertical element, which is what a bother provides you. So we are going to be moving towards the more concrete, flatter vertical element that is that separator between the traveled way and the bike lane. Those concrete elements seem to work well, but I want to point out that those type of concrete vertical elements will only be installed where we don't have parking because we don't want to create trip hazards with people tripping over wheel stops or vertical concrete elements. So yes, we are definitely moving away from the typical bollards that you're talking about, but you will still see an occasional bother here and there. It provides additional level of safety right at the intersections. So I hope I answer your question. Good. You did, and I appreciate that. And I think whatever we do, I'm happy to support as long as we have a longer term plan, because our term on the council is council members is limited by the staff's terms in their roles are limited as they move. And we need to have some sort of plan so that the city doesn't look like it's disjointed or fractured from one part of the city to the other. Because then as we get into issues where the city doesn't have a consistent image, and I think that's important. Oh, I. Agree. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is council member your Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. Good discussion so far. But as many of you know, I'm colorblind. So it was hard for me to follow some of those lines where you had it red and green going north, east, west, where they were. It was hard for me to follow in that respect. Yes. Information in place for future presentations. And I'm not the only one I know. There's probably a lot of people out there with a red green color like me having a hard time. And having said that, I couldn't tell if there were any bike lanes in the west part of the city, in the west side, as an example. There's there's a dearth. I drive it a lot, set up a corridor and set up a corridor, goes to report all the way to downtown Los Angeles. And I didn't see anything that even resembled a bike lane in that in that area. There's also some issues in regards to connect connectivity with the West Long Beach area. There's no biking that goes from, say, Pacific to Santa Fe. And of course, there's only four points of. Contact and I PCH will award Wardlow does have a bike lane of course it's littered that had a high propensity of ballots all over on both sides of the street. So that's another issue in and of itself. But that's the only seems to be the only corridor, if you want to call it that, that connects East LA, which, if you will, with West Long Beach, and that's the only one. And then there's no there's nothing on Santa Fe for a, say, a bicyclist to connect to Santa Fe and then go from there to either towards downtown the river or to downtown L.A.. So I think that we need to look at that that bicycle plan a little, a little more before inclusionary. Obviously, equity is a big issue with us in Long Beach and and especially when it comes to the West Long Beach area. So I would want to work with with you, Mr. Hickman. And in regards to what we can do to resolve that, there's of bike lanes in West Palm Beach. Thank you. Councilman Tharanga, if I could respond real, real brief. We do have class three bike lanes getting installed on Santa Fe are coming up this this year. That's part of the improvement project there. But the class threes again are with the shareholders in the roadway, notifying drivers that they should share the road with bicyclists. There isn't a dedicated lane, but we do have a project in the works. Hopefully we get funding to put a bike lane over the Willow Bridge and I am happy to say that with the Shoemaker Bridge that we're constructing, we are bringing and connecting the folks from the west side to the east. There will be a bike path over the Shoemaker Bridge that will drop down and you can access it on the west side at the southern end of Fashion Avenue. So we are working on those kind of activities to the West Side. We're working on it. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up is Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thanks to Carl and Fern for the presentation and a long time in the works, he's made tremendous progress. You know, I remember when a lot of this was planned, you know, was plans and funding identified. But we're in a different place now where we see a real difference on the orientation of our bike lanes, you know? You know, active transportation is the goal. And we have to make sure that we have the facilities in place to ensure that, you know, one can participate in our in our network safely. You know, I remember the conversations earlier were particularly in uptown, all of all of the the lanes were North-South or had a North-South orientation. It was how can we connect uptown to downtown? But the reality and the experience of the people using using those lanes was that they didn't all just want to go downtown or go to the beach. Folks in North Palm Beach wanted to go west or go east. L.A. River, the San Gabriel Valley River. There were already routes to get to get downtown to the river and needed to. But what I've seen is a lot of now the plans really show a lot more east west orientation. That's good. But I think we definitely need to talk about implementation and making sure that the plans do become a reality for people who truly, truly care about transportation equity and are looking to use a bike or whatever means to get where they need to get to. Because there is still a disconnect, in my opinion, between the infrastructure that we plan, what we implement and all the strategies implemented. For example, you know, it took a long time to get the bike network to extend to North Long Beach. There's still a lot more work to do to make sure that those resources, the bikes, you know, even the scooters are in places where our communities can access them. I think, you know, the issue of schools was was raised a bit earlier. I think we have to maintain our conversations with the school district to maintain our emphasis on favor of the school. The bollards were implemented first on Artesia Boulevard because of a need to make the Artesia Bridge safer. Between Jordan High School and starting elementary school. They were never supposed to be a permanent solution. And then we saw that they went citywide. Well, we don't want the bollards forever. I know that we've got work on hand with Artesia Boulevard that are going to make them, you know, make permanent enhancements. But, you know, but what I want to emphasize is that this was because the walk over that bridge was so unsafe for the students, we needed to have some sort of a partition between traffic and a very narrow sidewalk. What we got out of it was we use that as an opportunity extends sidewalks. We gave you know, we got red rose barbecues and patio dining through the process. They were the first ones in the North Miami Beach area to have that happen as the traffic jams were too high for a parklet. And so we did a curb extension. We used active transportation as a means to create some economic opportunity. Those were good. We got to keep doing that. And so I wanted to so my message here is let's, you know, great progress in the planning. We have to continue to apply for funding to make these projects become a reality. You know, our neighborhoods and many you know, I can talk about North Palm Beach. The neighborhoods are great. It's the business corridors. It's the corridors, the lack of attention. Right. And it's the same way in a lot of areas. The homes are great. But when you look at some of the corridors, they need attention. And without redevelopment, sometimes the only funding we get is the funding we can apply for for the public realm, street projects, widening sidewalks, pedestrian lighting I that make it safer also make it more beautiful. And so those are my that's my encouragement was make sure we apply for the dollars that you get as much bang for the buck as we can in the areas that certainly need, you know, based on data. But, you know, the areas that are using this this infrastructure, the areas that businesses could use, you know, some some enhancement because we've seen what happens. It makes a real difference. I mean, Rob Earls is an example. Last name, Carl, if you could just give us a quick update. Where are we with the RTG project? That's a very good question. Vice Mayor Richardson, we were looking at the 100% design plan today with the designer and going over and making sure that they dotted all the I's and cross all the T's and addressed all of our comments from prior submittal. So the 100% design is in the design team that is going to go back, make a few minor adjustments. And then we're looking to advertise between March and June of this year for the RFP for construction. Yes. Okay. Yes, we can see that up a little more. I think that's better because we've what we originally talked about was put on the street in Q one. Yeah. So and it's closely phasing the project. Yes. So you get as much bang for the buck as you can get. Right around Jordan High School. Exactly. You know, we're going to be phasing it in two pieces, but we're making great progress right now. Fantastic. Thank you. Big, grave controversy for now, please. And thank you. The topic of bollards was of little interest to me, but for redistricting, there wasn't a single ballot in the fourth district. Now I just inherited a tunnel. So what I'd like to ask is if, in fact, we're looking at a redesign or removing those, if we could look at options that do not require a specialized street sweeper. It sort of looked like that low version might work well with traditional street super, so you don't have to answer it today. If you could look into those possibilities. And I do remember above what the vice mayor was saying, and that was one of the pet peeves that they would call right off the bat is there was no way of cleaning that thing. Originally, when those bollards first went up on Artesia as major hazard with gravel and whatnot collecting in the bike lane, and I'd love to see improvements in that area. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I think that we do have a motion by Councilperson for now. If I can get a second, that would be great. And I have some comments and questions as well. First, I agree with almost one step further by the Council's really great comments. Mr.. Mr.. Modica, can you go ahead and just put up the of the shot of all the upcoming projects by projects coming up with. Yes. We'll get that on the screen. Thank you. Slide ten. And there is a second by councilwoman. So, Councilman, do you have anything to add if you want to say anything else? Me. Yes. Oh, no. Okay. Good. Thank you. Great. Thank you for that for the second there. Greg, this is this is this is really great. Thank you very, very much for this. So so I wanted to just do first of all, this is a lot of stuff that one of the things I think that we're hoping for. A lot of us are hoping for is I think a lot of us were around back when the city was first experimenting. And we were. I think about like. Ten years ago, we were just barely getting started. 15 years ago, the city was just getting started, having these conversations around like infrastructure and around what the city would look like. And I want to credit I know then Vice Mayor Susan Lowenthal really what I thought was kind of like the city thought if you're around bikes, you work with folks like Mark Bixby and so many other folks in getting our master plan to where it is today and so many others across the across the country. What I hope is I'm looking at this plan as far as the upcoming bikeway projects. And it's super it's super exciting to see this. I want to say a couple of things. One is we should continue to. Link. Our bike projects as well to the impacts around around housing and climate change. And they're all linked. The more we can get folks to travel safely, it does have impacts air quality and does have impacts to the way housing is developed. And so those are always really important things for us to consider. One of the big reasons why these projects are so important. Also, I want to echo the conversations around reinvesting back into bike and bike lane projects that are really need, as we touched on a little a little paint ball replacement, some of the things that we're discussing as far as bollard replacement, which I know I love to hear that from. I'm not a huge fan, but I understand why those put in place, what actually we replace those with. Yes, Mr. Mayor, when those vertical elements, the bollards are damaged, or let's say we were to do a wholesale removal, we would we would need to replace those with some sort of a vertical element. And I mentioned earlier that we're leaning towards that concrete vertical element. It's not really a curb. It's actually quite mountable by a car. But it does provide that vertical separation between the travel lane and the bicycle lane. And so it's a concrete flatter than a normal curb concrete installed with pavement or with the project. And then you can also do other things like we tried wheel stops and on some of our bike projects, but in some areas of the city, the residents complained that the wheel stops were actually trip hazards. So we had to go back and remove those as well. So, you know, again, you need some sort of a vertical element and we are leaning towards that concrete vertical element. That's great. Thank you. And I tell you that I think some of these projects that are that are on here, I remember years ago, some of these projects were not eligible or there is different perspective on whether or not a bike lane could be implemented, including the one on Pacific. I think I'm really glad to see that. But I remember being on the council and that was not a possible bike lane area back then and I'm glad that things have changed and a little more progressive bike policy and locations. I want to also just add their gear doing a major, for example, I see there on Studebaker a big part of that Studebaker grant funded bike lane project, I'm assuming, aligned with our repave of Studebaker that we're working on right now. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. And we're trying to do the the pavement and the installation of the class for bike lane so that, you know, we don't do redundant work or one one type of task doesn't damage the other work that is done. So that is getting installed on Studebaker the class for thank you and then the you know what's missing on here which. You know, I mentioned before and I wish we were able to include it. We're also working on a major review of Anaheim. All the way from Zamfara to the western side of the city and not a fully funded project, but getting more funded project, I think. And so. Will you remind me why we're not included any sort of bike lane project on our home? Yes, that's a very good question. And Anaheim is a very unique corridor because we don't have the road with on a lot of the segments to allow to have the lanes that we need to accommodate the volumes of traffic and then the additional width to accommodate bike lanes. So what we're doing with the Anaheim Improvement Project is we're installing other types of improvements that are that are consistent with complete streets and active transportation where we're doing a lot of improvements at the intersections. And those improvements will help bicyclists and pedestrians and motorists. So also when folks try to cross the street, cross Anaheim, they're going to have islands and medians in the middle for bicyclists and for pedestrians to act as a refuge. So they're not just jumping across the street into traffic, which I love, by the way, because those are incredibly complete street projects that are happening all up and down on through the great. But Anaheim is very wide, and I know that there's a mixed opinion about whether whether bike lanes could go into that project. And so there are other streets where we've installed bike lanes that are much narrower than Anaheim, which is, I believe, one of the wider streets we have in the city. So I'm just wondering if it campaign valuation of that or is there a bigger issue, a bigger safety issue that they'd like to see? Well well, to get the road to get the bike lanes in there, like, say, a class four, you would have to do a road diet. There's there's no other way around that. We don't want to condemn businesses or take people's property to gain additional with in many of the locations. So you would have to go down to a single lane each direction. And we all know how busy Anaheim is. It would greatly impact the vehicular traffic flow along that entire corridor. It'd be quite a mess, quite frankly, if we went down to one lane in each direction. So that is the challenge, you know, road width and eating the road to carrying and having that capacity for the vehicles. So it's a tradeoff and it's a challenge. All right. Gary Mayor Eric Lopez. I was just going to ask if Karl can talk a little bit about, you know, that East West connection and the importance that and if it can't happen on Anaheim, some of the other areas that the bike master plan looks at that can help with that connection. You know, of course, it's going to be safe. It will be convenient. But I, I just want to make sure that when people look at this map, that they know that we recognize the importance of that East West connection and that we do have plans that that we're looking at to ensure that happens. But let me just add to that, that that's really also I think the key piece of this is when you think about the communities between Anaheim and PCH and along that corridor, you have some of our densest, most lower income communities in the city. And I just want to make sure that those folks are being are have access to safe bike ways to get to get from one end of the city to the other and to go east west. So I know that we have some incredible bike infrastructure along the coast even. I think we're building some great, great linkages on 14th. We have incredible bikeway. I think I'm on six, but I do I continue to be concerned about the ability for folks that are along Midtown, along Cambodia, towns through the center of the city to have access to safe pedestrian transportation. And so interstate bike access. So just just want to put it out there. I know I've mentioned the city before. It's fantastic job with all this. This is looking really great. I just wanted to look that up and continue moving forward. Councilman Michael. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry that I had some technical difficulties earlier. I'd like to think that there is some value in discussing. Where are the path to lead when they get to the city edges? So you'll see that there was a discussion of. Specifically that it goes the eastward boundary or the city's northern boundary. It's very valuable to have those connected to other bike infrastructure in the adjacent cities and for US council members to work with the adjacent elected to ensure that there is connectivity so that individuals in those parts of Southern California can bike to Long Beach to experience . Some of the corridors that Mr. Richardson was discussing. So just something to think about. And then I think that we're really excited about the opportunity to have standardization of the bulb outs and standardization of the coloring and standardization of where we do what classes. I also think there needs to be an exception process. If you look at a project that I'm really, really proud of on Viking Way, those bulb out and that additional safety measures could not have been possible if we would have had to wait for the funding to be able to do it via concrete. We did an experiment. We did it with paint and other visual aids that got us there. But that project was originally and ended up being around half a million dollars, and we would have done those bulb outs that have been significantly more expensive with the concrete, and it probably wouldn't have gotten done. And there are times when the priorities of the city are such where a project of that magnitude growing by 25% would not be possible. And so I think we need to look at when and where those exceptions can be. Made and what that looks like. Thank you very much. And finally, Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just following up on what the mayor was just speaking about. When I'm looking at the second district, I see some significant gaps, especially from north to south. And as we know, these gaps are in some of our densest neighborhoods in central Long Beach. So is there, like any timeline or. I guess it's just kind of a follow up question to what you already asked, too. Like, how are we going to address these these gaps that I'm seeing on this map? Well, we typically do, Councilwoman Allen, as we are aware of where we have those those type of gaps that you're talking about. And as projects are developed and as and as project funding comes along, however that arrives, we do try to fill in those gaps. We do have about six projects that we're going to be applying for this coming year for projects. I'm getting into all those details. But with many of our projects, we fill in those gaps as best as we can. And again, it's a corridor by corridor basis, and we look to do that. And on the west side of the city, there's a lot happening up against the river, you know, with the Shoemaker Bridge and the Drake Park improvements. So there are a variety of things happening in the downtown area as well. And I understand that you're aware of the gaps, and I trust that you'll you know, that you'll find ways that you can fill them when you can. But is do you have is there like in any timeline for this? Well, there's no real timeline to say that, you know, everything will be done by act by year X. You know, we do have a goal to to try to get this complete master plan done by, say, 2040. But again, it's piece by piece, developer by developer, project by project. And we sort of piece it together the best that we can as as funding is available and as the projects come together as one agree. Just want one other question. I know I look at the the the go active Long Beach Hub is great but we only have one. What are we doing to provide more secure parking and storage elsewhere in the city? And then also, is there something that we could do to like incorporate in any of the city owned parking structures or locked in to secure parking? Yeah, that's a tough question. You know, right now we do have the one hub, as you mentioned, and it's, um, it costs us a little bit of money to keep that thing up and running. And it's really a unique setup there. And, you know, we would be open to looking for other areas, other sections of town to set up similar hubs. And we do have bike parking in the city structures right now in the Hamilton I'm sorry, the Lincoln Garage. So, you know, again, we are working on those things and as as opportunities arise, we try to fit them in wherever we can. Thank you so much, Carl. Compliment. Can I just add a little bit more to that in now? I have two things. First, you know, we have we do have a lot of parking assets, but I think we can do a better job with providing more secure bicycle parking. So, you know that that is an area where our mobility officer and public works is going to be looking at working with our partner, with our parking team and see what we can do. The second part, um, big grant opportunities like the active transportation program that the state administers that comes every two years. So, you know, in terms of the question of, you know, how often do we get the opportunities? Do proposed projects compete for funding to be able to do some of these bigger improvements? You know, it's right now it's happening every three years. We are expecting more funding to come under those programs because of the federal infrastructure bill. So, you know, I think we're in a unique place. We have our planning documents in place. We know where our gaps are. We know where our where where we can do a better job. And with all of this additional funding coming in, I really think it's an exciting time to to compete for some of these funds, bring some of this funding in and be able to get a lot more of these projects completed. So I, I just wanted to lift that up and just point that out because, you know, not every year that we get to compete, it's been every two years for the last 4 to 6 years for us. I think thank you, Eric, for all your hard work on that. Thank you and councilman for. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on the mayor's question about Anaheim and Cindy Allen's question about North-South. So and this happened on my watch. So Anaheim was deemed not appropriate for bike lanes. So they chose 15th Street. And that bike lane goes from Magnolia on the West all the way to Cal State line, which actually jumps out of the north up to Atherton, then over on the way to Studebaker. So that was the alternative for the Anaheim Street Bike Lane and for Cindy Allan Obispo. And staff can talk about this. This was just completed recently, but I believe I'm not I know it's the fourth District. I know the bike lane goes from 10th to PCH, but it might go even further than that. But so there's a good North-South route right in the middle of the second District section that goes up to PCH. Thanks. You can count on her for those good updates. That concludes council comments on this very session. Is there any public comment? I'm sure. At this time. If there's any members of the public that like to speak on this item, please use this raise hand feature or press star nine. We have three public comments. Dave Shuker. Your time starts now. Great. Can you hear me? Can you? Great. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. Very, very, very good presentation, Mr. HIGGINS. Mrs.. Thank you. So that you can better judge and evaluate what I'm saying. I should note that Vision Zero is something that I have been tracking since Director Con in New York City when I was living there first proposed it and it's something I did research on in 2016, 2017 at UCLA. I very much would like to see Complete Streets on Studebaker. I'm glad to see that there's funding for that. I think the point about the Santa Fe Corridor, using the Alameda Corridor and having not just bike lanes but complete streets on the west side would be really great using the L.A. River as a form of connectivity, not just for bikes, but multimodal connectivity. I think it's something that should be explored on both banks. Things like the DeForest Parkway, for instance, are really going to lead in that direction. It's good to see the traffic safety issues, especially on Vision Zero, have been identified where they're most concentrated on the borders between the first, second and the six districts. 35 saved lives. Speed limit restrictions are helpful, and they're legally and justifiably possible. We should do it. To go back to pub is gorgeous. That is a wonderful use of space. Great program metrics on some of these slides, including the co-benefits for the cost of emissions. A lot of win win win scenarios. It's great to see. I think the city should own site and maintain its own manufacturing capacity for active transportation and multi-modal connectivity. So I'd like to ask, you know, with the 100 250 new e-bikes, are these connected any charging stations or prefiguring things like light monorail or something? I mean, where are these things are going to be located? Because, you know, we've had some problems with some of these electric scooters. The rollout was a bit of a mess. And I hope that their safety and risk model for adding these new e-bikes to the roads. Yes. So, um, I'd like to hear about materials other than concrete cool streets, materials excrete something that doesn't take a lot of carbon emissions to produce. Incidentally, when you look at all the different utilities and sectors that you need to do a lot of these projects, it's completely understandable why every other coastal city in California has a community choice aggregation program, you know, ways to coordinate these things better and faster. And then finally, I appreciate the points about 15th Street and 10th Street and alternative corridors. Maybe not all of our major. Thank you. Our next speaker is senior campaign. And I can say this resident. So the only comment that I have think thank you city staff for this presentation. The only comment that I have is I. I unfortunately respectfully think that your pine corridor element is not appropriate. Can you hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Okay. Okay. The reason being is. That when you get from. Uh, ten or you guys say from 8/8 to Willow. So when you get above, let's say, 14th Street, all the way up to maybe 20th Street. Most people on Pine Park, their car in the middle of the of the road. That's a known fact. You go outside right now, you'll see it at least 40 to 50 plus cars parked in the middle of the street due to the lack of parking availability in such a highly dense area. The average block going from 14th Street up to 20 to 20th Street has about 4 to 5 apartment buildings on each side of the street, which are at least four places now. So I don't understand how and I live on 20th and 25th and pine and so and that empties out into willow. So I don't understand how that would work for us. Creating a bike a bike lane. Because then you would just throw up, you know, in a working class neighborhood, some somewhere of, you know, dozens of parking spots for people, many of them who live in the neighborhood. So if we can coordinate. The bike lane maybe to Atlantic, which is a natural. Business corridor as the vice mayor, Rex Richardson, referenced earlier. Or even as the mayor. Said, I thought that the Pacific Avenue bike lane was a great addition with respect to running it through the neighborhood of Fine. It's not going to work out to the benefit of the people living in the first and sixth District. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gloria Bradley. Gloria Bradley, your time starts now. Please unmute yourself. Our next speaker is Padraic Gleeson. Hello. My name is Patrick Gleason. I live on Cherry and Anaheim in District six. And so thank you for raising the Anaheim corridor. Those improvements, even if they don't include bike lanes, will be will be massive. And I hope that the city can find funding for that. I am a renter and a rider. That means I don't own a home and I don't own a car. And so I wanted to just make myself known and ask that the council please remember us. I know we are a minority in this city, at least from the rider perspective. And so I wanted to emphasize how important projects like these are in my day to day as well. So I right a scooter or a bike to work every single day. I am honked at and kind of harassed on a really regular basis. And I think part of that has to. Do with the design of our roads, which many of them are 100% designed for cars. So of course, they think, you know, what are you doing in my lane? And the reason I mean, that lane is because there is no lane for me. There is, you know, you can't ride on the sidewalk and there's no bike lane. So I just wanted to thank the council for having the session, encourage you to find additional funding advocate for active transportation. I know the state is looking at expanding transportation. Lina Gonzales is the transportation chair. You know, I think the resources are out there and we can get creative to to bring them to Long Beach. So thank you very much for hosting this. That concludes public comment. Thank you. That concludes the study session. Let me close the discussion. Thank you very much. Let me also for item 24. I'm being told you have to take a roll call vote just to move back. So let's go and do that really briefly. There is a motion in the second, please, Councilman Pryce, who wanted to actually, we have the item. Forget that. We need a vote on that. We need a vote on it. Mayor, I'm sorry. We need to vote on the study session item. I'm sorry you didn't file. Correct? Yeah. Did you have this virtual things? Let's. Let's go ahead and do that. Let's do the we'll do the roll call vote and received file, right? Correct. And can you repeat the. Mover in the second year for us? With this item. I believe in one. Super nine six. Avenue with Councilmember Superman and Councilman Zoro. Thank you. So let's go ahead in your roll call vote. District one. Won. By district two. I District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I District six. Hi. District seven. By District eight. By District nine, a motion is carried.

Recommendation to adopt Resolution of Intention amending the City’s contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to include a mandatory employee contribution of 3 percent of compensation earnable toward the City's required employer contribution to CalPERS (in addition to the 9 percent statutory employee contribution) pursuant to Government Code Section 20516(a), applicable to the Long Beach Management Association (LBMA) Classic Public Safety CalPERS members; and

LongBeachCC_10052021_21-1030

Thank you. The next few items here seem. I already go to item 42 through 47. None of them have staff presentations. So let's go ahead and start with item 40, 41, actually 42. And sorry, we're going to do 41 most 42. Item 42 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt a resolution of intention amending the city's contract with CalPERS to include a mandatory employee contribution of 3% applicable to the Long Beach Management Association, classic Public Safety CalPERS members, and declared an ordinance to amend the city's contract with CalPERS to provide the mandatory employee contribution of 3%. Read the first time and later to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. There's a motion. Can I get a motion in a second place? I one member of the public. Mr. Cantero, please come forward. Is this under Mr. Kaiser's department? Is it? I was just curious to ask, um, why or why with respect to public safety, is it, um, just being introduced for like the other divisions that pay into CalPERS? Because my mother pays into as well. So it's a current union topic. So just curious to know. There's a motion in the second. Members discussed votes. Council member on. Did you come from a did you want to ask the question before we went to the vote? Yeah, I just wanted to give a staff an opportunity just to clarify, uh, the question from public comment. Oh, I didn't catch his question. I sounded like he was. Inquiring. About why this was public safety. Oh, I'm sorry. This is a pick up. This was a result. Of the negotiation. With the Long Beach Management Association. Public safety. So this is a contract amendment for. There for them to. Pick up 3% of the employer. Cost. So the reason why this is a contract amendment. Now we did one with away. We had to finalize that and now we're doing the next group. But it's basically. For the group. They agree to. Pick up. Part of the employer court for the picture. An excited please 43 To clarify, it's the Human Resources Department. Public employee matter things. The motion is carried 703 triggers. So to clarify, this is actually management publication. Public safety, police and fire. So Poway has already done it. Our lifeguards are upcoming and then it's pending with firefighter. So it's public safety management for fire and police.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 32-1 of Chapter 21.32, Table 33-2 of Chapter 21.33, and Table 41-C of Chapter 21.44, all related to zoning code regulations, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10062020_20-0924

District eight. Our District nine. I motion carries. Could you please item 44 please. Report from Development Services Recommendation or clear ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code all related to Zoning Code regulations read and adopted as read citywide. Any public. There's no public comment on this item. In terms of comments on this item. I hear none. Can we please have a motion? Summer sun has second rate. Thank you. We prescribe for the Bokaro District one. A District three. High District for. I. District five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right.

Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a public briefing to Council on how the July 15th (and subsequent July 30th smaller event) major power outage was managed along with the types of communications received from SCE and also to provide updates to be discussed at the September 1st Council meeting. The briefing should include the following: • The City's current plan - Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2014; • Overview of Council and City department roles and responsibilities in a crisis, emergency or disaster; • Exploration of City and legislative staff emergency response training (ex. CERT, Search and Rescue, etc.) other than what is written in the City Manager's Emergency Contact Booklet and the City employee online emergency training; and • Technology and outreach - current protocols and possibilities for future improvements.

LongBeachCC_08182015_15-0826

New business item number 38, communications from Councilwoman Leena Gonzalez, Mayor Robert Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Lowenthal and Council member Roberto Ringer. Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a public briefing on how the major power outage was managed, along with the types of communications received from SC. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, I wanted to thank my council colleagues for joining me, Vice Mayor Sujatha Lowenthal and Councilmember Ranga and Councilmember Andrews as well for being a part of this. This, as many of you know in the city, was a significant event that we encountered. And although we will have a town hall this Saturday with some of our legislative representatives, I thought it was also important to bring something forward here at the city council level to understand the magnitude of what happened and also understand our current plans as it stands. So again, this is to review our natural hazard mitigation plan, an overview of our department roles as city council people, as staff members. You know, many of us have badges that say that we if a natural disaster, something happens, you know, we are the first ones that would be able to respond. So like some clarity on that and also exploration of, you know, some some of our amazing training opportunities that we already have and available. So cert, search and rescue and perhaps other training opportunities that our city staff could partake in, as well as technology and outreach. I think we did a great job on our end of getting out the information, but it'd be great to know what that is, you know, streamlined and all in one place, whether it's Twitter or our Long Beach city of Long Beach Facebook account. Nicole, how are our residents getting this information and how can we make it a little bit easier for people that may even not have technology so far through hotlines or anything else? So that's my information. I look forward for it to be coming back with with great information on how we can better serve our residents in this process. And I just want to thank our city staff again for everything that they've done. I received many phone calls through the extent the first district was hit the hardest, I think the worst in downtown. And so I just want to thank them for their diligence and their commitment to keeping us connected. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman, your anger. You second that motion. Yeah. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for bringing this forward and look forward to the report. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales, Councilwoman Gonzales, for. Bringing this item forward and raising the topic. I think she said it best. The recent outages were extreme, extremely difficult for our residents and our businesses. And it I, I know none of us have seen anything like this before. What I can say is that it offered us a glimpse into the necessity for our city team and community partners to review our protocols against what really happens in a time of crisis. I am oddly, it's rather awkward to say how proud I am of our city staff because these are not circumstances that we want to ever experience. But having had that glimpse and having seen what what takes place, I know that I know what our team state is capable of. And I think we all recognize and acknowledge that we're fortunate that this was not a crisis brought about by a natural disaster. So is this one of those opportunities where we don't squander a crisis, where we look at this and figure out a way to do better? We know there's room for improvement, and from our conversations with Edison management, this experience has affected their own set of protocols and communications. And I think they've learned that our community expects different things and expects more and certainly expects communication. And that's not to say I'm less than proud of our overall effort. Our residents were tremendous. I think Councilwoman Gonzalez and I and others can attest how our residents have changed have come forward. The city team, the residents, your collaboration, persistence and use of social media to communicate with a broader community. I don't think I've ever seen us operate like this, and thankfully I didn't have to because of a crisis. But I'm I'm glad that we were able to demonstrate that level of organization. But having gone through this experience with constituents and the city staff alike, I'm really interested in hearing not only from staff, but also a city manager charged with disaster and emergency preparedness about what we did right and how we can improve on things that didn't go so well. I know we had daily conversations throughout the time of the outages and now that that is behind us, hopefully behind us, we can take this opportunity to review those and improve where we can. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Gonzales for bringing forward this important item as a designated disaster service worker for ten years. And we take those responsibilities very seriously, and and we get a lot of online training for those opportunities should they arise. But to be able to also look at what which of those online trainings that are given to staff members throughout the region are available for the community to take free of charge. Or I know that through some of our library card opportunities and the new mobile app with Overdrive Media, there's been a lot of connectivity in those trainings being able to be given online through our library card holders. And so I think that those are some opportunities that technology has recently brought us that I hope that will come forth in this study. So thank you for bringing this forward and I look forward to the report. And thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I also would like to thank Councilwoman Mina for bringing this forward and the other colleagues who signed on with it. I think this is just to give a chance to show our city how well we are equipped when things really kind of go a little bad and that was going bad. So thank all those individuals who jumped in and made Long Beach Finest what they're supposed to be doing. Thank you guys again. And thank you again, Lena, for bringing this forward. Thank you. And just to be clear, I'm very supportive of this. This is great. This will a report will come back from staff on the response that we a public report to the council. Per the item on September the first. And then it's also my understanding and I just want to make sure this is clear that the staff the council retreat that we're going to have in a few a month or so, a large chunk of that is going to be about disaster preparedness and emergency response citywide. And so I'm assuming there are things we discuss, a large chunk of that would be included in the retreat, but we would also have an update on the steps to the council. Is that is that correct? Yes. From what I understand, there will be some information at the retreat. I know myself I cannot attend. So that might be a little bit of a problem for me. But I mean, nonetheless, of course, the council can. Okay. Well, we'll get information. All right. We'll coordinate that then. Okay, great. Any public comment on the item? Please cast your votes. Motion carries, etc.. Next item, please.

Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit pedestrian median access to medians that are less than 4-feet wide or are located on streets with a speed limit of 35 MPH or more.

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0270

Motion carries. Thank you. We're doing item 13, please. Item 13 is communications from Councilwoman Price Council Membership Opinion Councilman Andrews Council Councilmember Ranga Recommendation to requires city manager and city attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit pedestrian access to medians that are less than four feet wide or located on streets with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or more. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I know I have some residents who arrived here at about 4:00 this afternoon for this item. So I'm thankful and I'm hopeful that they'll come up and give some comment if they are still here. But this is one of the items that I'm happy to be bringing back. Traffic. Traffic medians throughout Long Beach are dangerous places for people to walk, stand, sit, advertise for businesses, raise money for nonprofits, walk dogs or any other activity that is done while not in the process of legally and safely crossing the street. City staff issued a report earlier this year that that made it clear that some medians are not appropriate for standing and cannot safely accommodate a walkway due to insufficient with height, traffic speed, large traffic volumes and lack of accessibility. In the report, they further determined that the traffic safety concerns are heightened when speeds reach certain levels. City data and traffic studies throughout this country confirm that the risk of a fatality drastically increases for pedestrians when vehicle traffic around pedestrians has speed limits of 30 miles per hour or higher. The fatality risk increases between 3.5 and 5.5 times from 30 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour, meaning the risk of a pedestrian being killed at 30 miles per hour is relatively low. The fatality rate is nearly 50% at 40 miles per hour, and 79% of pedestrians struck at this speed sustained serious injuries. It doesn't matter what you are doing on the median. The median is not a place to stand at high speed traffic intersections. So as the city continues to work to improve pedestrian safety and make way for Vision Zero. This is a common sense policy that I urge my colleagues to support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember supervisor standing in support. Thank you, Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this item forward. I did have some questions of. Public works that I see. Mr. Buck here. Yes, I did. I know that we recently approved our Vision Zero contract to start pulling together that group. I wanted to know how we feel that this impacts that Vision zero work. If this is in alignment with that. Councilmember Pearce. I think this is in line with Vision zero one. One of the elements that we don't have yet completed is the safety study. So if you recall last week when we came forward and had a conversation about Vision Zero effort, one of the first components of a Vision Zero effort is to identify what are our worst corridors, where do we find the most instances of vehicle and pedestrian accidents to occur? That information would certainly help inform how this ordinance would move forward. Okay, then I would ask my colleague, is there a time frame that you have on this? I'm sorry. Councilmember Price. I'm sorry. Once it's approved, the city attorney's office would commence drafting the ordinance. And that would be correct. But as Mr. Beck said, we would need that safety study to verify and justify the ordinance before it came back. So we would be working with public works on this recommend if it is approved this evening based upon the information we received from the safety study. So it may not come back right away, but it would come back after the safety study. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I know that we've spent many years talking about our vision zero. Hopes and dreams. And for those that don't know, Vision Zero. Is to make sure that our streets are safe. For everybody and we have zero. Traffic incidences. And so I just want to make sure that that is in alignment with that. So if it is, then I will support this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you very much. I fully support this item. Great councilmember area. Given that there was an accident, fatal accident not too long ago in my district, right around Long Beach Boulevard. And Wardlow well, the individual who was struck was not on the median. He was an individual that consistently was on the median. He just wasn't at the time of that accident. So I am fully supportive of this this ordinance, and I hope that it goes forward. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Juan Gonzalez. Thank you. I appreciate this as well. To make sure we, of course, get to Vision Zero. I also wanted to see if we can include in I don't know how if this would be possible, but we have people that are constantly on the metro rail line as well. And I know we've had a lot of discussion with that. Of course, we have our metro representative here, as in our mayor. But maybe just as a another caveat within this ordinance, we can just work closely with Metro to ensure that people are not getting on, that the tracks, they're not jumping over the fence because it becomes a huge issue as well. So thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on to public comment a public comment on this item. Please come forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good afternoon, city council members. My name's Gay Shelton. I live here in the first district a couple blocks from here, and I appreciate this item. Public safety is, of course, one of the reasons that we're here. However, it mentions here that the staff report that was issued last September, I imagine, was a two from four. I'm sorry I never had a chance to review it dealt with the feasibility of these actions, and the report that we have in hand says nothing about feasibility. So I'm curious about it. Feasibility to me means cost. And when it comes to public safety, maybe cost isn't something that we care to talk about, but feasibility when we're talking about spending public funds to do such things as I would imagine would be required to prohibit people being on these medians, would be landscaping, fencing, bollards , maybe, and the maintenance and and so on. That goes with any signaling that might have to be added to intersections or areas where there's where there's median strips, lighting, perhaps striping. That would change. What we're looking at is something that that we don't know how feasible it is in terms of how many thousands, hundreds, millions. Who knows how many dollars would have to be spent in order to do this? We also don't have any sense from the public's perspective of how much of an impact there actually is. Where are their median scripts that are less than four feet wide? How long are they? Are we talking about only at intersections or for miles and miles where there might be a narrow median that would have to be somehow protected from from pedestrian occupancy? So if we're really going to do this, I think the public deserves to hear something about the costs, about how many miles of medians have been identified, just what this is all going to look at. Again, we understand the need and it's simply repeated in this in this document. But the public is in the dark as to the feasibility and the cost. So I do appreciate hearing from you guys any questions that you might have for staff that could illuminate us on that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nic. Speaker, please. Stephanie Dawson, CEO, Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach Branch. As we discussed, as Councilwoman Pryce illuminated, this particular ordinance has been pretty much constructed in a way that makes it almost bulletproof to any particular challenge that would happen from, say, for example, the ACLU of Southern California as it's been constructed in a to provide a what's the word? Again, I'd rather describe it. It lacks a discriminatory intent. However, the discriminatory impact of this law will be unavoidable in combination with the recent prohibition against the bike shop, baking bicycle shop, chop shops and other type of actions that are being there designed specifically to be able to cut off revenue for homeless people. I mean, this is by doing this, we are essentially facilitating the removal of these folks and making them come over to a next city while doing so under the pretense of public safety. If right now, I mean, if you're applying for general relief, that's going to be under 50 bucks. If you're applying for Social Security disability, that's going to be, what, $600 a month or so? You know, people need a way to be able to live, especially with the rising costs of rent in Long Beach, which I think we'll be discussing later. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Heather Jordan, when I appreciate counsel bringing this forward. And the concern for safety that has been outlined today, if only we were more concerned with the that the people who this will mostly affect, you know, besides this ordinance. You know, I've seen the fences go up on seventh and seventh near Bellflower and PCH, and I've oftentimes close to Long Beach Boulevard and Wardlow. So I see the people who are out there on those medians there. You know, Councilmember Price listed a lot of people who might be on the medians, you know, nonprofits. But the the people that she didn't talk about are the people who are most often there are those that are houseless, people without homes, people who are trying to earn money. And I'm all for safety. I'm all for keeping them safe. I think they do deserve that. But on top of that, I think they deserve other things as well, like a roof over their head. So I just want to make sure. That whatever happens when we implement this, that the people who are there aren't going to be severely punished because if it's a fine or something like that that they're given, these are people who can't pay that literally cannot pay that. So I hope when we move forward with the safety ordinance, we keep those people in mind. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. He has told us what is good and what the Lord requires to deal justly. The same God of the flag. We are saluted tonight. One nation under him, he has said to deal justly and to love mercy. The people, my clients. I knew that they were the subject. They are the only people that are on the media and by and large, the homeless. You don't see a lady nursing her baby on the median. No one coming from the grocery store with the flowers in the hand on the median. It's the homeless. And some of you are running for re election. You said you were going to represent everyone. Yes. Everyone in it is offensive. But you have not probably shaken one hand of the homeless. One hand. How can you? How can you? That is not justice. To now say to these people, we don't want to say, you asked for money. We're not giving you a nickel of our spending. We don't want to see you with a sign asking for a nickel. It's why you're saying it. God sees it. That's what you're saying. Guilty. Your local charity. Don't give out to panhandlers. But there are no local charities where those signs are posted. The mediums is all they have. And I will continue to take food on the median. Matter of fact, I'm going to start printing up some signs. Give these people your dollars because it's against the law for them to ask you in jail to say, give to those who asked, to give to anyone who asked you. I am defending the cause of the poor. Some of you said you would do it. Where are you now? Yes. The shame is what it is. We have officers surrounding him with guns and sticks and they will protect you. I was protecting the homeless. I mean, protect like the officers with their weapons. It is offensive to that God you saluted tonight. It's an offense. Thank you, Mr. Bouchard and the speaker, please. Well. I think you guys said you represent the public and everyone with a balance. So I just wanted to say that my name is valued. My address is on record. This is my 47th wedding anniversary in a heck of a way to celebrate a wedding anniversary today. I was not going to. I was I was not here to speak on this. But when I noticed that. We have two parades in this city every year, that people jam on the medians. This may be left unsaid, but we need to make sure that. We protect those people. During a Belmont Shore parade and the Veterans Day parade that when they're on the mediums are not breaking the law. So there's got to be some type of exception to it, I would think. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Liz Waites. I would just like to comment. On a particularly disturbing and frankly sickening trend that I've noticed. Not in Long Beach. But also it's happening in. California, is these very thinly veiled attempts at shoving the homeless away out of sight. I noticed with the CSC or the Public Relations Department, there was some sort of collaboration about let's teach people to not give money to homeless people, give it to shelters. And I don't know if you guys have got the memo, but shelters are pretty brutal. And I just have to say the intention is transparent, the intention to force people out of sight and to not deal with them. You're not fooling anybody. And it's cruel and it's sickening. And I really you are here to represent everybody. And just because the homeless people out there cannot, like spare $20,000 doesn't mean that they are not worthy of protection. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes number public comment on this item. So we'll conclude public comment. I will go on to the rest of the council. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted to chime in and I you know, I tend to agree that meetings aren't the safest place for things to take place. But I think the audience raised to two questions that I would just like for city staff or the originator motion to speak to. So first, Mr. Lurch, thanks for raising the issue of the meeting. And so we want to make sure that we protect, you know, whatever whenever the street closures and and we actually have the opportunity to engage that meeting. We used it really well this last year in the Veterans Day parade sort of a line things along the median food trucks, things like that. So first I want to just address that. So, Mr. Beck, is there a way that we can make sure that we really take an accounting of when we do utilize the media and make sure that's reflected in this? Y would defer to the city attorney, but I would imagine we could easily add in special events would be excluded from any provisions that get written. I would agree with that. I think that the the ordinance and when we talked about when we would the delay in coming back is the safety study that's going to be conducted has to justify both the location and the action that the ordinance would be taking that to show that it is truly a safety issue and it's not a pretext for removing people from medians. So you're not going to have all medians qualify for this. It'll depend on the safety engineer and the safety study to justify the location. That makes a lot of sense. And then so the second thing I'll just raise, which was raised raised by the community here tonight, I want to make sure that we're not taking a step toward penalizing criminally or fining for creating a perpetual system where people can't pay the fine, but rather figure out ways to make medians safer and and sort of a discouraging activity. In the meetings, for example, we had a lot of activity on Jordan High School, people running across the street from Jordan to the apartments. They lived across the street and we wouldn't use the crosswalks. So we just built a nice decorative treatment in the median and people respected the crosswalk respect meaning use the crosswalk. So I would love to see industry, I would love to see sort of public works best practices utilized to achieve whatever is the best outcome so that there's no appearance that the intention here is to sort of penalize any particular group. And I know and and I would assume that that's not the intention here. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thanks. And the first mayor, you actually stole my my thoughts here because I was going to say, I think the makeup of the motion, the intent here when you look at the language here, is talking about traffic and, you know, speeds of high speeds of 30, 40, 50 miles an hour. So I think the intent of what what is being proposed is to deal with traffic safety and prevent people from being hit by by vehicle vehicular traffic. Secondly, I think, you know, to your point regarding the treatment that near Jordan High School, I think more of that needs to be done. We need to engineer traffic safety measures. Well, we know we have have problems or potential problems. And so I'd like to see more of that type of those type of solutions on top of this from from our public works department. So just thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I just wanted to echo the same concerns that my colleagues recognize and anything that we can do to beautify the areas instead of just putting up a fence that we have some best practices and that this comes after, again, Vision Zero. I know that that Vision Zero will help guide us to make sure we're doing it in the right corridors and the right median. So thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion and a second on the floor to approve item 13. Please cast your votes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to telephone or electronic attendance at council and standing committee meetings; and amending Ordinance 11683, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.24.145.

KingCountyCC_06292016_2014-0320

Yes. You got a new house. Okay. So thank you very much for being here. That's for having look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you. All right. We're going on to our next item. We have a quorum with us still. So that's item number five, proposed ordinance 2014, interestingly enough, oh 3 to 0. And this is a ordinance relating to bringing better technology to our chambers. We had a briefing on this before. So this one, Mr. Wagner, if you would, reverse the amendments so we'll know what the amendments before us. All right? Yes, Madam Chair, for the record, Nick Wagner, council staff, the staff report on this legislation begins on page 13 of your materials. This ordinance, as you said, addresses the issue of when council members are permitted to attend council meetings by telephone or other electronic means, which I will refer to as remote attendance. Two weeks ago, on June 15th, as you pointed out, the committee considered three possible amendments to the ordinance. As a result of that discussion, there is a new amendment, Amendment four, for the committee to consider, and that amendment is that pages 27 to 32 of your materials, the first three amendments, one through three, are no longer being considered. There is also in your materials a red line showing the changes that amendment or would make in the original ordinance. And that red line is that pages 33 to 38 of your materials, the staff report focuses on Amendment four, since it is proposed by the sponsor of the original ordinance. The current county code provisions governing remote attendance were reviewed on June 15 and they are summarized in the background section of the staff report on pages 14 and 15. The changes that the proposed ordinance would make, if amended, if Amendment four is approved, are described on pages 15 to 17. First, the ordinance would allow a council member each calendar year to remotely attend without a showing of cause up to five meetings of each council, standing committee and five meetings of the full council. Second, the ordinance would allow remote attendance at additional for council and standing committee meetings on the basis of quote good cause unquote, which is defined to include the following five categories. First, an emergency as defined in the county code section 12.50 2.010. And that is an emergency in the nature of a public emergency, not a personal emergency. Second, special council meetings held during the council's summer or winter recess. Third, situations where it would be, quote, difficult, unquote, for the member to attend the meeting in person due to the member's attendance at a meeting of an outside committee to which the member has been assigned. Under the Council's organizational rules. Fourth, urgent circumstances as defined in the ordinance, subject to approval by a majority of the members present at the meeting and last other circumstances constituting good cause again subject to approval by a majority of the members present at the meeting. The third change that the ordinance would make is in the definition of urgent circumstances, and that change is is shown in the red lining on page 16 of your materials. Briefly, the ground of inclement weather would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. It would not need to be so severe that travel to the meeting would pose an immediate life, health or safety risk to the member, which is the current standard. The second category of urgent circumstances is a member or family member's medically related issue or other urgent need for attendance, which would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. But it would not need to be an emergency and the member would not need to be unable to attend in person. In addition, the definition of family member is broadened to match the class of family members whose death would allow a county employee to take bereavement leave. And it is made clear that the death of a family member would fall within this ground for remote attendance. The fourth proposed change that Amendment four would make is to require a member attending remotely to have the member's voice be audible so that the public can hear the discussion and voting process. And finally, the ordinance would add the following notice provision to facilitate connection to the broadcasting system. Requests for participation by telephone or other electronic means should be made half an hour in advance of the meeting when possible. And that concludes my staff report summarizing Amendment four. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think you need to go on to do five and five a. Okay. Okay. Well, there there is an Amendment five, which I believe Councilmember Dombrowski intends to propose. And I think copies of it were circulated informally yesterday. But here are additional copies for members this morning. So just. Madam Chair. Just a second before we get started. So is Amendment five supersedes or we vote on four and and five to amend it? Or is five? What we need to supersede for. Amendment five is a anticipated proposed amendment to Amendment four. Okay. So we still vote on four, but then the friendly amendment for five would be added to it. Well, since amendment five is an amendment to Amendment four, it would need to be voted on before you vote on Amendment four. And then if it's adopted, then you would vote on Amendment four as amended by Amendment five. Okay. I just have four and then there's five. A So after we go through five, then we'll go five. A Well, what you were referring to as five A is depends on Amendment five being divided into two parts. I don't know whether that. Okay. That remains to be seen. So for the moment, I'm what I will do is describe what Amendment five in its current form would do to Amendment four. Okay. So. So it's up there. Council member dombroski has a question or comment. He'd like to make a number five. Well, I guess what I just wanted to say preliminarily was and thanks for your work on it and distributing it was I wanted to share it with members and get their views. I'm not dead set on offering it, but I it expresses kind of more closely where I'm at to the extent there are going to be any changes in this part of our operating procedure. So I offer it for consideration before actually offering it. Okay. I am I'm good with it being a friendly amendment. I think that, you know, there are some good things like changing the word difficult to safe. So I think that you did a nice job on that. The only part as we we'll hear is that I have one reason for being remote, that if you're out doing county business, for instance, a member of Naco, which is our National Association of Counties, or Wasatch, which is our statewide or any other time, if you were asked by the executive to go speak at something so you're actually doing county business. It seems to me that if you're out doing official county business that you shouldn't be marked, be not able to take some time away from that to listen in and provide your input remotely. So that's the only thing different from what's in five. So that's where I will have an amendment. We can vote on that. But otherwise, I think you did an awesome job on number five. So would you go ahead and explain number five? Sure. So what Amendment five would do is, first of all, reduced to a total of five of five, the number of times per calendar year that a council member may attend by telephone or other electronic means, either a full council meeting or a meeting of a standing council committee. So Amendment four would allow five times per entity, five times for the full council, five times for each standing committee that a member is a member of. This would reduce it to a total of five for all of those five per year. Second, the Amendment five would eliminate from the circumstances constituting good cause for attending remotely. Two things. First, difficulty for the member to attend the meeting in person due to the member's attendance of a meeting of an outside committee that the member has been assigned to under the Council's organizational rules that would no longer be a constitute good cause. And second other circumstances constituting a good cause. Both of those would be removed from the grounds, constituting a good cause for attending remotely. The third change that Amendment five would make is to limit the inclement weather that is deemed to constitute urgent circumstances, justifying remote attendance to inclement weather that makes it unsafe rather than merely difficult for the member to attend the meeting. And last Amendment five would provide for the meeting chair to rule initially on a member's request to attend remotely because of urgent circumstances, subject to appeal to the members present at the meeting. And the chair's ruling could be reversed only by an affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members present at the meeting. And that those are the key elements of Amendment five. Okay. So if we were to divide this question so that we could talk about whether or not being gone for a county business someplace else, where would that be? Divide it out. The provision having to do with outside committees is line six of Amendment five. Okay, so I have never done this before on dividing emotions, so I'd like to move that. We divide the motion and take line number six out so that we are able to discuss that. And then then we have the amendment. Do you want to talk about. Okay. Yes, Mr. Chair, there. I think that's inappropriate. The chair cannot make a recommendation, him or herself, he or she has the right. To overrule or the chair could give the gavel to the vice chair or or another member of the committee, as I understand. So would you be willing to do that or are you not willing to do that? Can I say something? Absolutely sure. So I don't think a motion to divide is debatable. And so before it's made, I want to make a comment. All right. So that's great. So if I just everyone's on the same page, I think what you're interested in, Councilmember LAMB. It is adding as an additional reason for a for cause in, if you will, participation in outside committee. And my amendment would not permit that. And that's something I'm not supportive of. I think that we should move very carefully in this direction and that this should be our first priority in a number of outside committees. Allow you to dial in to them. So I would be opposing the motion to divide if it were offered, but I would be happy to temporarily chair the committee if you want to make that motion. Thank you, sir. Chair, if I could request clarification, I don't recall whether either amendment or Amendment five has been moved yet. They have not. Yeah, they have not. I do remember that. All right. So, council member Cole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I would like to ask a question unrelated to this amendment. Just more background. Thank you, Nick. I think last time when you had your initial briefing was mentioned about what some other jurisdictions do. I think you mentioned Seattle. Could you just review that? Yes, there is. Information in. In the materials. There is a table. And this is in attachment six to the staff report. Page 43 is that the incidents pages 43 through 47 or 46 of your materials? And what it contains is a comparison of the remote attendance rules of King County with several other jurisdictions the Seattle City Council, Bellevue City Council, PSR Sea Sound Transit Board. Snohomish County Council, Pierce County Council, Spokane County Commissioners Court, Noma County and NACO Executive Committee. So the effort there is to compare their rules on remote attendance with King County's. Thank you very much. So as you can see, those surrounding counties, they many of them have no limitation at all. So hours being five is more than conservative. It is baby step. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I was trying to do the math on the total number of cow council committee meetings we have. I think we figured it's around eight per week. If you add KHOW and council and budget and tree and law and justice and geo health, healthy services and employment in the math with the recess has taken in that about. That's about 400 meetings a year and I'm talking necessarily not asking the question, but it's about 400 meetings a year. And so the five is just about 1.25% of the total meetings. Well, what do you think? It would be about almost exactly 1% if we made it four. But I just wanted to make the point of the sheer number of meetings and to put it in perspective. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember. Council Member Lambert, would you like to put the ordinance before us? 2014 032. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. All right, that's before us. And Council member Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it was back in 1956 when I was a little boy, I had a bike and at first my two friends I could beat on and in races with my back against them. But then I started to lose and I thought that wasn't a bike. And I went to my dad and I said, You got to get my bike this part because it's not working well. He checked it over. Nothing was wrong with it. So he said, Sandy, you can't ask us to waste money on getting something fixed that's not broke. Why are you doing this? And I wasn't able to answer. I have that for some reason. That same feeling here. What is broken about our process of voting that requires that it needs fixing? Over the last seven years, we've had 26 members on the county council, people that are going nuts now and those who have served and we have not had one. Our regular meeting on a monday where we failed to achieve a quorum of five people so that we could take up issues and vote on what I think five year period. There was only one car or committee of the whole meeting where we did not have five. At the beginning of the meeting with 10 minutes later a member came and we had five. I fail to see anything that's broken as it relates to our voting because we always allow for three meetings but real serious emergencies at our regular county council meetings. Nothing has vote broken in my estimation, so I can't support any of the proposals to fix something that's not broken. I don't see the practicality or the need for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Other questions or comments. Councilor Lambert, would you like to speak to your ordinance? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, first of all, I think that when you look at the attachments, how many other counties and government bodies are using technology for whatever reason when you're behind other counties and being able to do that? And it's not just a matter of everybody being present for a quorum. What is the matter is that everybody's district be represented, even if you are not here physically, that you have something that's going on, including an emergency where you're stuck home because of a storm or whatever. It's much easier if you represent someplace close by, but if you represent someplace far away, then it is much more difficult because there is more flooding and snow. Right now, as Councilmember Gossett said, we are allowed to do it three times for council meetings, but no time for committee meetings. And we have some very important things happening in committee meetings that should you have to be gone for whatever reason or something comes up in your life that you are away. I think it's important to be able to also call into a committee meeting so that your voice and your vote for your constituents constituents is there. I do not see it as a bad thing to not be here. If you are, for instance, doing the county's work in some other place, or whether you're taking and dealing with an issue in your own district that you need to be someplace else too. This is a very large county, and as you may know, almost half of it in landmass is mine. And so there have been many times when I have been far away and having to drive back in again for a meeting. So things do come up. We're talking about five, which is less than 1% of the meetings, which you had to have the ability to use electronic communications. I do not think this is overly burdensome, and I think it's an important tool that should we have an emergency or an opportunity to do something that we believe is also important, like dealing with emergencies or speaking at a national conference that we've been asked to speak at, that we have the ability, though, even though our bodies might be in D.C. or Olympia, that our voice can still be here communicating and representing our citizens. So with that, I'd like to put the motion 2014 0320 before us and move amendment number four. The Amendment four is before us. I think number four is the basis I am planning a number five, which will be the, I hope, friendly amendment. But it underlies what we've been talking about, basically talking about for three years. So I think it's time that we go ahead and come into the 21st century. And so with that, I would like to put number four before us. For is before us. Let's turn to amendments two four right before we vote on four. Jim, we need a little guidance here on parliamentary procedure. Amendment four has been moved. There was an amendment to Amendment four. Would you like me. To should that be or should the amendment be offered? Well, this is an innovative way to talk. You're not disrupting the meeting. I'm going to put us into recess and ask you. Let's go into recess. All right, let's go into recess. This is. Thank you, Marco. We're back on the record. Mr. Brewer, the question is a parliamentary one Amendment four has been offered. There is an amendment to Amendment four, label five. Do we need to vote first on four before turning to five or do we need to vote on. No, you would. You would vote if I understand the facts. Mr. Chair. An amendment has been offered and now someone is seeking to amend that amendment. Yes. First vote on that. On whether to amend the amendment. Thank you for deciding to. Vote on the. Amendment. It's all right. Thank you very much. Councilmember Lambert, do you have a further motion? Yes, I would like to divide and we have to put number five before us first, right? Yes. Okay. I'd like to move amendment number five. It was written by a colleague after much thought. And I think it's a good amendment. And so I'd like for it to be a friendly amendment to number four. By amendment five is before us. And I'd also like to move. If. I can add. One thing at a time. Yeah. But I think we have to debate. Do we have to divide it before we vote on a. Motion to divide amendment question divide the question on five your state, your motion. This is a non debatable motion. I'd like to move that. We debate the motion and take our item six line six, which is the item that would discuss whether or not you are on county business someplace else. I mean, if we take this out, then you would be able to go to county business someplace else and phone in appropriately. Or if we leave this in, then you would not be able to do so if you're on county business. Okay. All in favor of dividing the question, say. I, I. Any oppose say no. No. The nos have it. The question will not be divided. We'll turn to a vote on Amendment five. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm someone needs to explain to me what Amendment five would do to four if we voted yes. All right. We can ask that. Would you prefer staff to do that matter? All right. Yours that I don't give a shot at it because that was as best I can in the nick can fill in. But Amendment five, in essence, would change this legislation to provide for a total of five council meetings or committee meetings per year participation electronically. It would reduce the number or the types of four cause participations by phone to those articulated and set forth in the amendment. And that includes whether that makes it unsafe to travel here. The current standard requires a threat of imminent danger, and I felt that that was frankly walking up too close to the line for a member . Imminent danger is very close to, you know, peril. Unsafe seemed to me to be a more appropriate standard and would provide further that if you had an ill family member, an immediate family member as defined in the code, that that would be justification procedurally deleted. Your family member would be left. It would be put in there. Yes, I would. Yes, it would be in there. It's a little broader in terms of describing the family members than the current code, and I think that's more appropriate and reflective of its contemporary design. It adds grandchildren, says our grandmother. It puts the determine on with respect to those four causing participation requests that benefits the authority to decide that in the chair of the council or the committee subject to an appeal. If the member doesn't like the decision and the appeal would require a two thirds vote. So it keeps it this frankly dramatically narrows the original proposal. My view is that we should proceed carefully here if this is adopted. I'll be watching very carefully the next six months as we head toward reorg as to whether or not this is working and how it's working. The five was chosen, frankly, for some of us who are parents to take a spring break, which doesn't always coincide with our work here, but still be able to participate. The five would allow, I think most members who are want to participate in a council meeting as well as their committee meetings that we the opportunity to do that. In that sense, I think it's a little bit of a family friendly change, but also I think it's trying to strike a balance to ensure that we continue to be here face to face and participate in the good debates and dialog on a face to face basis, which I personally think is very, very valuable. Prioritizes that the work here of this council is job one and the committees here is job one. I know we all do a lot of outside committees, no more than Councilmember Lambert, of course, who does the most. It's I understand our interests there, but that's the nature of of this. And you could add anything that I might have missed. Just I think you touched on it. But two things specifically, the justification of attendance at an outside meeting would be eliminated from Amendment four and then the general other circumstances constituting good cause that category would be taken out. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Does that help, Mr. Gossett? Yeah, but his last point. What did you say about outside attending outside committee B. Amendment Amendment four would allow as a reason for attending remotely the member's difficulty in being here for a committee or council meeting because the member of the member's attendance at an outside committee that the member has been assigned to under the council's organizational rules, that exception would be removed by Amendment five. All right. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Other members have questions to Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I have a comment. And are we in final? We're debating Amendment five. Yes. Yes. So I have wrestled with this a great deal. And I can see the positives and some of the drawbacks on each perspective, each side here. But I really think. That it's. Councilmember Dunn brought out we're talking about five medium senator, 400 roughly a year. This is a very small number. And I believe strongly that all nine members here and future members who replace us at some point, I want to be here and they work very hard for their constituents and they don't treat this willy nilly in terms of taking it seriously to be here to participate and vote. But things do come up and we are all professionals. We're involved with associations. We have times when we're ill that make it very could make it difficult potentially to be here at every single meeting. But when people take the the opportunity to call in and participate, which I've done a couple of times, even though I haven't been able to vote and this is on a committee meeting and a council meeting. I can't vote, but I'm participating the whole time, even though I'm somewhere else that a professional association which I may have been chairing. So I think this is an adult thing to do. When we look within the context of our other local jurisdictions, counties and cities, for example, we really stand out from the norm. And I think and I am going to support the striking amendment. I think we need to be adults here and give credit to our colleagues that they are not all doing are doing something because they're not taking their job seriously. We all do that. So I strongly support the striking amendment. Thank you. Madam Chair. Just for clarification, the the the amendments are not technically striking amendments. Amendment four would replace all of the operative language. The original ordinance, Amendment five would modify certain provisions of Amendment four. So I will just correct clarify in my remarks to amendment number five. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so no further debate. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Belushi. Thank you. Just really briefly, I think Councilmember Coles has put it very well. To me, this is about expanding participation, especially in a body like this, where we represent districts. Any time one of us is not able to participate in a meeting, our district is not represented in that meeting. And so I think to allow some additional flexibility to participate is is really important to the people we represent. It's also not at all uncommon for bodies like ours to have call in rules and make that possible. But I think, on the other hand, we have to acknowledge that it really does impact the quality of the discussion and debate when we have people on the phone and we wouldn't want to see it on a regular basis just for those occasions when when it's really necessary. So I think that this strikes a nice balance. I appreciate the amendment. I'll support it and I'll support it at the end of my motion as well. Thank you. Councilmember Belushi, any further comment on five? All right. All in favor of five. Say I. Any opposed? No. Five carries turning to Amendment four as amended. And is this get us to final passage? I think it just gets us to that with. Government after amendment we got to vote on because amend and you get the underlying right. So this is frankly a fairly procedural vote at this point, all in favor of Amendment four as amended by Amendment five, say i. I. Any opposed? No. Okay. Amendment five carries Amendment four as amended by five carries. Now, turning to the underlying legislation. Are there further comments on it as amended? Councilmember Dunn. I'm going to support this ordinance, and I think I would have preferred the number would be more like for about a 1%. We're all but four or five. I think it's I think that's and I think folks know I've been battling the flu this week. I'm just coming back. And it was really tricky situation. Monday, I was sick as a dog and really sick. But this Annenberg nonpartisan issue was up and I was the fifth vote and I sure would have loved to call it. But I drove down here and actually actually driven down here. And I came in here and I voted and I went back home and was still sick. But, you know, that's an example. Then what would happen is what the majority and will of this council was, which was to make prosecutor non partizan would have very likely been thwarted by the access situation. So, you know, I've had situations with the ice storm of 29 where trees were down. I was living out in rural, unincorporated King County by Maple Valley. There's no way to get in, you know, just you can't do it. So there are these and it was dangerous to for that matter. So the circumstances here were fair. Again, it's one point roughly 1.25% of the meetings. I know the members abuse it, so I'm going to support it. Thank you for the passage. Oh, okay. I have returned the chair to Councilmember Lambert, having completed our procedural issues. And thank you for doing a good job and getting through this. It's for the listening audience. This was a complicated one and there were lots of changes even this morning. So, so and final passage. There's nobody else that wants to speak. I agree with the idea that being face to face is is always optimal, but then life happens and so not good. And so this acknowledges life like Councilmember Dunn, who brought his flu or sick, whatever it was. We appreciate that you did that. But it was if you had been driving himself, he didn't look like he was in any condition to be driving. So we appreciated you doing that and bringing a driver. I have come here in the snow this badly and not been pleased that I was driving here when I knew it wasn't safe. This will allow us and I serve on 11 internal committees. So for me that'll be 528 different committees in a year. So, Councilmember Dunn, the 1% would work for me. So you got your 1% and I appreciate all the comments that been made. And with that, I think we can have the clerk call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, now Councilmember I. Councilmember McDermott. By. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is Six Eyes Council Member Gossett no council members of the Grove and one right. They were excused. Okay, so we can have some choices here. Do we want to expedite and put it on consent or do we want to discuss this all over again? I'm good with whatever anybody wants. Madam Chair. I wouldn't expedited. I don't see a need to expedite it. And with dissenting votes, I wouldn't put it on consent either. Okay, then we will go in their normal procedures. Right. Madam Chair, I just want to note that calling it the 1% ordinance almost cost it a vote by me. More than one vote. Oh, that's funny. Yes, we are dealing with that in Olympia. We don't need to deal with it here. All right. Okay. Now we are doing pretty well and we will go on to our next our next order of business. And that would be, I think, what I'm going to do. I'm going to skip if it's okay. Do you mind being the last? And I would bring up our our last item, which will now be the one before last, which is our chaplains.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and all necessary documents and any subsequent amendments, with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $306,666 for the My Sister’s Keeper - New Victim Intervention and Empowerment for Women’s Program, for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund (SR 130) in the Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $306,666, offset by reimbursement revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02062018_18-0091

So thank you. We have a great professor there. She was the smartest of our entire group, just so you know. It's true. So we with that, let me go ahead and go back and we had item nine was pulled from consensus. Let's hear number nine. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to execute an agreement with California Governor's Office of Emergency Services to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of 306,000. Thousand 666 for the My Sister's Keeper program. Great. Thank you. And we did have a comment. Customer Pierce wanted to comment on this. I just I have our director of the health department, Kelly Colby. I wanted to hear a report from her. I think that this is an amazing grant and that we need to really recognize the work that we do and take it outside of our department so that our community can be engaged and understanding what our city's working towards. Go ahead. Kelly. Thank you and good evening, honorable mayor and City Council members and I thank you for the opportunity to share about My Sister's Keeper. This new funding of 306,666 from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, otherwise known as Cal OAS, continues a highly successful program that was previously funded to the Board of State and Community Corrections. So we've been operating this program for the last three years with with the from be from the. Their program is ending. That funding has ended. So we applied to colonias for additional funding to continue the program. The goal of the program is really to reduce victimization and commercial sex sexual exploitation through serving at risk females within the city of Long Beach. My Sister's Keeper program is an anti-human trafficking program that revolved around the city prosecutor's office and the Long Beach Police Department's directed services program. So it's a court diversion model, which is designed to assist women who are engaged in prostitution related offenses and are likely being human, sexual, you know, victims of sexual trafficking . And so what they really done is start to identify those who are being who are being trafficked. And instead of being identified as criminalizing it, they're moving it to a victim, moving to a victim focus. So the model is really an incredible partnership between the police department, the city prosecutor's office, our service providers and the health department . It's changed the system from viewing trafficked individuals as victims instead of criminals to us. And they've also streamline the process. The police provide citations to women. They give them an order to appear in court on the Monday. So it used to be a month, month and a half out before a person could show up. Now it's if they're seen on Thursday, they come in on Monday, they get a phone call on Monday morning reminding them to show up. And then while they're in court, they're actually provided opportunity to divert from any sort of criminal justice opportunity, instead, two services. So they're provided trauma related services, case management and tattoo removal. In the past year, we've seen over 100 tattoos removed. So the service providers learn about you know, they explain the program. And at that point, they can connect and be diverted from additional opportunities. And with the criminal justice system through the previous My Sister's Keeper, we are able to assess more than 200 women through this project. And in this one, we're going to be looking at, we're seeking to assist 40 more, but also to really look at additional data collection, to understand the long term impacts of this program. So we're excited to continue this great partnership and this important work. And that concludes my report and open for questions. Thank you very much. Customer Pearce, anything else to add to that? I just want to say in Bixby Park is one of the areas in my district where we've had a lot of issues and a lot of constituents concerns. And I've witnessed our police officers and our heart team out there really working directly with some of these women. And it really has made a difference. So I'm proud of this work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. A mix up as we have Vice Mayor Richardson. Just wanted to chime in and say this is really important funding and it does really important work. And I've seen the work that Theresa and the Health Department has really led, particularly in North Long Beach. So thank you for this and I'm happy to support this. Thank you. And Councilman Mungo. Great program. I know that members of the Junior League had a presentation from information that was put out by your office. It was a very informative presentation, and I think that the more people that are aware of it, the better we are, because it can happen right in front of you. And people don't always know that the signs and indicators are so great work and thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion or a second for this item. I've seen no public comment on this item. Please cast your votes. This is for the consent item that was pulled. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. We're going to go to we have a short public comment just for people. I mean, the first two items up on the agenda will be the item around homeownership and the Olympics. And so for those that are here, for those and then the rest of the agenda.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed donation of surplus personal computers from the City and County of Denver to the nonprofit entity PCs for People. Approves the donation of surplus personal computers to PCs for People for low income families in need during the coronavirus emergency. Councilmember Kniech approved direct filing this item on 3-23-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03232020_20-0311

Thank you, Madam Secretary and Council Member Gilmore. We need another motion to suspend the rules of Council to allow for the introduction of a second late filing. Thank you. Council President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the. Introduction of Council Bill 20 dash. 0311. Approving a proposed donation of surplus personal computers from the city and county of Denver to the nonprofit entity PCs for people. Thank you. Council member it has been moved and seconded comments and again this is just comments on the filing and then if you want to call this out, we can call it out and recap once it is through. Councilmember, did you want to add something about this at this point? It's up to you, Mr. President. I don't believe it made it on the call list. So would it be more convenient to give the background on this bill now. Seeing head nodding from our Madam Secretary, so go ahead. Yes. Thank you very much to my colleagues for your patience with this. Late filing. PCs for People is an organization that provides computers for those who are low income and with limited access. In our community, they've provided about 8000 families a year with computers in the Denver market. This includes receiving donations of devices in mobile Internet hotspots and then wiping them using nationally certified processes. So they work with hospital systems and others who have very secure information that needs to be wiped in a very secure facility. Then that technology is refurbished and given back to those who might not have computer access otherwise. They have worked with the city and county of Denver in the past, but we have a very strong provision in our charter that requires any donations of equipment to be done by ordinance of the Council. And so it is made donations a little more unwieldy. I am here today with this bill. It doesn't use the word COVID 19 in it, but make no mistake that this was expedited in order to get more computers into the hands of families with kids who are going to try to be schooled through remote schooling to seniors who might need to have medical consultations with doctors via video rather than going in person to reduce their risk. And I want to thank first and foremost technology services, who has identified 100 computers that we would have had to pay to recycle if we couldn't do this. Donations. We're actually saving the city money by not paying a recycler and instead getting them into the hands of folks we need. So technology services, general services who had to authorize this under the charter, the council secretary for her help the president legislative council John Griffin and the mayor's office. This ordinance was put together in about 6 hours today. So pieces for people will pick up equipment not just from the city of Denver, but from other private entities who may have access, computers that you don't think are very effective for your needs, but with the right software calibrated for the age of the computer, will be very effective for online schooling and things like that. Very basic access. So even if it doesn't do a lot for you, trust me that in the hands of the experts it could be life saving or education saving for someone in our computer or in our community. So with that, I would like to thank everyone for their help getting this ordinance together in such short order and ask my colleagues for their unanimous support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember and Council members. Just a reminder that we will need a unanimous vote approval on this item to be introduced, and this is just the vote to introduce it. Madam Secretary, roll call on this late submission. Black Sea debacle. I. Flynn, i. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman Canete i. Tories i. Council President. I. I'm Secretary. Because the voting in those results. Nine eyes. Nine eyes counts accountable 311 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution title. A city Council Direct File 2311 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed donation of surplus personal computers from the city and county of Denver to the nonprofit entity PCs for people.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PW17-033 and award a contract to LAZ Parking California, LLC, of Los Angeles, CA, for Citywide Parking Operations and Management Services, in an amount of $7,874,148, authorize a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $1,574,830, for a total contract amount not to exceed $9,448,978, for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operation Fund (TF 401) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $433,489, offset by departmental cost-savings and parking-related revenue; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $479,331, offset by parking-related revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11072017_17-1011

Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Next up is item number 29. Report from Public Works Recommendation to award a contract to L.A. Z parking in California for citywide parking operations and management services for a total contract amount not to exceed 9,448,990 978 citywide. Okay. Thank you. I know that we have a staff report on this. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West. Craig Cogen. Hi, Craig. Craig Beck. And. Come on. It's great. No, I'm right here. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. We would like to give you a brief presentation. So this is about a parking services RFP and as information, see if we can get this to work. We can advance to the next slide. I don't know. Thank you so much. There we go. So the city does manage 25 different city owned parking assets and that includes seven parking garages. The Aquarium City plays Broadway, Lincoln and 100 Broadway, which is our garden lot behind us. We also have nine different beach lots. So what are we seeking in a parking operator? We're really looking at someone who can provide maintenance for all of our facilities, who can provide customer service, and who can really look to ensure that all of our patrons are safe using our garages. Some of the maintenance work includes sweeping trash removal, regular power washing of the facilities and then minor things paint, touch up, graffiti removal, things like that. To give you an idea of the scale of what we're talking about in fiscal year 17, we anticipate that parking operations will collect almost $9.4 million gross revenue. And our largest structure is the aquarium structure. It receives almost 745,000 visitors annually and generates almost half that revenue, $4.4 million. So quite a big operation. I think. Not only does it support the aquarium, but certainly many of the restaurants and businesses down in the Pike area. We're also interested in supporting our special events. As we all know, Long Beach is a great location for special events. We see our special events growing from year to year. We have some major events in the Grand Prix, our Pride Festival, Long Beach Marathon and most recently we've seen more and more activity occur down on the Queen Mary with the concept of Queen Mary Island. This year's Queen Mary Dark Harbor was so popular that there was special transportation arranged between the aquarium garage where many of the patrons would park to and from the Queen Mary as part of that event. Also need to recognize that we have a lot of filming that happens in our city. Over 500 filming permits are typically issued in a year, and that includes closing down streets and it may include special operations where our parking operator would support. So in seeking providers for this service, we were really honing in on these categories. We wanted our vendors to share with us their experience in parking management, event management, how they deal with customer service, what their customer service plan look like, what their staffing service plan would be for the various assets, especially the aquarium garage, given its high frequency of use. And we also wanted to know their operational plan and what it would cost to provide those services as information. The current parking contract ends in the end of March of 2018. So we did go through an RFP process. The RFP was out to the community in March of this year. We did receive five qualified proposals and went through and those came in in May. We went through interviews with all five firms in June, and in July we we shortlisted two to what we believe were the most qualified candidates, and that was last parking and speed plus. Those two finalists went through a community partner interview where we engaged both the DOJ, the Aquarium of Pacific, to sit on a panel and have a conversation with these two finalists. And then in October, we issued a notice of intent to award for the recommendation of last parking. The city did receive a bid protest. There was a protest issued over the notice of intent to award. Our purchasing group did receive the protest, review the protest and essentially said there was no basis for the protest and moved to support Stout's recommendation. So that is what we have before you this evening. Staff is recommending that council move forward with a contract with LA's Parking LLC. We believe that LA's completely understands the complexity of the parking operations in urban areas and specifically in what we need here in the city of Long Beach. They've identified a personable and experienced individual as their parking manager. Their cost proposal actually came in less than our number two candidate, about $381,000 annually. I think staff also appreciated the focus that LA's has on special events. They have some very notable clients for special events the Emmys, Golden Globes, Academy Awards, and they also support many California operations like LAX, John Wayne Airport and municipal cities in the Bay Area that are listed here, Berkeley and Walnut Creek. So that concludes our presentation and we're available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. I know we have a motion that we're going to, I believe, take public comment first per the request, and so is your public comment on this item. Please come forward. Good evening. My name is Jason Johnson. I'm senior vice president for SPX Plus Corporation. We've been the city's parking operator for the last ten years and unfortunately we ended up on the wrong side of this particular bid. I always hate coming in talking on these items because it always sounds like spilled milk when you didn't win. Right. But there were enough items that we saw throughout the process that we thought we should at least come and have our say. Right. We did protest. The protest was tonight. Hopefully I can give you a few things to think about in a relatively short period of time. So my first set of concerns are around the process, and there's really four items that individually would be concerns. And taking them as a total was an even bigger concern for us. Right. And that was the scoring criteria had no way to get average. Right, which gives a lot of leeway to the folks that are evaluating each of the proposals. We had no scoring sheet was provided. Our FOIA request was denied before this meeting. And then there's a 20% contingency on this contract, which I've been doing this a really long time and I've never seen anywhere anything close to that. And with that 20% contingency, it could take this contract from being less expensive to being considerably more expensive without them without staff having to come back and talk to council. All the value ads that were mentioned in the staff report, we we've recommended to the city over the last few years, we've provided that documentation. So the second set of concerns are with us with the selected provider. They've got no no significant municipal contracts here in Southern California. We have a number of them. They have a history of underbid contracts. That has led to some significant thefts. And we have one that's that's major. And it's come up pretty significantly here recently, which is they had a theft at the MTA in Boston, which ended up in a $5.6 million settlement for that theft. All right. The attorney general for Massachusetts said by failing to implement reasonable revenue controls, laws gave supervisors and parking attendants the opportunity and means to skim cash. So in closing, I'm sure that you guys are all aware that another municipality here in Southern California, Pasadena, just went through the same process. Last was the recommended vendor from staff. City Council rejected that not once, but twice, because they weren't willing to take the chance on someone that has this significant theft in recent history, in recent memory. Right. And so city council voted to extend the contract for another year with the existing providers, and they're going to look at it again a year from now. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. And will the public comment on this item? Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor, esteemed members of City Council. My name is John Special Ed. I'm the senior vice president for parking. On behalf of all of last parking, and in particular our 2000 local valued team members, we wanted to let you know how excited we are to be staff recommendation since the RFP process started. We worked very hard to put our best foot forward. We want to thank staff for all their hard work and diligently vetting all proposals. We sincerely feel that we can bring a renewed passion to the parking operations that result in improved customer service, as well as new technology to improve the user experience. We look forward to working with staff, Long Beach residents and the other stakeholders to improve parking in Long Beach. I know that our competition touched on, you know, our lack of experience here, but we have several reputable clients, both in the municipal and private sector, that we've provided letters of recommendation on to staff. We've been completely transparent and full of integrity throughout this process, and we want to bring that same level of integrity and passion to City of Long Beach if we're so fortunate. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. So, you know, the public comment will close, public comment will go back to the council. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, I want to thank staff for their work on this. I in the last week have met both with both companies that are here today. Went back to staff for several questions. And I wanted to get a couple of clarifying things for the 20% contingency. On the contract, we had discussed what those might be for. And one thing that I don't think was necessarily elaborated on that is one of the things I'm excited about with Lars is the technology, the ability to be nimble, the ability to think outside the box, in using things like a phone app that says, you know, I can reserve my parking spot ahead of time. Often when people come to a downtown, they find themselves anxious about parking. Even though we know that there is parking, being able to take on private lots. So, you know, we had mobile here that was here earlier talking about if we were to take on a private lot, working with the city to partner with that is really important to me. And so my specific question is, can you clarify what the 20% contingency might be used for? Certainly, Councilmember Pearce, I think it's important to make sure council understands we compared the two tracked proposals apples to apples. So the $381,000 savings annually that I mentioned, that is a comparison of the annual contract regardless of the recommendation that was before council. Whether that was LA's or if if staff was recommended Espn+, we would still be recommending that council provide a 20% contingency to that contract. We think it's important to give us leeway to address some things not only within our structures but within special events. And we believe that that kind of capacity allows us the ability to, say, improve a gate, arm or things that may come up over the course of a contract that we can't foresee at this point in time. Of course, that's all supported by parking revenue. If that revenue is not there to support that additional cost, then that is nothing that we would expend money on. But having that flexibility just allows allows us to move quickly to address issues focused on customer service. So everybody coming in to our downtown and all of our parking assets have the best experience they can. Great. And can you clarify for me, you mentioned infrastructure improvements, security arm. If something like that happens where I know a lot that's in Councilmember Gonzalez, his district often has issues. If something like that comes up, whose responsibility is that? If it's on a city lot? Well, ultimately, it's the city's responsibility. But we rely on our parking operator to work with us. Many times we will use our parking operator to actually procure the equipment. Espn+ has done that for us over the years when we needed to do an upgrade and we worked closely with our parking operator to make sure that we had that ability to upgrade the equipment. And this 20% contingency would allow us that flexibility moving forward. For example, right now we know we need to make an investment in our city place garages, that that equipment is somewhat outdated and we want to improve it for the customer experience. Great. Thank you. I also would like to to highlight, you know, there are several letters in here supporting LA's post, any of the press stuff that has been talked about and following up with those cities that feel really confident and are continuing to sing the praises as one of the other issues, I think it's the right decision for the city, and I look forward to not just having a parking company, but working with you guys in partnership in the private lots and working with you. And how do we take. That. App and make sure that it's on my website, council members website, every business in the downtown and the East Village that we really are trying to to use technology and inform our residents of that. And so I expect you guys at my neighborhood association and my board meetings should this move forward tonight. So thank you for for offering that as a partnership. I hope that my colleagues will support staff's recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes, I am excited to talk about parking, because I think this is something that especially downtown residents have been wanting to see move in perhaps a different direction. And I have a few questions myself and I too have met with both teams and making sure that I'm getting all my ducks in a row and on behalf of my residents, who in the city would spot, check or audit the contract? Councilmember Gonzales said city staff and public works will manage the contract and will be the primary point of contact for them. Our community projects officer, April Walker, has been involved through the entire RFP. Has been a member on the interview groups as we vetted this whole process. And she'll be the primary point of contact in helping to coordinate any issues that may come up with the contract. Awesome. I was going to say, who's our Luis Maldonado from back in the day? It's now April. Great. Now April. Wonderful. And then given, you know, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority had been brought up, of course. Could you just go over really. Quickly the insurance requirements that we have on our end to help prevent any issues going forward? Certainly, I think that there was a memo that staff sent to council earlier outlining this process. And I want to let everyone know that we really did do our due diligence in reviewing and reached out to Massachusetts and talked to the people involved in this particular incident and every response that we received. Not only commended leis for their cooperation, but also pointed to an individual and this was an act of an individual and not something that was indicative of the corporate environment or the service that Lars provided to the organization. Kind of, as we look moving forward, one of the things that we're requiring of our parking operators is that they have insurance in place that should this happen moving forward, that there's a policy that would cover the city for any incident such as this. Great. And I, too, am very excited about seeing what could occur with technology. So aquarium barcode scanning, entry exits and also special events. And I know that people don't think that that's maybe a big deal, but it absolutely is with our city, especially as we're growing. I just hosted, you know, 7 to 8000 people over the weekend. I don't even expect that many people. But we did with our Day of the Dead event. And to think that the very first thing that people were thinking about absolutely was parking and how we could be more efficient on the coordinating side to be able to relay to individuals how they can get in and out of our city even before getting in and out of our city, which is pretty incredible. And I also had a question about the parking lot map that we had in the memo. It mentioned a few lots that look like they're going to be transferring hands to development. So seventh and Pacific and third and fourth and Pacific. So how will that be transferred? What would that look like? So the contract is before we this evening is based on all of the facilities that we're operating now. As those facilities transition to private ownership, then we would no longer be providing parking services there. And those hours or need for service would be adjusted within the contract. And, and, and if the city were to acquire a lot and, and add a new lot. Similarly, we would adjust the contract to add services to say a new parking lot. Okay, great. And then the final thought that I have is just in relation to maintenance and safety, and that has been a big deal. I know, Craig, we've talked often and we've talked City Place Garages and for us I think that is a key point to ensure that businesses feel safe when their. Employees are. Walking to and from the city garages, as well as residents who want a very streamlined process. I hear online payments will be very easy for individuals to make. I used to rent a space across the street from where I live in the city, post garages, and it was a little difficult. And so to make that a little bit more streamlined and a lot easier for residents, I think it will be key as as well as having the safety and just the little things, maintenance, making sure graffiti and trash and the the the markings are all on point because our city is looking and getting a lot better. I also want to thank Craig Kochen as well. We've been working on this, I know, for some time too, so thank you to all who have been involved. I look forward to honoring staff's recommendation. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. So just a couple of questions here. You said that the the contract for the recommended vendor is 381,000 per year, less than the second recommended vendor. Was that right? Yes, Councilmember, that's correct. So based on the experience that we've had with the second vendor, do we think are we concerned at all that this this. Under this estimate of $381,000 less is going to have any operational ramifications or employment ramifications or anything like that. Like how are they able to do it for a $381,000 less? I'm sure you consider that in your analysis. Yes. Councilmember, I'd like to highlight a couple of things in response to your question. First off, I think that there was a concern earlier that was raised about the employees that are currently providing those services. And those employees are represented under an IMU agreement with Local 324 Union. I'd like to say and share with this Council that LAS has exact executed a memorandum of agreement with the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324 to basically honor that agreement, which is in effect through December 31st, 2019. So that collective bargaining agreement that's covering the employees that are providing that service today will continue in place under this new operator. So I think that addresses probably your question about wages and benefits, etc., for those folks providing the service. What we did as part of the RFP response is we asked each of the proposers to give us a staffing plan and an operation plan, and we did that solely to ensure that we were seeing the same level of service from vendor to vineyard, a vendor. And so they a number of hours, the number of individuals, the number of community contacts, project parking managers that were out in the field and available to support these efforts was consistent. And while some may tweak it a little bit between where they have certain individuals, what we're seeing is a like for like hours, number of hours that are provided between the two finalists. Okay. And what's their responsibility in regards to maintenance of the lots? Six of the lots are in city, three on their beach lot. So so under this contract they would provide general maintenance trash pickup if there was some striping improvements that needed to be done. Graffiti removal, you know, normal maintenance that you would think about if it was a larger project. I know right now we're engaged in a large construction project on the ground a lot down in District three, and that would be taken on by the city and public works would manage that effort. Okay. Because that's that's a concern for me going forward when I see a number like $381,000 less per year. What I want to make sure is that the operator understands that there are certain expectations with maintenance of the parking lots, especially the ones that are on the beach, because they are the areas where we see a lot of trash after special events. And that is just completely unacceptable because it really devalues that whole area. So I want to make sure that that $381,000 a year less doesn't mean there's less attention paid to to trash pickup or graffiti removal. And the other things that you mentioned, I will say I did also have the opportunity to meet with both parking vendors, and I appreciate staff answering some of the questions. I did look up as the speaker was talking. I did Google, Pasadena and LA's and so I did read the article. So I'm happy that staff considered that in making its recommendation because prior to that I wasn't sure if staff had already factored that into it. And I feel satisfied that that staff has looked into it and that we're not exposing ourselves to a liability. I would say that if we're having costs come in over the anticipated budget such that the 20% contingency is being triggered, I would want a report back to council. So I would like I would like to make a friendly to my colleagues that if that 20% contingency is triggered, that council get our report back. And so that we have the opportunity to look at what what happened, why was this budget not sufficient and why did we have to tap into that 20% contingency so that we're aware of the situation? Is that agreeable with staff? Is that something you'd be okay with? Certainly, Councilmember Price, I don't see a challenge with that. And let me just give you an example of where that contingency may also come in. Recently, we expanded the number of monthly parking passes in our city place garage and that the number of employees using that greatly increased to almost 800, primarily connected with Molina health care. And with that number of folks coming and going every day, we really needed additional security service and additional maintenance, but we were receiving the revenue to help support that. So we utilized some of that contingency budget to enhance those services, to support that level of service that we were experiencing in that garage. So providing a report to council on those type of items and where we would engage that contingency is isn't a challenge at all. And I think if the maker and the secondary, the motion are open to that, I think that would be good. You know, I'm not worried about the scenario that you just mentioned. What I'm worried about is an underestimation of the actual costs under normal conditions. So certainly things are going to happen that are unusual. That would necessitate us to be, as council member Pearce said, nimble and responsive. But if there's normal operations because they've not had experience in the city of Long Beach, we'd want to know what those what those areas are so that we can improve upon them. The one thing I will say that I really liked about LA's is they have experience with private lots, as Councilmember Pearce mentioned, and they have experience with valet, extensive experience with valet with Coastal Commission, which is an issue that is a major factor for the third district and something that I think is going to become very relevant as we see development with Second and PCH and some of the other restaurants in that and that corridor. So restaurants and businesses in that corridor. So I expect that they will hopefully provide a resource to us in those regards. But I appreciate the presentation from both of the the vendors and I think staff for their work on this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I'm really appreciative of the answers that have been provided today. And I will only add to it that when there are opportunities to use that contingency for new and creative things, that there is also a partnership opportunity with our Parks and Rec director. And I know that Marie Knight and I spoke about. The opportunity to use some of the parking gate technologies at Eldorado Park, and that especially this year as the community has flourished and thrive. Our level of drive at the parks has gone up. We have been faced with some unique parking challenges, specifically at our parks. And so with the two lanes going in and the opportunity to automate a lane for our members and to move away from our old school pasts and the risks and liabilities of our city staff. I'm holding large quantities of cash on those days when other options of credit cards and the automation process especially. I know that I talked a little bit with potential parking providers, that there's a lot of data available. Once you start instituting these pass cards instead of a tag that's in your and your window now you can start seeing how many times a week, a month, a year are our high propensity users using it or people buying it in your past and using it twice? Are they buying an annual pass and using it every day of the week or once a month? And what does that look like? It also helps us start being able to keep track of those that come in on foot if we want them to start using their pass code to get in or out, that that allows us to start seeing the number of users we have. And so I just look forward to some technology opportunities and I'm appreciative that the contingency is mostly used for new things and not as a gap. And I think that that's a really important point, and I thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments. I accept that friendly. But I would also I understand that sometimes you see something that's new and exciting and it promises a lot. And I know that we also have a lot of challenges with cleanliness and our lots existing right now. So I would also like to ask that city staff just do it could be a two from four a report back in a year into how the changes have happened. And if we see more opportunities to put in place kind of the vision that we set forward today. Just so we have an opportunity to discuss that. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hastert. Yes. I wasn't going to speak this evening, but Councilman Mungo's comments sparked an idea or thought. I know we brought an item before the council. I want to say about a year and a half ago to look at meters and using those meters to bring or to raise money for our homeless programs here in the city. Oh, I would really love that for our our public works department to have that conversation with our new vendor. I expect this to be passed this evening to to look at some some creative ways to engage and help develop that, because I know we received too far from the idea was, I think, a noble one, one that is actually working in other cities. But parking meters and old parking meters in particular in business districts would would, I think, help a lot in terms of raising necessary resources to help our homeless population and provide services and to, you know, avoid panhandling in any way possible. So this just one thought that I had and I'm supportive of the item. Thank you. That concludes comment from the city council. So there is a there's a motion in a second by Councilmember Pearce and Councilwoman Gonzalez, our members, to go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries.

Order for a hearing to discuss internet access and digital equity in the City of Boston.

BostonCC_12082021_2021-0221

Thank you. Docket 0221. Order for a hearing to discuss internal access and digital equity in the city of Boston. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Councilor Ed Flynn, chair of the Committee on City and Neighborhood Services. Councilor Flynn, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we held a hearing on digital equity and Internet access this Monday, December six. The matter was sponsored by myself council me here in council. I want to thank councilors Brayden, Murphy, Bach and Flaherty for attending and to the panelists for being there also Alex Lawrence, Michael Lynch, Sarah Segal, Lara Peter for the Reader and from the from the Do It Week team. Margaret McKenna, who is the chair of the Boston Human Rights Commission. Theodora Hannah from Tech Goes On. Stephanie Lee is with Verizon. Angela Holm is with Comcast at the hearing. They do. A team presented their work on digital equity, including their efforts on publicizing the emergency broadband benefit to eligible residents, which gives up to $50 discount a month to qualified residents. And with the new infrastructure bill, there will be a new affordability connectivity program going forward. We spoke about the barriers for families to apply to these programs, since the application itself is in eight pages and the application itself is only in English and Spanish. Two, it is now working to reach out to different communities and help them apply for this important benefit. Margaret McKenna also spoke about the immediate need to address the gap of access for all residents and how broadband is now a necessary. Necessity for everyday life. She suggested having wi fi at bus and street train stations as a way to close the gap. Panelists from Tacos Home, Verizon and Comcast also spoke about the spoke about their programs, including plans to expand that network and current discount programs for residents. We still have a lot of work to do to address this important issue. And with the passage of this infrastructure bill, we have an opportunity to expand resources and take a huge step forward in closing the digital gap. I'm asking that this matter remain in committee so that we can continue the conversation. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Councilor Flynn. Um, would anybody else wish to speak on this docket? I'm sorry I missed your light there. The chair recognizes the co-sponsor. At-Large city councilman. Dorchester councilman here. The floor is yours. Thank you to my co-sponsors, Councilor Flynn and BOC for working to create an incredible productive hearing on a topic that we all deeply are invested in. There seems to be a lot of work going on when it comes to expanding Internet access across the city of Boston. But a lot of this work seems to be happening in silos, and we need to step up to ensure that the work of connecting Boston is unified and intentional about reaching communities that are usually left out of the conversation. I also want to uplift something that the Human Rights Commission chair, Margaret McKenna brought up during the hearing. We already know what we know. We know that communities in Boston, particularly low income black and brown communities, lack access to reliable Internet services and simply by expanding Wi-Fi free and wicked free Wi-Fi isn't enough. We know why these communities are not connected. The question is, what are we as a city going to do about it? I look forward to working alongside Councilor Flynn and Bach to implement short term and long term solutions to ensure that everyone has a stable and reliable Internet connection as a right, not a privilege. And thank you again to my co-sponsors. Thank you very much, Councilor, here. The chair recognizes the district councilor for Beacon Hill, Councilor Kenzie BLOCK. The floor is yours. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And I want to also thank my co-sponsors, Councilor Flynn and me here on this. And I just wanted to underscore one thing that came up in the hearing, which is that I really think. We need to be careful. There's a lot of really good, well intentioned efforts to extend Internet access around the city. But when you drill down the quality of the Internet access that a lot of those low income and subsidized programs are providing is just not competitive with what people need for real educational and economic access. And so we're at risk of creating a city where even in the programs that we're extending and frankly, any emergency broadband benefit that the city that the federal government is subsidizing, where we're subsidizing and extending a real kind of second class, class service. And so, for example, right now, 75% of the city in theory, has access to fiber at their household. But only less than 2% of the Bostonians taking advantage of the emergency broadband benefit are getting it through fiber. And what that means is a situation where we're talking about low income Internet programs that might cap out at a 50 megabyte upload five download cap, whereas for folks who are paying for fiber are getting sorry, 50 megabytes versus a gigabyte, right, which is like a 20 x difference. So I just really want to stress because I think it's something that we're going to need to work on in the coming year. But the reason that we get into the conversation long term about municipal broadband and about extending fiber that is more under public control is because the only way you're actually going to shift it into being a utility as opposed to sort of an amenity that's and recognize it's essential ness to people's life is if we're investing in that really high quality product for everybody. So that was just something that alarmed me a bit that came out of the hearing. And I just really want to stress that I think it's going to be an area of council and administration need for action in the coming year. So thank you. Thank you very much, Councilor. Would anyone else wish to speak other than the three co-sponsors on this docket? Councilors Flynn, McKenna and Bach are asking the docket 0221 remain in the Committee on City and Neighborhood Services. And so it shall. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0899?

A bill for an ordinance repealing the sunset date of the cannabis consumption pilot program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-28-19.

DenverCityCouncil_02192019_19-0024

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Excuse me, direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put comfortable 24 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 dash 0024 be ordered published. It has been moved. And can I get a second and second in the public hearing for council bill 24 is open. May we have the staff report? Councilwoman Black, I think you're going to take this one. Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. President. This very short bill simply repeals the 2020 sunset of the 2016 voter approved initiative that allows businesses to apply for designated social consumption licenses. The ballot initiative, with almost 170,000 votes in favor, established a pilot program for businesses to apply for a designated social consumption license. Because there are only two businesses in operation since it was passed in 2016, this bill would remove the sunset to allow other businesses the time and opportunity to pursue a new business and a new license. It's a matter of business fairness, but prospective businesses need more time to plan, to finance, to find a location, and to apply for a license. So this bill will repeal the sunset. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. We do have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'm going to call the first five, if you would come up to this first bench. When I call your name, step right up to the microphone as your time will start to elapse. The first five we have are John MacAskill, Chairman Sekou Michael Polansky, Jesse Paris and Cindy Silverman. John MacAskill, you're you're going. Thank you. My name is John McCaskill, ten year resident of the East Side, founder of Hotbox International International, which is based in five points in an area now known as the Rhino Art District. For future reference, that can be found at the HDB XCOM. For questions and follow up, I'm here today to speak to the success that's happening developing under the current rules of social consumption with my startup HTC X International and our pending DCA application for the HOTBOX Solution, which you will see that is up currently at public record as the TBC solution, which is to take place May 31st . I would also like to close with comments on the proposed changes to the initiative and briefly address items that are being debated under the social consumption initiatives. Last month my organization submitted the first special event DCA application to be accepted by the city. While this application is currently under review, we anticipate approval to be announced in coming weeks. To date, my team has been the only organization to successfully navigate the special event license application. So how have we gotten this far? Tell you a little bit about my business first. The hotbox is an agile and sustainable solution. We have developed and upcycled modified shipping container into a mobile patio which adheres to all DCA requirements that can be temporarily placed for special events and then removed following a leave no trace ethos. This is a benefit to municipalities for who who want to determine specifically when, where and for how long consumption takes place. The hotbox is also a truly shared solution providing neighborhoods, businesses and other individuals. 21 to know a safe and responsible space to consume cannabis. With anticipated ballot initiatives for tasting rooms coming to vote in May. We will offer HOTBOX as a cost effective and sustainable replacement to traditional brick and mortar buildings as well. Second, we worked within the framework of the existing rules at the city in the state. We developed the hotbox with the city by sitting down with all regulatory agencies to discuss our product, our plan and a roadmap with full support from the city. We've been able to focus on safety and compliance without needing a rule changes. Third, the hotbox is designed to be a solution for everyone. Cities across the country, including Denver, appreciate the easily identifiable and malleable structure. We're developing the business for the nation's first standardized cannabis intoxication certification in conjunction with the TIPS TIPS Program, which is currently mandated in Colorado as an education program for alcohol sales. We're working to understand social implications with planned research projects at the University of Colorado, and we understand that we are on the frontier of social consumption. So we're developing innovative operating and use procedures with the latest technology focusing on safety, security and compliance. In the future, we look forward to designing, building, leasing and selling units across the country to industries and organizations and municipalities solving the problem of social consumption. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Zak. Yes. Good evening. My name's Chairman Siku. I will be the next mayor of the city county of Denver 2019. And, you know. I have never in my life. Seen. A body, a government body. Who could mess up a great cigar. And all you got to do is light it. All of this overregulation of marijuana by folks who are alcoholics that don't smoke has driven this thing underground. And people are doing this now and having social meetings in places that are happening as we speak around the clock. My grandfather told me legislation in law ain't worth a bucket of spit. If you can enforce it and you can't enforce this, you can't stop people from doing something they've been doing for over 100 years in this town. And then tell them after the voters say, do it and it's okay, you make it. I don't care. And that's the hypocrisy. And there's words that I can't say about this. Think that I'm an honest president this evening. But come on, man. This is straight up, people. La la la la, la, la. That's all this is. Because what you don't want to address is the white privilege cocktail. The two got it. Currently with this thing where you don't have nobody else doing this. As you preach diversity and you ain't got nothing at all on this level or any level. So what we're going to do is not only repeal this, but all of this legislation that's come into place to mess up a good cigar so we can let this thing flow. Otherwise, what are we talking about here? State socialism where you go and everything that happens with everybody. Cause you don't do it. Well, come on, man. Come on. Close the door. It's going to be a socialist and communism. Regulate everything. Are you gonna let the people do what they do and have faith that they have enough sense to govern themselves? As you go and salute that flag and violate every principle, doesn't that flag. What a freedom. Where's the liberation act? And you sit up there. Well, I can't wait. I can't wait. I've been looking for this moment. This is my year. And I want to thank you very much, because this is the stuff that organized the opposition to make me the mayor. Because in office. All of this stuff. I'm sorry, but your time. Your time is up. Thank you very much, Michael Polansky. Good evening. My name is Michael Polansky. I'm the CEO of Teen Women's Honeypot Loans. I'm speaking to you today because your committee holds the fate of my company and that of the entire social consumption experiments in your hands. Entering uncharted territory. We knew, as all operators in the space know well, there would be hurdles to face. But the sunset clauses, the one hurdle we operators cannot outmaneuver or out persist. It is, in fact the one we cannot get over without your help. A Denver social consumption license program is set to expire in September of 2020. Since three hundreds of passage, Denver has seen only two licensed social consumption facilities open and zero special events permits issued. Why is this? There are many theories floating around. No viable business models. Distance requirements, too restrictive, too risky, etc. Certainly these are valid points, but all could be cured if we went after the disease instead of the symptoms. Having a sunset clause or expiration of a business makes all of those theories hold a bit of truth. How can one come up with a viable business model? Uncertain whether or not they can be operational in two years? How can one forecast financials not knowing if they will be around to actualize a standard five year forecast? How could a potential investor consider any financial deal not knowing if the company will be around long enough to see a return? Our investors cannot justify putting in money and faith into an industry that this clause effectively kills before it has had a chance to be born, let alone to flourish. And I stand in solidarity with everyone else in this room who has seen this special opportunity for what it is. I implore you to unshackle this burgeoning industry. Open an extension for another five years from 2020, if not indefinitely. The people of this city did not overwhelmingly vote for this bill to pass just so that it could be suffocated before it could grow. All of the meetings that all of these good people have attended time and again will be for naught if you do not take a reasonable approach to this. We have done the work on this side. Give us a real chance to see this through and this will be a great triumph for us all. Stifle it now with this shortsighted, unreasonable sunset clause, and this story has no chance for a happy ending. Without our efforts, we will be back where we started with a hypocritical message to all of our tourists that says, We will take your money and sell you cannabis. Then we will say you for using it in public. Our city has been the lodestar for the entire world to follow, and we have brought cannabis out from the shadows and shown the world that we can regulate and manage it ourselves. You will force us back into the shadows, back into the legal gray area, back into unsafe draw consumption, back to totally unmonitored overconsumption, back to unhygienic practices and unsafe biohazards. These are things that we resolve. We are the Band-Aids to the issues that the legal cannabis market has brought up. I only ask for fair consideration on the impact of your vote. By voting no or abstaining, you will be responsible for the death of numerous legal and licensed businesses, all of which climbed mountains to become operational as well as killing Denver cannabis innovation and our roles as leaders in the legal, regulated cannabis industry. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Just two pairs represent for Black Star Action Moment for self-defense. Denver Home of Out Loud and Positive Action A Commitment for Social Change. And I reside in Albert Brooks, District of District nine, and I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. We are definitely against this, as has already been previously stated. You have. Enabled an all white cartel to take over this city. None of these businesses that you are. This law is pertaining to Freddie's consumption. Clubs are owned by black people. There is no black people own dispensaries besides Wanda James. Simply pure. There is no black owned dispensaries in this whole city. But yet it's legal for us to consume. But this has become a tourist attraction. The voters voted in 2014 to make this legal. And now Denver has become the moral high income city where people come here to get high but cannot even afford to live here. The cost of living has skyrocketed since this is being passed. And you got to sit up here. I realize this is a good. This is a good thing. People are being displaced. People are being criminalized. People are being pushed away. We are definitely against this. This is white supremacy at its finest, and we are no longer going to stand for this. And we're going to sweep the council like this with the homeless every night. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Cindy Sullivan. And then I'll ask the last three if you could come up to the front. I think we have eight now. Have you come up to the frontbench if you've signed up to speak on this and I have already called your name, come on up to the frontbench. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Cindy Sabine and I'm the CEO of Utopia Spa and Lounge. I was the second applicant to apply in Denver. I went through the process but was denied for being 18 feet too close to a daycare center. I've since been working with the city and I would like to take a moment to thank Councilman Black. You've been really, really great in working with the industry, working with the people and working with the voters that have stayed engaged and remained in this issue to move this conversation forward. But I'm here tonight to speak in support of removing the cap or removing the sunset on the on the pilot program. You heard Michael talk about the business ramifications that come with trying to put a business together and not being able to have the certainty of know that you can flush out a financial model and be able to guarantee to your investor that you'll actually still be there in five years. I certainly ran into this too, while we ran into for the Spa a number of investors that even still continue to trickle in with interest. We are not able to provide a location and in addition to that, the surety of the five year business model. So removing the cap or the sunset will really help in that regard. I'd also just like to speak out in support of social consumption with the remainder of my time. This is about harm reduction. It is about monitoring intoxication. That's really what is the most important piece I would like to keep in taking away and trying to make this program successful. You know, he was very supportive of the conversations that you all put forward around having a safe injection sites for the same very, very same reasons . When you think about this, people are using cannabis just like any other substance for a reason. If we can provide them safe spaces and places where we monitor them in order to do this, this is actually the safest substance available. And to that point, the safest place for people can go. We need to be able to continue to be on the forefront in this with cannabis. The point about private businesses in this going underground is well taken. I just hosted my second private consumption event on Valentine's Day to an almost 200 people. We recruited over two dozen healers. We had to turn people away. We had massage therapists, acupuncture, Reiki. Everybody was very much interested in participating. We had a really, really good crowd. And I will tell you, it was the most low key event I've ever seen in my life. I have heard the joke recently. A couple of times you get five drunk people together and they start a fight. You get five stoned people together and they start a band. I mean, we are really, really at the creme de la creme when we start talking about what we've done here in Denver for monitoring, intoxication, ventilation, all of the health and safety, the work that the city put into these models, into these rules. They're workable. The main problems that we have is that we have this sunset that is really a clock ticking down on everybody who wants to get into this industry right now. And then also in available locations, which I know you guys will continue to talk about. I really appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation and be involved in this dialog. And I really thank you for all your work. Thank you. Next up, Mariana Thompson. Mariana Thompson, Denver homeless out loud. Ladies and gentlemen, say, everybody, that's for this is white. What does that say? Okay, so here we go again. More gentrification. So I don't know what when you get there, it's going to turn around and realize that there's more people in this world that need jobs and that need businesses like Latinos , like, you know, Puerto Ricans, like black people, everything but white people. You know, this is this is completely unfair. You guys talk about being progressive in a progressive city. You know, let's look at progressive, linear. Let's look at all of them. Okay. Thank you. My answer's no. Thank you. Next up, Aubry Rizzo. Good evening, Mr. President. I thank you for an honorable council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am here in support of the repeal of I 300 sunset. I'd like to offer some perspective. First of all, I think everyone in this room should know that Denver is a leader in socially responsible marijuana policy and through its through the annual Marijuana Management Symposium that occurs and the only one of its kind in the world that occurs here every October, November. And then with the mayors and office recent announcement of the turnover new leaf program, we've really de-stigmatize social consumption of marijuana. So I really need to give kudos to the city of Denver for that. We we are a leader when it comes to socially responsible marijuana policy. Secondly, in 2017, I served on the Social Consumption Advisory Committee and in 2018 on the A-300 Task Force or Task Force discussions were interesting and occasionally passionate, and we did not always agree. But the one thing we did agree. Was that the 300 sunset should be repealed. I ask that you please consider the time that the task. Force members spent in discussion and meetings and vote to repeal the 300 sunset. Finally, I take pride in having served my profession as a veterinarian in the city of Denver as an independent small business owner for over 40 years. My proudest accomplishment was being able to provide employment and thousands of dollars in revenue to Denver in sales use and occupational privileged occupational privilege taxes in a business whose expressly stated mission was to serve our community because that is what small business does. We serve our communities in ways that big business cannot or will not if the A300 sunset is not repealed. Big Business and Big Pharma will find a way to make social consumption work. Shutting out socially responsible, community minded small business owners. Therefore, I ask that you please vote to repeal. The A300 sunset. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker tonight is Logan Goolsbee. Thank you, council members. First off, it seems like I'm the only representative from the industry that has intended. So please don't take my word as the the whole industry. But the industry does appreciate the work that the City Council and Councilwoman Black did in putting together this this review on the A-300. It took a lot of investment from stakeholders city members, community members, industry and attorneys as well, all coming together, sitting down on the same table to continue this conversation. For that reason, it looks like this conversation still needs to continue on. There was no resolution at the end of this at the end of this committee. Nor has there really seemed to be a unanimous resolution since then in the Special Issues Committee. I think by repealing this sunset bill or sunset, it allows the individuals to continue this conversation about these are these small businesses and this service that the city of Denver, the public for the city of Denver has voted for. It's it's been a small business struggle to continue on with not only these special events, but these businesses just creating these social use consumption businesses as well. We struggle a lot with voting, with the zoning, with installation systems, employee training, mandated employee training, the security systems, mandatory security systems, licensed area, electronic scene, electrical bathrooms, zoning, fire inspections. The list goes on and on in the regulatory framework that the small businesses do have to navigate. And we we would continue to pursue should these businesses be allowed to go on. I also want to speak to a comment that was made during the during the Special Issues Committee in the individual from the Boys and Girls Club stood up during a during a statement that was made by by the committee asking who would be opposed to the to the social use. The individual from Boys and Girls Clubs stood up and said, you mean for the children? And if that was the case, then everyone in the room should have stood up. It shouldn't be that we just look at my for 20 tours and Colorado cannabis stores as the only operators out there . But we want to protect individuals from those public public use areas like my for 22 years in Colorado cannabis tours and allow them to. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa. Michael Polaski. Please call you back up. So I'm confused on the two businesses. Is your business in operation as a consumption? We are pursuing a special events license within that as a request. Yeah, because my other questions are related, but not if you're bricks and mortar social consumption. So you're not. So thank you very much. Sir. Sir. No further questions, sir. All right. Seeing no other questions from members of Council for Public Hearing for Council Bill 24 is closed. Comments by members of Council. That's why I'm black. Thank you, Mr. President. As several of the speakers mentioned, we had a task force last year. Some of the people here served on the task force, as you did. And we looked at why there are so few licenses. And one of the main reasons was the sunset also distance requirements, which we will be looking at later. The sunset, I think it's a no brainer to repeal it. It's not serving any purpose. It's just hindering the ability for anyone to put a business plan together. So the task force recommended that we repeal the sunset, and I hope that my colleagues will support that repeal. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black's seeing no other Councilman Espinosa. Council president. Are we going to I guess would we just call it out for comment a second or would we have a, you know, a dedicated comment then? Or should I comment now? You can do whatever you'd like. This is just to be ordered published so you can save for final will be next week, but there will not be another hearing, so someone would have to call it out. Okay. I guess I just want my colleagues to sort of ruminate on on this. When we had a when we met as a as a committee, we spoke to all the issues that were raised, particularly by the last speaker. And we sort of concluded on this matter of the sunset. And I don't agree that it is a no brainer to eliminate this as sort of a no brainer to eliminate this in light of the fact that we are looking at relaxing some other rules, you know, and so the idea of a pilot would be that you actually have some means to to rein it back in. And and so if we're if we do eliminate the sunset, what are the unintended consequences if we start relaxing distance rules and other things? And so, you know, I really wish, as it seemed to be going, that we would bring all these matters to council at once is sort of a package, because one of the things in my time in council, because we first we, you know, we dealt with a a licensing moratorium is that the council has time and time again sort of proven that it's reticent to to potentially, you know, put people, business operators who have definitely approached an industry at risk. At risk. You know, once they start making that investment, we then use that as sort of our, you know, you know, sort of we get worrisome about the possibility of other decision that we make, making those business operators that have vested into potential business that was at risk, you know, making them suffer the losses that they knowingly and willingly chose to pursue. And so I have always been in agreement that we should extend the the moratorium, I mean, the sunset, simply because the rulemaking has proven to be to be too. And I'm losing the words. But you understand there's too restrictive. And so I think we should look at relaxing those rules. But I do think that we should just have another extension. I mean, so that we are we are making it very clear to the operators that you are doing this with enough time to hopefully profit and prove that this is a viable industry with new rules and prove that you can operate in a in a good faith way, in a way that is enduring and engendering yourself to your community, providing the service and making the case for a subsequent sunset. Removal of the sunset. Right now we have no businesses in bricks and mortar businesses that have made that case, that this is a good pilot because of our own rules. So let's fix the rules that actually are not mean, preventing businesses from forming and give them adequate time and so that they can actually become viable. But let's not say, you know, put it on future councils that basically if things do go wrong, that future councils have to then sort of shut the door on on those investments that have been made long after they've been made. Let's let them do it with, you know, understanding that there is a legitimate vulnerability there, you know, so because it's always been right, it's still a federally listed. Drug. And so I think we've now proven we've made the case that it can be incorporated and sort of suitably legalized and hopefully made the case that it could actually be legalized at the federal level. But it is by our proper approach to regulation. So that's the thing I want you all to consider is without knowing how we're going to regulate, I mean, relax the rules. It doesn't make sense that we've relaxed this uncertainty, you know, indefinitely things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks? Yeah. I just wanted to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Black, for working so hard on this. She's been diligently working on it. Some that I'm concerned about, and she's moving the ball forward. So thank you, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. See no other comments. I'll just also echo a thank you to Councilwoman Black for taking this on and all of the task force meetings. And it is a lot of work. I want to thank the task force members who are here tonight who participated in that process as volunteers for adding your voice then and now. And I hope you'll stick with us as we continue to talk about these issues in our in Councilwoman Black's committee. And then I'll just add, you know, I think that Councilwoman Black, when you said this was a no brainer, I agree with that. I think the sunset was originally put in the bill to protect from a future that opponents were worried about, that this would open the floodgates and there would be, you know, the public consumption Wild West going on. And this was a protection to say, okay, we're going to try this, but if it goes really bad, this'll turn everything back off again. And with two licenses in the city, that has not been the case. And there are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of levers to try and play with as to see what exactly in here is is preventing more or licenses from happening so that we could see how this is working out even. And we're going to continue talking about those. But this is one of them. This is one of the ones that we've heard directly is a a hurdle to get through. And I think that it's an easy one to step away from, because it clearly has not led to the Armageddon that was feared. And so it's I think it's not needed and so happy to support. But thank you for all your work to get us here. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1924. Black eye. BROOKS Hi. Espinosa Hi. Flynn Sorry. Gilmore I. Cashman. All right. Can each. Hi. Lopez. Hi. New Ortega. Mr. President. All right, now, secretary, please post voting, announce results. Ice Age Constable, 24, has been ordered published on Monday, March 18th, 2019. Council will hold a required public hearing on Constable 19 0079, changing the zoning classification for 901 Irving Street and will park any protest against Constable 19 0079 must be filed with the council officers no later than

WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.66; and by repealing Chapter 5.89, all relating to Medical Marijuana; declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12082015_15-1270

Communication from city attorney recommendation to receive supporting documentation and to the record conclude the hearing and declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code all relating to medical marijuana. Read the first time and lead over for the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City Wide. Mr. Mays. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and members of the city council. As you remember, we were all here discussing medical marijuana on September 22nd of this year. At that time, the city council requested that the city attorney present a draft medical marijuana ordinance that would be consistent with the newly enacted state legislation, which is known as Mercer, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The ordinance that you requested also wanted provisions for up to nine dispensaries in the city located in all zones, except those zones zoned exclusively for residential use and subject to buffers of 1500 feet from a public or private high school. 1000 feet from a public or private kindergarten, elementary school, middle or junior school, junior high school, 1000 feet from a public park, 1000 feet from a state licensed child care facility. Only those located on commercial corridors 1000 feet from a location identified by the police department to be a human trafficking high cut crime corridor 1000 feet from a public library and 1000 feet from another medical marijuana business. The ordinance that you requested that we bring back also called for allowing cultivation in a city subject to a CFP. Although cultivation would not be a requirement as was required in the previous regulatory ordinance we had in place. The ordinance was to permit delivery services in the city, but only by those licensed medical marijuana dispensaries that also have a copy in the city, a requirement that for each dispensary that opens in the city they agree to have in place by the time they open a labor peace agreement. And the ordinance that we presented for your consideration today does have all of the items that you requested. And in addition to that, I won't go through all of them because I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions. The ordinance contains a number of operational requirements, such as hours of operation testing requirements, very detailed requirements regards in regards to record keeping to ensure that the city's tax interests are maintained. Requirements for the size of the various operations 2000 square feet maximum for a retail dispensary site, 5000 square feet for a cultivation site. And in order to attract the best possible operators, the ordinance has a feature that actually has been in there for quite some time where that we have called a priority point system. So when an application process is opened, it would give the Department of Development Services, together with their partner departments, the ability to go through the applications and on an objective basis, award points to the various applicants. The thought being that those applicants, with the higher number of points, which we believe would represent the best operators in the city, would move forward until the nine super slots are filled. And before I turn it over to Jeff Winkle, I I'd like to acknowledge Tina parmelee from our Tech Services Department, who did an amazing job putting together the maps that were provided to you late last week in which Jeff is going to talk about. It's much more difficult to put together those maps with all the buffers and trying to locate all of the various facilities that are within those buffers. And we had her do many, many iterations of those maps. I know that they are not necessarily perfect. Sometimes, for instance, with a charter school, we may not have it in our system. If this ordinance were to pass tonight, we would continually evaluate those maps to make sure we have all of the facilities that should be on those maps on them. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jeff Winkle pluck to walk you through the maps. Thank you, honorable mayor and City Council. As Mike indicated, the maps have been revised according to the council directions. All of the buffers have been maintained, including a 1500 foot buffer for high schools and 1000 foot foot buffers for elementary middle schools, parks, libraries and childcare operations on commercial corridors. Human trafficking corridors have also been buffer out. These areas were identified with the assistance of the police department based on crime data related to specific offenses. As directed, the maps had also been revised to include all industrial, commercial, institutional and planned development zones that are not solely residential as eligible areas for medical marijuana operations. The maps that were provided were provided at two levels. One was a citywide level, and that showed all of the all of the buffers. We also provided a. Maps at district levels would show the all of the eligible areas. So basically we took all the buffers. Took those off. And what we have left are only the eligible areas within each of the districts. Also, as Mike indicated, it was brought to our attention today that there were a couple of accredited non school district charter schools that were not included in the maps. These included 400 East Willow, Willow Street, 6596, Long Beach Boulevard, 608 Cherry Avenue, 508 East and 508 East Anaheim as well as a charter school in the 3900 block of Atlantic. All of those were included in the maps were revised and those revised maps were passed out to you prior to this meeting. So that is essentially it. With regards to the update on the maps, I will be happy to answer your questions. Otherwise, I will turn it back over to Mr. Mays to highlight any additional information. We also stand ready to answer any of your questions regarding the ordinance. Eight. Thank you. Five. Summary Law Enforcement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank staff for their presentation. I would like to go ahead and. Accept the recommendation as presented with a couple of amendments, and I'll preface my amendment with a recollection on the childcare facilities that we had a discussion about that and we asked staff to bring back maps which are included of what that buffer would look like along the commercial corridors. And but it was not my recollection that all child care facilities that that was accepted as an amendment. So with that. Bearing that in mind, I'd like to make a recommendation, a modified motion that one ensures that we have one dispensary per district. I know that according to the staff recommendation, it not the staff recommendation, the staff summary of the ordinance. It was mentioned that it's nine dispensaries in the city. There is confusion about whether this would include other uses. And I want to be clear that the council, the prevailing council intent was to ensure that there were nine dispensaries throughout the city and one per district. So I'd like to be sure that that's included in this motion. And also to remove licensed child care facilities on commercial corridors as a buffer due to the nature of operations being mostly interior and children accompanied by their parents. And so those are the two items I would like to add to the recommendation. And with that, I hope to have a second. Okay. There's a motion in a second and just from a process point of view. Mr. MAYS. So I know you have a you have an ordinance presented to the Council as the motion is made by Vice President or any other motion before us today, that would require a first reading of any of any ordinance at a future date. Is that correct? Correct. We'd have to revise it and bring it back as a first reading. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor and I don't see the second on the motion, but I heard someone say it and someone plug in. Okay. There's the motion and a second councilmember during. I do want to speak to your second. I agree with Councilmember Lawton in her analysis of the amendments that she has to the current resolution. Councilman Anderson. Yes, I also approve with that. But there are some, you know. Additional things that I would like to do. And possibly there's a friendly I. Would like to also ask. For in the pursuance of the task force approved recommendation number one, I think all. Medical marijuana businesses should be. Distributed equally throughout the city with. At least two medical marijuana businesses. Per district. I do not think that we could have the support on that council for the council for this. But I would like to make sure. That those districts that can accommodate more should be allowed to make that. Happen. I have one friendly amendment that I would like to make, and in addition, I think that the relationship matters. And pursuant to the task force approved recommendations, six and seven to a lot, 2.2 individuals who successfully completed the L.B. M.S. 5.87 lottery, and two additional points to individuals who continue to purchase their original medical marijuana and oppose the original medical marijuana business location or equivalent amount of points. And I would like to offer that as a friendly amendment. Councilman Andrews. Actually, let me ask the city attorney, what is the point system right now for those who were in that process? So the way the port system is set up now, if you were a successful winner of the 2010 lottery, you got one extra point. And as we caution the medical marijuana task force in the planning commission, if we get into a situation where we allocate too many points to the previous winners of the lottery, and it has the effect of basically excluding other entrants from participating because most of the applicants that apply should be able to meet. Hopefully all of the criteria of the 20 point system. Then we are surely inviting litigation by those that are not able to participate. You know. So it's a maximum of 20 points. And I think. Councilman. Andrews is looking for a total of two points. So that's one extra point. Yes. Okay. I'm open to considering that. I'd like to hear from other council colleagues. As long as we're talking about one extra point. So it's a total of two as opposed to the one that's written in the ordinance. Out of 20, correct. But there was another part, as I understood the second friendly amendment, it was to add two points. So concerning if they have the same business location or something. Yes. Original medical marijuana business located according to the Monroe Point. So I think that would be a. A significant barrier to entry and. But the one point. Okay. Would be okay. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I have a few questions for staff as well as our police chief. So, Chief Luna, if it's possible, I'd like to ask you a few questions as we go through. The evening. So I think all of us are in receipt of staff's fiscal impact report that was issued to us earlier this week, actually on Friday . And it's my understanding, based on the memorandum that was provided, that the analysis that was performed was based on the proposed ordinance that the city attorney's office has prepared for tonight, meaning nine dispensary storefront locations. Is that accurate? Yes, that's correct. And my understanding from reading it is that staff projects that the tax revenue that the city will receive at the 10% tax rate would yield a revenue of $3 million for the city of Long Beach. And our enforcement costs for these operations had previously been expected to be $5 million. And my accurate on that. Yes, we had previously estimated that departments when we asked them what would your needs be estimated that at approximately $5 million. The amount, I believe, of 3 million also includes sales tax and regulatory fees in addition to the 10% gross receipts tax. Okay. So just so I'm clear, our expectation as a city is that we would tax and charge fees and bring in $3 million. And our departments had indicated to us that it would cost $5 million to actually allow the operations. And then we went back and asked them to reduce their expected enforcement costs. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. And so they were able to bring their costs down to $3 million so that now it's a breakeven operation for the city. Yes. There would not be any permanent structural impact. If these estimates are correct. There would be a short term budget shortfall that would need to be covered with one time dollars, which we've identified a solution to. But then on an ongoing basis, there would not be a structural impact. We would manage the $3 million. And the one time funds that you're referring to, that's the $1.6 million, is that. Right? That's correct. There would be ramp up costs in FY16 that we estimated about $1.56 million. So instead of spending year on surplus, the 1.6 million that we expect would be year end surplus. And instead of spending that on infrastructure deferred maintenance for city buildings, we would be putting that towards startup costs for an industry that's going to yield us a break, even result and best case scenario. So yes, the funds would be identified from year end surplus in 15 and or in 16. I'm curious. Does that seem like a financially prudent decision to anyone? Okay. So in regards to that, how is it that the costs that the city estimated to be $5 million was reduced to $3 million? How did that happen? What did we change? So the city manager went through and took a look with the financial management department to see what the requests were. We took an approach to say, tell us what your what your needs would be. And then we essentially met with the departments and narrowed that list down to an approach. One of the ways that we achieved that approach was to change the regulatory approach that we will take, where in the past we had taken a very police centric model. That is, it requires a tremendous amount of police resources. This now is a model that is a team based model. It will be led by the city manager's office. There'll be a dedicated person in the city manager's office who then will assemble a team with development services and business license code enforcement. It'll have some police in order to in order to to allow for those inspections. But it essentially be a model where we pursue a business that is illegally operating and treat it as if it were a, you know, any business that does not have a business license or is allowed to operate. We would find we would aggressively go out and visit the business. But we're expecting that there would be a significant amount of times where we were not able to gain entry to the business, but then we would go through a lean process and find administrative citations in order to bring it into compliance. We do expect it will be a difficult procedure to do to do that enforcement, but it is definitely a cost savings over the model of a police focused model, which is also, you know, was was very impactful in terms of reduced services on available for other or really reduced officers available for other services. So in the memo, we identify that if we were to go through a different model, the council has the ability to do that. We can go back to a police model. There would be a cost of, I believe, $1.6 million to do so. And that would be basically money that we'd have to come up with out of our general fund because we wouldn't have tax revenue to cover that. That's correct. So in the past, when we had illegal businesses operating, we used more of a police centric approach to enforcement, is what I'm hearing you say. Yes. We also use those other those other departments. The city attorney was heavily involved in city prosecutor and business licensing code, and everyone had a role. But we did have a fairly large response from the police department as well. And whatever that level of response we had from the police department in the past was we are now proposing a reduced level of support from the police department to go after illegal operations in order to meet that $3 million break even point. That's correct. And so before when we had a robust police enforcement structure in place, how effective was that in getting the legal operations shut down? So for the specifics at at the turn of the police chief, but we we did have difficulty shutting down dispensaries in some cases that when when we're able to, you know, bring the full resources of the police department to bear, we would have some short term success. It would be pretty time intensive, but we would be able to serve search warrants and to go to the to the facility. Often it was the case we experienced that that same facility would open later. So it was challenging. You know, we have also had some success on the leans and citation side where we've been amassing those citations and in some cases that has led to compliance. In other cases, it did not lead to compliance because the value of the fines were lower than the, you know, the cost of doing business. So maybe if I could route my next question to Chief Luna. Chief Luna, do you believe that spending less money on police resources to enforce illegal operations is going to be more or less effective for the city of Long Beach? For clarification when we talk about illegal operations. Just to clarify your question, I'm talking about rogue locations, rogue dispensaries. And that's where primarily our. Challenge was last time with the rogue locations, which I can get into numbers on that. If we are as a police department to take enforcement action on rogue dispensaries, which I fully expect. To do that if this gets approved. The resources that we currently have. Are not enough. Can you tell tell us a little bit about what you mean by this term rogue dispensary. Basically rogue operations who run clandestine. Operations behind the city's back with our history. Unfortunately, the last time the council approved this, we had some dispensaries that were sanctioned. And then for every one dispensary that was sanctioned, we had approximately four or five that were unsanctioned or as I call rogue, which the police department had to apply an extensive amount of time, effort and resources to close down some of them multiple times. We estimate. That in each case. Of these rogue dispensaries, we spent at least approximately 40. Hours per. Rogue dispensary. And just to give you an idea. Between February of 2012 and November of 2014, the police department served 142 search warrants at rogue dispensaries. So if you start doing your math between approximately 40 hours and 142 search warrants, you're talking about 5680 hours that were diverted from our core mission in order to deal with these rogue dispensaries. And Chief Luna, when we talk about rogue dispensaries. Let's say we have a sanctioned medical marijuana dispensary with a mature. Responsible business partner. Will that prevent rogue dispensaries from establishing in the city of Long Beach just because. The sanctioned business is being run by a responsible operator. Do the two have any correlation whatsoever? Well, based on our own experience here in Long Beach and from our research in. The cities around us, what we're seeing is ratios of. About anywhere. Between 3 to 1, meaning three rogue dispensaries for every one that sanctioned up to seven rogue dispensaries for every one that sanctioned. I think that we're assuming, based on. Long Beach's. Experience, that we would experience a ratio of four rogue dispensaries for every one that this council approved. Chief Luna in terms of the police department's ability to perform its core function with the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Long Beach, impact the police department's ability to provide current services to the residents of the city. Yes, it would be. Absolutely. Guys, just real quick. Please. None of that. So we're having some council questions. So there's time for public comment after. Again, based on our experience. If we're talking of the example I gave you between that time period, 5600. Hours, over 56, eight, 50. 600 hours, work hours diverted from our core mission to deal with rogue dispensaries. And when we say our core mission, what kinds of crimes or investigations would that take away from. Our core mission? In the Long Beach Police Department is considered our patrol calls for service when we're responding to priority one, two and three calls for service. That also includes our investigative functions, both violent and property crime and quality of life issues. And it also includes homeland security or national security. Challenges that we face. And in recent times, I imagine that our police department has had to step up to. Reevaluate and enhance the security measures in terms of the services that it provides to the city with the resources that you have. And what I mean by that is, Chief Luna, you haven't received any extra amount of money in the last couple of months in order to better protect us in light of world events. Unfortunately, we have not. So when we seek the protection of our police department, we're doing that with the money that you've already been given from our budget, our existing budget. Yes. We do it with existing resources. I'm going to make a substitute. Well, actually, I'm going to make a substitute motion, but before I do. Chief, do you believe that in regards to the medical marijuana industry and the discussion we're having, what is the most problematic component of those operations in the mind of a police department executive? With the experience that our narcotics unit has had. I think everybody in this room understands the Compassionate Use Act and that we're trying to find a way to. Provide. Marijuana to people. Who may need it. But with our enforcement action that we've taken. Unfortunately, we see a lot of these businesses who are not being very honest up front, not only with the marijuana that they're selling, but the money that they're taking in. So it's it's been a challenge. And we challenge ourselves to make sure that we're thinking differently, that we're thinking compassionately. But when we come up with specific cases or videos of. People taking advantage of the system, it's it's pretty difficult to watch. Okay. I thank you very much, Chief. I. I. To share the concern for those who want access to the medication. I fear that creating storefront dispensaries at this time in the city of Long Beach is not a prudent move. I share that based on the data. The actual data that has been provided for anyone who's sitting in this room who is actually a resident of the city of Long Beach. It should cause us great concern that we are going to spend $1.6 million of one time surplus moneys that we could be using on infrastructure projects or deferred maintenance of our city buildings. Roofs that need to be replaced. Infrastructure projects that are. Desperately needing attention. To invest in an industry that is at the very best going to provide us a break even scenario with less effective enforcement of a business that we were not able to effectively enforce using more money in the past. To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. And I look out in the audience, I see lobbyists and I see a lot of business owners. And I just wonder if you are if this was your city, would you believe that that was a good financial decision to make? The thing that concerns me the most is the storefront locations and our police chief telling us that as a result of storefront locations, they are going to have less police resources to allocate to public safety issues that our residents are struggling with right now. We have property thefts, robberies, murders. West Long Beach has had so many gang related murders this past year. It's unbelievable. And we're going to take those resources and put them into a risk. And to me, that doesn't seem prudent. So what I'd like to do is offer a substitute motion that I think provides a compromise and really helps the people that it should help. And that's the patients. The patients. This is a substitute motion designed for patients, and I'll be curious to see who opposes it. Because I wonder if they're an actual patient or if they have a financial interest, which that's fine if you have a financial interest. But be honest about what your position is. The substitute motion allows for a phased in approach to medical marijuana. Under this motion, we will allow for businesses to establish with a home delivery service no onsite sales. Sales tax revenue will be collected from these four businesses that go through the process to get their license to operate in the city of Long Beach. This will allow patient access for those who need it most. Six months after the first business is operational, staff will report back with a comprehensive report to Council on the tax revenues collected. The fiscal impact to the city of Long Beach in terms of enforcement costs and any public safety issues during that time period. At that time, Council will consider whether or not we should add four storefront locations. To correspond to those for home delivery businesses at that time, we will have accurate data to be able to determine how many patients were servicing what the demand is and the number of storefront locations we think will be necessary to meet the demand . We will at that point consider adding up to three additional storefronts for a total of seven citywide. That's my emotion. Okay. Sorry. There is a motion. Councilman, if you can just plug in on the motion, please. The second think it was Councilman Austin. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Austin that you first want to speak to the second. Well, I think Councilmember Price was very eloquent in laying out the reasons why this substitute motion has come forth. I don't want to rehash this. No pun intended. I don't want to rehash this this issue because we have debated this and talked ad nauseam as a council. My positions, I think, were clearly articulated in the last the last time we. We met, I expressed concerns with the storefront model. In my opinion, the brick and mortar model was something that is almost something in the past anyway, since we know that many in most of people are probably getting access through home delivery anyway. And so I think this is is a huge compromise, particularly coming from our third District Council member who has come a long way in in our viewpoint here. And so I want to commend her in that regard. I do. And I did in the last time we we discussed this, the last time it was before the council. I did favor a phased in approach. I think it's most responsible and it also helps our enforcement measures. I think it prevents the and I'm going to use another term here and coin another term. It prevents the pot squatting or rogue facilities from from opening up at the rate that they did before. And hopefully they don't do it at all because that actually undermines policy, that undermines progress on this issue. And so I favor the the phase in model a report back after six months a responsible approach to implementing policy that would allow us to monitor this and build on it as necessary and as needed. I think it also puts us in line and establishes us for for for the for the future. And we know that this is a ever evolving issue. There's there's movement on this every day. I did have a question regarding cultivation because I was recently at a conference with a number of city officials, and the issue of cultivation came up. And as I understand, Mr. City Attorney, do we have to take action on this? Is this a time specific issue? We have to take action on cultivation before a certain date. Can you explain that? That's actually a very good question. Under the new state law, there is a provision in there that we have heard talk may be repealed but has not yet been repealed. That indicates if a city does not take some regulatory action on cultivation prior to March 1st of 2016, then the state law on cultivation would take over and you would lose local control on that issue. And from the research that we've done, if you left a ban in place on cultivation, that would be regulation. And under the scenario that was presented by Councilwoman Price, we would not come back with a report until well after that March 1st date. So. We could either leave the ban in place or you could give us specific direction on what you would want for cultivation if it did come in the city so that we could be prepared for the new state regulations in March. The current ordinance has certain provisions relating to cultivation. It limits the size of a cultivation facility to 5000 square feet. It includes all of the buffer zones that have been discussed previously tonight. So you could leave that in place and we could write it so that if a dispensary is considered after that six month period that was mentioned by Councilwoman Price, that those regulations would kick in and, you know, you'd have the 5000 square foot limitation and the buffers and. You know, a requirement for. So so under the current substitute motion that, as I understand it, restricts storefronts but okays businesses for up to four businesses for home delivery with the cultivation component that is already being proposed. Change. Much in terms of that dynamic? Well, we'd have to make modifications to the ordinance because as it stands now, cultivation would be permitted under that ordinance. So we would have to recraft the ordinance if that was the direction of council to indicate that the regulations would only become applicable if Council takes further action to allow cultivation in the city at some future date . But we would lock in place those regulations at this point in time so that if in six months after that first dispensed or first delivery site opened up and a report came back and said, we can accommodate cultivation. Those regulations would then kick in. So I think it's extremely important for us to maintain local control on this matter as much as possible. Do we have any idea what a state cultivation ordinance or law would look like today, and how would that be different than what we have proposed? The state has a fairly extensive regulations, but most of them have to do with licensing. If I remember correctly or if you know Monica. But I believe the state has. Maybe 17 different types of cultivation licenses, depending on the size of the operation. There's a requirement to get a separate cultivation license from the state. I do not believe they get into the kind of detail or ordinance does as far as the size and so forth, although some of the licenses are tailored to the size of the operation. So you could have some fairly extensive operation operations if the state regulations. Became applicable. So I guess I'm looking for some some sort of direction or assistance from from the city attorney to to support the substitute motion, but also maintain local control that we would like to have as a city for cultivation, for when that is. So my suggestion would be as part of that motion would be also to direct, because we're going to have to bring back a new ordinance, direct the city attorney to prepare as part of the new ordinance that would be presented, regulations for medical marijuana cultivation that could be implemented only after the city or the city council determines that a bricks and mortar facility is appropriate in the city. And we would incorporate regulations much like what we have now requirement for a cup, buffers and so forth. And we would bring that back to you. So, Councilmember Price, we're open to such a friendly. Yes. Thank you so much. I think that's it for questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I'm really glad to see how the conversation there's been a lot of movement since the last time we've seen this. And so I want to I want to, you know, applaud Councilmember Price for making that movement in her position. Councilmember Alston as well. Just have a few questions and comments about the ordinance and and some of the proposals on the table. So in terms of I'm going to start with because this is the most immediate recommendation. It was the home delivery proposal and. We heard a lot tonight about about homelessness. And I know personally that a lot of homeless folks utilize, you know, RV hotels, sometimes public spaces. And so how will we is that with the plan B to deliver allow home delivery to a hotel or to a public space? Just thinking out loud how this would work. That's a question for whoever will want to take a crack at it. So I'd have to find the precise provision. But we do have in the draft ordinance in front of you fairly extensive regulations in regard to home delivery that requires you to have insurance, you know, proof that you're delivering to someone over the age of 21 and that that person has a recommendation from a physician. There are restrictions that would prohibit them from delivering to a federal facility to a publicly owned facility. You could not deliver to a hotel or motel as it is currently structured. And there were a couple other. Restrictions. I just can't remember off the top of my head. So in theory, how would someone who perhaps lives in their car acquired. Well, under the under the ordinance, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be under the current draft of the audience. It wouldn't be permitted at all to deliver it to a car. You would have to deliver it to a fixed location, some sort of a residence. We could if this is the direction council wants to go, we'd have to get creative and figure out a way to provide that type of delivery service. But I don't really know what it would be because based on the discussion of homelessness we had. Earlier this evening. I mean. The problem is all over the city, different types of venues. So I don't know what a single point would be where you could provide that kind of service effectively. I get it. And I wouldn't encourage anyone to have to deliver, you know, something to a car or an RV. But I do like the idea of exploring home delivery. I have a few more questions. So back to the ordinance that was presented. I appreciate the point system, but it seems just a bit simple. Even if there's a point here for, you know, someone who's been in the city before or been a part of the passed process, it just seems a bit simple when you have, for example, a question about you add one point for people who had, you know , submitted a business. Well. It's a zero point or one point, and it leaves no room for quality or judgment on how quality a proposal might be. And so I would I would ask what how would we approach it if we said instead of a 0 to 1 point, we just allowed some some some bit of flexibility in judgment by saying like 0 to 5 points. So you can see if someone submits a business plan to the city that is, you know, high quality page really thoro stands up to, you know, and, you know, an audit versus someone who who draws it with crayons and both of them submit a plan. I don't think both of them should still receive the point. So how we approach it if we you know just expand it to point system kept same categories that allowed a little bit for. For a little bit of evaluation on quality. So I should talk a little bit about the reason we structured it the way that we did. We tried to structure it in such a way. I mean, the goal of the whole point system is to encourage best practices, best operators that we could possibly get for the facilities that would be licensed. And we did keep it rather simple as far as a one point system for most of the items. And the reason for that was to try and take out the discretionary aspect of it, because if we vest discretion in our staff or the city attorney's office or anyone to make determinations who gets a, you know, on a floating scale of 0 to 5, we're likely to generate litigation as a result of that because someone who was scored very low is undoubtedly not going to. Be happy with that. So we just tried to keep it simple, straightforward. We tried to structure the categories so that they would capture all the things that we would want in a good operator. We could easily end up with a system. If everybody does what they're supposed to do and submits a very thorough application, we might end up because it defaults to a lottery if there's ties. And that's actually not a bad thing because then will ensure that whoever gets selected will hopefully be employing their best practices. When they open. Next question would be along the same lines. How do we evaluate? Well, both background checks. So if they operate, you know, dispensaries in other cities, how do we check to make sure those cities aren't having issues with this operator? How is that evaluated in this selection process? So the only thing that is as far as an evaluation, they are required to disclose whether or not they've ever had a permit or keep something like that revoked or suspended in another city. But we don't really have as part of the point system a detract for that, but we would take it into consideration. Is there a way to do some level of a background check on, say, the highest scoring applications that are submitted? Everyone's require everyone that submits an application is required to go through life scan, but that's basically to determine whether or not they have an inappropriate criminal background. We could, as part of the process, do a due diligence. We could add a category. We could add a point for never having had a license or permit revoked in another city. And then as part of that, we'd make them a test to that, certify that that was true, and then staff could do their due diligence and make sure that it was true by doing the best we could to make sure that they hadn't had a problem someplace else. So that would only make sense if they actually have an establishment in another city. So I wouldn't want to I mean, obviously if someone has never opened the establishment, I don't want them getting a point for never having gotten their license revoked. So we would set it up as a minus one. It wouldn't if you had an open anywhere else, you wouldn't get any points at all. But if you had had a revocation at some other location of and it would relate directly to a medical marijuana facility, we would detract one point. Okay. So you're a net neutral if you haven't done anything, if you've got some experience and it was a positive experience, you get a plus one. If it was a negative experience, you get a minus one. That's how that works. Well, what you were suggesting would just be a subtract one. Yes. Subtract one. Mm hmm. I like that. Next. So I appreciate the the budget and the economic analysis, and I especially appreciate the team based enforcement model so that you get different perspectives. And the last thing I would you know, given how fluid this regulatory environment would be, last thing I would like to do is hire a bunch of sworn officers and two years from now, something changes in terms of, you know, the the the regulatory environment, we won't have have the means to support those officers. So using a mix from different departments and spreading it out, I think it's smart. The question on the revenue generation, so I know it was I know there was a breakdown as to what types, you know, this was a maximum we assumed maximum tax generation from what what was the breakdown of the type. So if we were to change, for example, and say only dispensaries or nine dispensaries, how would that change if we're not doing, say, cultivation or something like that? How would that affect the the analysis? So Councilmember, I'll give an overview and then Leo can provide more detail if needed. Essentially, we did do a pretty complex analysis to try to estimate how many were allowed in the ordinance, and then we look at how much would come from if we had cultivation sites. I believe we had two cultivation sites in our model. We looked at, you know, if the nine were operating in a low in a low revenue environment or a medium or high and then made some estimates along those lines, there's also an estimate for our sales tax because we would collect sales tax on this as well. And then those that's really on the tax side and then there's the regulatory fee. So if you had nine dispensaries and you have a certain amount of cost that gets spread to the permitted or the allowable dispensaries that can only be used to recoup enforcement costs for for those expense for those dispensaries. It couldn't go for any of the for the illegal dispensaries. So if we do have a lower amount of facilities, we would have to recalculate and bring that back to you what the what the revenue impact would be and then also what the cost impact would be. So in terms of staffing, do we have a scalable staffing model that we can consider? If, you know, there are, you know, more, we can have one level or based on overtime. And if it's less, we have less in part. Yes, in part it's it's important to remember that this isn't linear. So if you if you go from X amount of dispensaries and cut that in half, it's the costs don't necessarily get cut in half. We really look at two different costs. One is to permit the license dispensaries, which we're hoping are all going to be very good operators. And really, we're just checking and making sure that they're doing what they need to be doing. Then there is the expectation and this has been our experience in Long Beach as well in other cities, that when you open up legal dispensaries, you are also going to be seeing activity from illegal dispensaries. And so that we would still have to have costs associated with appropriately responding to those illegal dispensaries. And those two aren't necessarily connected. I get. And I just think that some of the calls were represented. As, you know, these are all of these calls are, you know, on day one, we need to have these calls. But in reality, given the timeline, it's going to be a while until we're actually open and ready for business. So, you know, we wouldn't necessarily in this next, you know, have to make a mid-year budget adjustment to have this full cost. We can sort of scale or phase it in. Correct? Some are phased and some are not. So we would definitely if you give us direction on a different model, we would cast that out and look at those phases. What would need to come on immediately? What could wait until until this model would be implemented? Okay. So can you walk me through the timeline? So by timeline, I expect you are asking for if this were to pass for implementation. So as what we've outlined in our memo is if the council takes action, we would immediately start the process. We would upon adoption of the two audit of the audiences and the second reading, we would essentially bring on the staff that we need right away in order to create the application process. By February, we expect that we could have the design of the application process to be complete. We then this goes through a couple process is how the ordinance is structured. We would then in March have applications would be due. There is a process that you have to go through not just for this process, but for any business that goes through a CPA. And it is a lengthy process. So we expect that that up process would essentially be completed in October. We then would go through the planning check process with those various dispensaries. And so the plant check process would be completed in December. So if you take action tonight, we do expect and there's also construction that has to happen in these dispensaries. So we expect that will start immediately. You know, we wouldn't be delaying anything. It would be immediately getting started, but it would take approximately a year before the first dispensary would be opened. Okay. So and my final question and my final question would be if we were to so there were there are two proposals on the table already. One is to set a threshold for nine at one for district one. The other is to is predominantly, as I understand it, a delivery based model that phases in four and then four more later, you know, three more after that. How would your timeline change if you have how would your timeline change if you were to adjust opening dates? Would you if you were to have different phasing dates with all the all the regulatory stuff and ramp up, would all that be a be affected as well? Well, as we understand the proposal, you would still be creating four facilities. They wouldn't be available for walk up traffic, but they would still be for facilities. So and unless a different regulatory scheme was used, you would still go through this process in the setup process. So we expect it to be similar. Okay. So here's what I'm going to try to do. I'm going to try to merge the motions. And if people are sincere about compromise, let's see what happens. So the delivery options obviously have issues that need to be vetted out as well, but I'm willing to allow staff to try that out. So I want I move that. We include the, you know, delivery options on day one and that we I have an issue with opening up just delivery and no walk up space. I think that's not fair to a certain demographic and I don't think that's anyone's intention here. So but it seems like there's interest on the council at jumping way ahead at at, you know, nine or some larger number might be too high. So here's I like I also like the elements that Councilwoman Lowenthal mentioned about a per district cap. And I believe there was something about the after we looked at the there was some misunderstanding about whether we included child care as a as an example to look at or to be written into the ordinance. And that the original intent was to to take a look at it. Well, if if the interest is to remove that, I'm okay with that as well. So to be clear, I move the ordinance as presented include remove child care centers. A cap at one per district to be phased in beginning with five. After six months of evaluation. The other four. And delivery on day one. And my hope is that that includes a phase in from the substitute motion and the main elements from the main motion. And so that's my motion. Thank you. Mr. Mays, would you repeat the motion just because I want to make sure it's clear? Husband Richardson was talking about for me. Sorry, but it. I'm going to have to ask him to repeat it. Sorry. So what I'm trying to do here is get the elements from the main motion of you. Repeat to me the elements of the main motion. I'll tell you that I'm going to include those. When you say the main motion, do you mean the motion made by Councilwoman Lowenthal? Yes. So that would be to adopt the ordinance as presented. There would be nine dispensaries in the city, one per district, and remove licensed child care facilities from the buffers that were presented in the district in the ordinance. Yes, that's the motion and the caveat the change would be to add a phase in. So we would start with five and six months later adding four. So just to be clear, just to be clear, you would start with five. And could those be anywhere in the city in any of those five district or we're still going to risk more than one. No more than one per district. Okay. No more than one per district. Five total. Mm hmm. And then after six months of the first being in operation, would we incorporate. The provision that would require a report back to the city council as to how things were going at that point in time. And then you would consider adding an additional four to bring you up to a total of nine. Yes, I'm fine with that. So just and just so I'm clear, essentially, the motion is, is Vice Mayor Lowenthal was motion with one change, which is instead of opening up the process directly to two nine dispensaries up to nine I'm sorry, citywide, you would first open it up to five and at six months then you would open it for an additional four . You would report back to consider adding an additional four. Well, that's okay. That's different. So I want make sure I'm clear. So is it is it five? Because quite frankly, the council on any Tuesday can add four at five to, you know, change things. And so is the motion to go five. And then after six months you go into four or is a motion only five and then the count the council debates and discusses again and can choose them to go to for up to four more. Councilman, what I envision is, you know. If a district if districts. So let me simplify. Nine is the motion is one for district and I want to begin with five to allow some for some evaluation. So that could come back to the council in the form of a two from for a study session. If any council council member based on the data would like to take actions and not implement those other four, then they have that opportunity. But my hope is the hope is to allow some sort of a I want to sort of see if there's middle ground here. I like the idea of a phase in. Okay. So just. Like the other ideas as. Well. So just to be clear, your motion is, is the Vice Mayor Lowenthal original motion. The difference is that instead of going directly up to nine, you're going directly up to five, and at six months you begin the process for the next four. However, there is an update to the council at six months, and if at that point a council member wants to change the ordinance, then they have a right to as they would have a right to any other week. Absolutely. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor. Mayor, I need further clarification. In the six month period we're talking about is six months after the first dispensary actually opens. Yeah. So. So how about this? We're going to have six months. We're going to have six month updates every six months. During this, I want to say every six months I update every six months until everything gets open. And that and the five the four additional dispensaries will be opened up after six months after. Well, cannot open until six months after the the original five have been open for business. Okay. And one further clarification, because you said you want to allow delivery. So I seem I assumed by that the model would be that if we have five eligible for a cup, each of those five as part of their original cup could also ask to do delivery. So let me ask you the question. I mean, are there considerations we have? It sounds fine to me if someone would prefer to have home delivery as an add on to their service. I don't have a particular issue. And that's the way the current ordinance tonight is structured. So if you apply for a CFP, you can indicate on your application that in addition to bricks and mortar retail sales. I don't have to. You could do. Delivery. Yeah. Yes, thank you. I think there's one piece of clarification to that so I can repeat the motion. Is the is the is the additional up to four? Does that timetable is that because does that clock begin when all five applications have been processed and or an open or does that start when the first one open? So you're saying after the first five are open, is that. I think that's what you're saying. So I mean, yeah, but let me just restate. Um, can you tell me when the first ones would be open? Based on today's. Timeline. Mr. Modica indicated the likely scenario is that approximately one year. So if we were to start their process delayed from today, six months, we would would we be able to, let's say the first five, it was a complete disaster. Will we be able to stop someone in their process if it takes a year to get opened? Let's say they'll be six months down the process and we delay it six months, not six months from when they open, but six months by the time they actually get open, we will have six months of data, correct? No, you wouldn't, because it's going to take a year for us to open the first ones. And I think the the premise of your motion, if I understood it, is to get an idea of whether or not the ones that you are authorizing the first five would be operating successfully, not causing a nuisance in the neighborhood. So you really would want to make the trigger point at some point after at least one, if not all five of them open so that you could see if they were operating appropriately or not. You weren't getting complaints from neighbors or so. So what my hope is then will be to create some sort of a a overlap so that, you know, there can be sort of caucus one or cohort one that's in the process that takes a year. Six months into their process, you can start the process on. You can stagger and start the second process. If the first by the time the first process is up and running and you have some data, if it's a complete disaster, would we have the ability to stop the process on the others and return any money from the city? We have the ability to just stop that in the process before they get open. It would be very once you start down that it's very expensive, number one, for the applicant to go through that process. So if we started them down that road and got halfway through it and then said, Sorry, you can't do it again, we would generate, I guarantee you, litigation from everybody that's in that process, even if we gave them back the money, because usually by that period of time they have had to identify a physical location where they could go. They have to get capital together, they have to put together business plans. There's a whole lot of work that they would have to do, so it really wouldn't be fair to them to get them in the pipeline, only to revoke that at some point in time that the other the initial five didn't work out. It would be better to get some statistical data after you have one or more, 1 to 5 actually operating so that you can see that now we have a good model we can use and you have a database from which to draw to know whether or not you really fight for more. So so hearing that, I mean, that fundamentally changes my intent of what I wanted to do. I mean, my hope was to try to get some sort of a phase in that was more reasonable. But if you have a phase in that, you know, it takes a year to get one up and going in six months and then another year after that. That's two and a half years. That's two that's a pretty long well. Presumably they they would be moving through the process in parallel. So I don't anticipate one would take a year and then another one would take another year. You'd have all five of them presumably going through the process roughly at the same time. So if everything worked out well, people submitted their applications on time, they were properly vetted. All five of them could be into well into the CFP process by this time next year. And so the additional four would not be able to begin their process until we have data back on the on the originals. That would be another year after six months of being open. It would take a process. Two and a half years. So you're saying. Yeah, you're correct. So that fundamentally changes what I was hoping to do here. I mean, that said, if there's no realistic way to have a phase in that structurally changes my thought on the substitute motion as well, because we would be subject to the same timeline on the subject to motion as well, correct? I mean, if the substitute motion were to open up, you know, in six months from the time that six months from the time that delivery is opened, we begin storefront sales, that would take we we evaluate then begin storefront sales that would take us how long would it take to get delivery up and running a year. It would be about a year or. So, a year for delivery. Then six months of evaluation and then another year to get the storefronts open. So two and a half years before we getting the storefronts open. If the substance of the motion is. Well, yes, that's correct. So so I'm withdrawing my motion and I can't support the substitute motion either. I'm just going to support the main motion for the simple fact that. Yeah. The timeline doesn't make sense to phase it based on what you said, to have a sincere effort at this. So I don't I don't really see any way around it either. We're going to do this because we support it or we won't. So there it is. Okay. Thank you. Moving on, I still have a list of members and the public. We're nearing 210, so I just want to make sure that we are moving as expeditiously as possible. Count summary ranga. I guess that's a veiled hint, to be sure. To. Be direct. Well. Well, before I begin, I want to thank Councilmember Lawrence out for bringing this forward. I know she and and former council member Oranga Tony have brought this forward many years ago. And now here we are. We're almost we're almost there. We're almost there. And I want to also compliment Councilmember Price for coming around a little bit. I mean, it's still complex and it's not an easy topic. It's not easy to grapple with it. And of course, I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for. Coming around full circle to where we first started with the original motion that I seconded. So having said all that, I'm not going to ask any further questions. I'm going to just support the original motion. Councilmember Gonzales or Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask and perhaps I might be interpreting it a little bit differently. But just first, in terms of staffing and costs, how did we formulate these costs and did we look at this? I know in some cases we looked at the city of Los Angeles. How did we come up with, you know, $3 million and get a baseline for all that? So, Councilmember, what we did is we did look back at prior experience. We have had experience in the past of doing some regulation and doing enforcement. So we know what those what those costs are. We also did a kind of a zero based we asked each department. So given the ordinance that the council is considering. So the council passes the current ordinance. Please estimate your cost to do those. And so we asked them to split it into what would it cost to do the regulatory and to approve if there were nine approved, what were the costs that could be associated with those nine and only associated with those nine? And then what is the cost associated with stopping some of the illegal ones that we expect would come? We had to make some assumptions in the analysis we assumed, and this is based on our past practice as well as other cities, that for every one that is opened and allowed, we expect up to six potentially could be here within, you know, while we're doing this process within that year, those are going to start fairly soon is what our expectation would be. So being able to have sufficient resources to address those departments came up with that that amount of about $5 million. And then we essentially estimated what we believe the revenue would be from from the nine from the tax side and also from the regulatory side. And then we managed to that budget. So we did make some reductions. We created a model that we believe the council, if you want to move forward with this, we were hearing that it would be paid for by by the amount of funds available. So we managed to that budget and that's how we came up with the 3 million. Okay, great. Thank you. And I understand will be using existing employees should this be rolled out. But are there any new will we be looking at new hires or is this because this is such a large undertaking? It wouldn't be. You know, it's it's certainly existing within the roles of the city employees. But would we have it would we have any new hires for for this? So it would be a combination of both. We would be expecting on a go forward basis that we would be hiring new staff. This is a very time intensive process to do the enforcement. And so we will need new staff and we are budgeting for that in that 3 million, although we do expect that those illegal establishments could open very soon and we would need to respond to those using existing staff. And so we split it between how many existing staff we're going to have to pull and that there would be diversion from, you know, other business that those staff normally do. And we would have we would have some diversion so we would be mining back to you on what that diversion would be. For example, for on the police side, we're estimating two and a half police officers. It takes about two and a half years to fully train a police officer through the academy, through the field training program . And so in that interim time, we would have to pull from existing resources in order to, you know, on overtime and others to have those police officers available even at the two and a half additional that we added. Okay. Thank you. And now that we're on the subject of police officers, Chief Luna, how many police officers currently are we down at the moment? I want to say we're down about approximately 20 or 25. Okay. 20 or 25. Okay. Thank you. And as far as our approach to enforcement, I know it could be a longer process. Is this due to the fact that we're now taking more of a team approach if we are to implement this? Is that the reason why it's going to be called the Collective Health Department, city prosecutor, everybody kind of pulling together. So under this model, we would shift away from a police model where we're serving search warrants and showing up with large groups of officers and doing all the work that goes into the search warrants. On the criminal side, we would instead switch to a lean type model where we are assessing fines and trying to, you know, assess as many of those fines as possible if there is an illegal establishment. So that requires time to create those. And there's a there's you have to serve them and you have to inspect and you have to get access to the facility. So, yes, it would be a different model and one based more on financial penalties than one on criminal enforcement. Okay. Thank you. And as far as enforcement as well, I know in here at least I didn't see where we had issues in the past with property. So for for the most part, for the unsanctioned for facilities or properties, the property owner was often a large part, a large piece of this, this issue. And so how do we or what more of power do we have as a city to to enforce in those instances? So the draft ordinance that is that we presented to you does have provisions in there that makes it illegal for a landlord to rent a property to someone. For medical marijuana purposes unless that person actually has a copy from the city. So there would be the potential for criminal prosecution and there would be the administrative fines, as Tom mentioned. So essentially, we would be going after both. We would go after the the establishment, the business. But at the same time, we we are going to be leaning you know, the fines and fees were going to be leaned on the property, which is in many times not the same person as the the business that's operating. We did that before. Correct. So there's nothing different that we would do this time around. It's going to be basically the same process that we have had used before. Correct. Where we would look at additional tools that we could use as well. And we would look for safety violations that we could red tag the building we would look for, be more aggressive with liens. If we had dedicated staff and dedicated city attorney help, we could actually move to a sale of the property potentially, which which we hadn't done in the past. So there are some of those tools. But those you know, and just to set expectations, those take a long time. There are there are legal hurdles that you go over to over. You have to have due process. And so those those do take time in order to fully effectuate. And then lastly, I know it's important that I, I believe it's really important that we gather a lot of data if, you know, whatever takes place tonight. You know, I think data is certainly very important, as Councilman Price said, is as Councilmember Richardson said. And so I'm wondering if at all possible, since we are taking this team approach with the health department in looking at patients that we're we're I'm really looking at is as far as if this is to be implemented, is there data we can get perhaps from the health department that would say where we can work with these property owners or work with these establishments or these home delivery business owners and say, uh, you know, get some data as to what these ailments are from these patients. I mean, is that I don't know if there's any legal issue there with that or how we would. So the state law is actually fairly broad in regards to who can qualify for medical marijuana. And it's really up to the discretion of the physician that issues the prescription. So. It's very broad and we couldn't limit what the state law does. We could probably get data, but it would only it would probably be very difficult to get, quite frankly. Right. Well, I guess I'm asking the question in the sense of we'd like to know as a city what type of ailments that are more prevalent here in our city and as a health department or, you know, is that without giving, you know, all of the information out, without giving, you know, names and all that, is there , you know, does this person have HIV AIDS? Is this person have cancer? And what types of cancer and what types of ailments we have out there? We we track in the city. We have. Data from hospitals around that what different diseases. Are. We wouldn't be. Able to do is identify that is is what the prescriptions are being written for as those data wouldn't be collected. And that's not something that we currently have ability to track. Okay. Yeah. But otherwise, within the city, we do understand what the cancer rates look like in those sorts of things that different age groups and different communities . Okay. Um. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Because those are all my questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. We have to close at the council portion here, Vice Chair Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank my council colleagues for the discussion. And Mr. Mayes, just. Can you restate the original motion or shall I restated? So the motion, as I understood it, would be to accept the ordinance as presently drafted, with the exceptions that we make clear that there would be nine per city but no more than one per council district, and that when we brought back a new ordinance, we would also removed licensed child care facilities from the buffer zones. Okay. And I knew that I had accepted a friendly amendment from Councilmember Andrews. And in all this time that we had deliberated, I had reflected back on your advisement that that might create a barrier or most likely create a barrier. So I'd like to remove that friendly amendment for that extra point and leave it as the ordinance reads. Councilman Andrews, is that acceptable? Thank you. So the only change is the removal of the buffer. In the specification of one per district only. Correct. Thank you. And with that council members, I hope you can support that motion, I think. I think in the seven years that we've attempted to have some reasonable policy in place, we have come to a place where we can take a measured approach. And that measured approach is really a number as small as nine. I don't have any data to support what a city our size would really require if we were to meet all the needs of people that were in need, medical need of of medical marijuana. But I don't think we're here to really determine that because none of us is an expert on that. I think what we're here to do is look at land use and look at our. Approach to public policy, this one particularly to try and balance land use issues with public policy that would enable our residents to participate in something that they are legally able to participate in and ensure that they're able to do that in a city that they live in, as opposed to traveling great distances and lengths to acquire something that they are legally able to do. And in doing so, looking at the buffer zones and the various conversations we've had about the different attributes that we would like to assign to the buffer zones, I do think we've taken on the land use issues quite thoroughly, and I'm satisfied with it. And and I have to say that I'm pretty confident that we're moving in the right direction, not because we've spent seven years at it and not because any one of us knows more than the other, but because we truly have vetted this to the extent possible and balanced our public safety interests and needs. With this conversation, I don't know that there is anything that we have not considered. It doesn't mean we'll get it right. But that's the beauty of public policy. It's not a one shot deal. You do have an opportunity to correct as you go. And I think this measured approach of taking nine at this time and it will sort of be phased in because not nine would be ready to move forward at the same time. So I think we would organically see a phasing in of these nine individual sites. And so with that, I request council support and look forward to hearing comments from the public. Yeah. And what I'm going to do is before I go into the onto the public, I just want to make sure we have two motions on the floor. We have a substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce, and then the the initial motion by Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilman, prices for brief. Repeat your motion that we're the ones on the floor and then vice mayor, repeat hers. We're going to go to public comment and then come back for the vote. Councilman. Thank you. And I would ask my colleagues to support my motion, which is to allow for businesses to establish with a home delivery service, no onsite sales. This will allow patient access for those who need it most. Six months after the first business is operational, staff will report back on the tax revenues collected, the fiscal impact to the city in terms of enforcement costs and any public safety issues in that time period. At that time, Council will consider adding four storefront locations to be aligned with the home delivery business. Same operator. Six months after the first storefront operation is operational, we will consider adding up to three additional storefronts for a total of seven. So that is my motion. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have the original motion on the floor. Vice-Chair Lowenthal. So the original motion on the floor is adoption of the recommendation, the staff recommendation for support of the ordinance as written with one change, and that is to remove the child care buffers. From the ordinance. Is that correct, Mr. Mason? I articulate that correctly. I think you also you you made a change on the on clarifying the language as far as one per district. Correct? One per district? Correct. So the number is the same as nine, but one per district and removing the childcare buffers. And if I can also add that I appreciate the interest in moving towards starting with just deliveries, but I think if we. Asked honestly to our public safety officers, or at least our police chief, there are many, many, many home deliveries that are taking place in the city today that are not being stopped today. And I don't know how we would end up being able to quantify. The price of that, what the value of that is, and in the interest of being sure that we're not moving toward a beneficiary pays type model of public safety, we don't put other businesses through that kind of rigor. We have a tremendous amount of calls for service to the Wal-Mart in downtown. And I'm not just singling out Wal-Mart, but that's the one that comes to mind. I used to live right across the street. We don't put them through those rigors. We also don't put other businesses through the same rigors. And so I do appreciate the conversation, but I I'm fully aware of the various businesses that we do not put through the same rigors in terms of beneficiary pays. So with that, council members, I hope you will be able to support the original motion. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to go to the public public comment before we go to public comment. I just want to remind everybody that I. I know that we've got two motions we're going to vote on. Please just know that I think everyone's anxious to move forward, whatever that ends up being. And so please come forward. Make your comments. Please try not to repeat the information we've heard. I think most folks have heard these comments many times, which I've argued this and debated many times. And so just ask if we can please refrain from from too many comments, that would be great so that we can actually get back to deliberation. And please begin and say your name for the record, please. My name is Mike Bartley. I live at 40 409 Charlemagne Avenue, Lakewood Village, Long Beach. And I'm just curious. I want to know if the city. Council is aware of The Beachcombers. September 18th. This year, article by Stephen Downing. And it says here it says, the criminal organizations operating these systems salaries are alleged to have. Been making regular payments, a mere one in money. The cash ranging between 10,000 and $15,000 weekly. To members of the Long Beach Police Drug Squad. Now, what is going on here? We can't control the rogue operations, obviously. So why are we voting on this tonight as it is? I think that the priorities of this council is mixed up. We need to stop the rogue operations first before we can proceed with legal marijuana for medical reasons. And I don't see this happening. This is a it's a cancer. Really aware of this article here. This is very important. It is there. Are you laughing about it? No. Okay. Well, it's right here. And I assume that the editor, the writer of it is. He didn't specify who was by, but I assume is by the FBI. So and you read it further in her article here on the back page, you'll see that more details about the police who were paid off and assumed that they were paid off by the these the dispensaries. So. And another thing to Chief Luna says we don't have enough resources. To to come back the rogue dispensary. So if it which evidently will come up, according to Charles Parkin and assistant manager. So what are we doing here with this stuff if it's this dangerous and and in light, too, of of 911 and what happened recently at San Bernardino. Where is this money going to this cash flow from? These dispensaries are not accountable. We need to come up with a accountable plan before we can proceed. And there isn't any way I mean, if the cash where's this cash going anyway? And I don't have enough time. But Mr. West, the city manager, came up with this plan here about the tax payments are expected to be made entirely in cash. So where's accountability in this? Banking accountability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Mark Greenberg. I live in the eighth district. Mr. Austin. And I was your vice chairman of the Marijuana Task Force. I'm a former federal prosecutor, prosecuted organized crime for ten years, then left and been in private practice. I've seen both sides of this issue and saw certainly a great deal of discussion about it over the course of 60 hours of the meetings of the task force. I as much as I've seen the law enforcement side of it and have prosecuted organized crime drug trafficking groups, I went to a funeral for a friend on Sunday who died of cancer. So I know both sides of this issue. And if what you're talking about is access and that's what you're here to do, there's two issues that really permeate this whole situation. There's money. There's money for votes. There's money that people want to make a profit. There's all the cash involved. This is a big money business. But there's also an access issue for some people. As a councilman, Gonzalez asked for the data. There is data and the data is that about 94% of the people that go into these establishments do not have serious illnesses . They do not have cancer. About 5% do for that 5%. You should have access for people battling cancer. There should be access to this to ameliorate that doesn't cure cancer. In fact, under Prop 65. Smokable marijuana is covered under Prop 65. So for every sale in the state, in the state, it must be warned that you are causing cancer. This causes cancer. It doesn't fix cancer. It does ameliorate have since there's benefits, home delivery serves that need of access. If what we're really talking about is access for these people that need it, that truly have a need. The home delivery model works. It's been working for quite some time. Quite honestly, there's 30 companies right now that will deliver it to your home that I could have it delivered right here. It's not an issue. And so there is plenty of access if you want to have the revenue from that home delivery and allow it within the city, have it controlled from the city. But I live in the eighth District and in the eighth District we had what's been called a rogue dispensary on Atlantic Boulevard. I would walk by. Every shop is on the way to synagogue and there was a guy there with a gun here and a gun here out in front. Five things could happen, four of them bad. This guy was a nightmare. That dispensary was a nightmare. The police would raid it, close it down. It opened up the next day. There is no team approach that's going to really resolve that problem. They tried. They worked at it. They could not get it closed down. I talked to Chief McDonnell over and over again about my concerns with them. But home delivery resolves these issues. It addresses the access without all the problems. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. We want to just thank Mr. Mayes for all the time he gave to our task force and Kendra Carney for what I think was unpaid time. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Next speaker, please. Honorable Mayor and city council Bill Napier here. If this was about home. Delivery, I would not be here. All of these many, many times. And even before the new council. This is not about home delivery because I don't trust none of that. And that's what we've been here for the stores. But here's the deal. We asked for a potshot and we got Governor Jerry Brown and instead. Now we're here begging again. The governor could have stayed out of it. The appeals court already had this one. But I guess he just couldn't let it be. So here we are. Begging you again for a punch up, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I was going to add that. Uh oh. I wish they were all California. I wish they were all California girls. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Okay. Let's try to get through this next speaker, please. Yeah. Hi, I'm Larry Parks. I was a managing director. Of a medical marijuana facility here in Long Beach. A lot of winter. Lotto winner. Also with a collective and a cultivation. I am. Have adequate. Proof here. These are very hard to find. Probably the only one that has one as somebody else could produce one. This is a medical marijuana collective permit that was that was presented by the city of Long Beach to us after we followed everything. I went through all the recommendations, spent $100,000 on a facility. Facility that was also handicapped facility. Very safe facility and sand in the walls in case anybody tried to come in and shoot anything. We never we had a very sophisticated. Alarm system, a very sophisticated camera system that even several times at the recommendation or the request of the Long Beach Police Department to help on robbery down the street at a facility, a liquor store facility, and another one at a small market facility. They used our cameras. So we tried to comply as best we could. We were raided ten times. Each time that cross was $15,000. So I would suggest that and certainly that mayor that I think last year you said give us a litigation free ordinance. And I would suggest and certainly recommend that you look at the people that won a lottery, that paid their $14,732, spent probably 100,000 plus in a facility. But they should be given the first opportunity. I would hope that you would get it right. So litigation doesn't get it right. And want to hear the economics of one. Councilwoman, if you were to take the budget, which I don't think is accurate, but it could be $5 million. But if you were to have to. Our district gets 18. Look at the income you'll have there. And the budget's not going to grow up that much more. So there's your facility offsets your cost. You'll bring in about $3 million more if you had. To. For district. So again, I urge you to consider the people that won the lotto. That we're here that opened. They should be given the first opportunity. And if not, then I think litigation will be. We don't want we're trying to stay away from litigation. Thank you very much, Mayor and city council. Thank you, sir. Before we have the next speaker, I'm going to close the speakers list. So the gentleman in the back with the hat will be the last speaker speak. There's more people. Okay. Stand. Go ahead, Jack. Hi. Good evening. My name is Jack Smith. I live at 240 Chestnut Avenue in Long Beach. That's in the first District. I was a representative for the second district because I lived in the second district at the time of the task force, a representative on the task force from the second District. This ordinance has a number of inconsistencies that I think need to be cleared up. First of all, I'm very glad that Vice Mayor Lowenthal has, as clarified and specified the maximum of one per district among the. Ninth district for a maximum of nine in the city. If that's. The number, remember, the number. Is very arbitrary. That you choose one per district is what you've chosen. As long as it's evenly distributed across the city. I think the most important phrase in this new proposed ordinance was at the very beginning, where it says protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the city. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount. That is very, very key to remember. With regard to the cups, I'm a bit confused as the ordinance is written right now as to how those cups operate. It specifies in here that the cups are for each individual property. That's how I see you normally operate. The previous ordinances had had a scope for two, potentially two properties of a business. So how is that working? If if we have nine cups in the city? If a business happens to have a farm and a store, does that mean C to you cups limiting it to a maximum of four businesses in the city? Something to be clarified. I also was confused a little bit about the issue of food. Several times, a couple of times in the ordinance it says edible products shall not be considered food. And then it goes on to in another section to say that that in order for edibles to be produced, it must be in a retail food establishment and a certified food handlers with a kitchen. So is it food or is it not a food? Some of those things need to be cleared up. So do what else do I have here? Oh, advertisements. This is the one I get the most grief over, I guess. Print advertising. I was a recommendation in the task force that advertising not be permitted. I think that needs to be in the ordinance. Right now it is specifically permitted. There are a number of print media already available to minors, and that's the problem. And we have the press telegram. We have the single Tribune, The Beachcomber, The Gazette, L.A. Weekly, Aussie Weekly. And we've seen the ads in the U.S. Weekly. So we knew what we were likely to be getting. So I think print advertising should not be permitted. So the question of how do you do a copy for a delivery service? How do the cups work with the businesses and yes, to the maximum of one per district? Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. I've been your name for the record, please. John Donahue is the name live in East Long Beach. I've been here since 1952. Now, I consider myself an expert on this subject, and I'm going to give you some of the benefit of my expertize. It seems like you need some. I've been here many times and listened to this, going on and on and on and it just doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. For one thing, I started smoking marijuana in 1946. I just got back from World War Two and I found it very pleasant and I went on using it. I didn't get really into using it till I got out here to California. And the Sixties. Remember the good old sixties? And I started using it daily. And I never had any problem acquiring it. And now one thing we have to know about marijuana is if it actually should be calling it cannabis, because marijuana is a phony name that they gave the because the Mexicans were using it when they first criminalized it way back was four years ago. But now we have this problem. But one thing I understand that marijuana is not a crime. There are of course, there are laws against it, as there have been laws against tea and coffee and alcohol. But marijuana per say is not a crime. A small amount of marijuana is no criminal. I'd like mispriced or explained to me where the where is the crime? If I'm sitting at home with some marijuana and I got a bottle of scotch and I got Cigarets and I don't have a letter, why is that a crime? Anyway. It is not a crime. Another thing that I found amusing that we're now concerned about whether the homeless are going to be able to get the marijuana. Well, there's something else. How will they be able to pay for it? Because it's outrageously overpriced. It's about two or three, $400 an ounce. If a homeless person had that much money, he wouldn't be homeless. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Let's try to stick to, if possible, to the motions on the floor. I think we've heard the obviously the arguments about medical marijuana for many meetings. So we have a couple of motions on the floor if possible. Next Speaker Thank. You. Hi. My name is Nick Morrow, a resident property owner in the fourth District as a member of the Medical Cannabis Task Force. And I'm a former law enforcement. Law enforcement is not a for profit enterprise. So when we talk about the budget considerations, making money on medical marijuana is probably not the way you want to start the argument. The phased approach is is flawed because you have a fixed number of patients who aren't going to phase in their need. So you open the door a little bit. You're going to have problems with smaller and fewer locations. So keeping with the minimum of 914 district I support holly. Long Beach PD was very, very effective, very aggressive in closing down not only the rogue operators, but the operators that were doing their best to abide by the state state standards. With all that closed down, we don't have any operating medical marijuana locations in the city of Long Beach. The question I would have, has crime gone down as a result of that? Of all those closures, probably not with the the number of delivery services operating right now in the city of Long Beach, but checked it on my phone. There's at least 40 that will deliver to the city of Long Beach right now. None of them are actually located in the city of Long Beach. Those tax revenues are going elsewhere. Phasing in the delivery set up in Long Beach. You have to know where the medicine is coming from. If you just allow people to do delivery services without a location to verify quality and and strain and all those other issues that are important to patients, maybe not to the to the council per se, because we're looking more for the money than we are for quality of medicine for the patients. But the access is first and foremost. You got to open the door and you got to open it. Smart opening up nine locations and starting that process. Right now, patients in the city of Long Beach have got to go elsewhere. And so they're going to have to go elsewhere for at least another year. And so we need to open this door up. Take the chance. Open it up. It's working other places. We talked about getting information about patients, actual medical issues. City of Pasadena has a requirement on a research collective there that they collect that very information. When they when they put a patient into the system, they get that voluntary information which gets around HIPA laws if you volunteer it. So that's always a possibility. So we could make that part of the CFP process that there is a data collection process with the health department. Just a couple of suggestions. We said it was it was a pleasure to serve on the Medical Cannabis Task Force. And I hope that I hope that we get this push forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And the last person in line. Raise your hand. That gentleman is the last speaker. Speaker, this is closed. That's it. Yes, sir. We have about a 50 minutes of public comment. If everyone uses 30 minutes still. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Miguel Skee. I'm a resident. And voter in Long Beach living in the Wrigley area. And I would like. To read a letter that the Wrigley Association sent to our Honorable Mary. Garcia, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Durango. The Wrigley Association has voted to oppose the proposed ordinance pertaining to the lifting of the present ban on medical. Marijuana sales in Long Beach. Because the proposed. Language specifies allowing nine dispensaries citywide. And as such would allow all dispensaries to be established in a single council district. Or a single geographic area within the city. It is our desire. That this. Element in the language of the code be amended to specify no more than. One dispensary per council. District. Respectfully submitted the Wrigley Association. Thank you for your kind attention. Thank you, sir. And just that was and that was changed in the original motion. So what you just said is, is there in the original motion? Next speaker. Good evening. Council members and Mayor Robert Garcia, it's it is great to. See you all again. My name is Joe Sanchez. And I say all this with great pride. I love Long Beach. I live here all my life. I'm a senior Wilson High School, and I carry you chair for your leadership, Long Beach. I stand here today against but not completely against medical marijuana dispensaries. By telling you. By a little bit about myself. By informing you and the public about my experience as a high school student, and how I have seen how medical marijuana experiences have affected our schools and our youth. I'm friends with about half of the people in Long Beach, causing me to know many people of many different backgrounds and personalities. With this and some of the people I have came to socialize with, such as friends and acquaintances. Have told me about their use of marijuana. Led them to skip school or come late to school. Because they want to smoke. Just this past Friday, I was getting ready to come to city hall for a class they would leadership on bitch causing me to have an excuse absence at school. Well I was getting ready. I looked out the window and I see three students. One of them who I mean, when you skipped school because they decided to go smoke marijuana. Since my freshman year, I came to learn from all the U.S. students on how most of the students at our schools come to acquire most of the marijuana and marijuana products, most of which the product name were related to Bob Marley or for 20. And I came to know that most of the providers I've heard of were owners, workers and people that have means of acquiring marijuana for medical marijuana dispensaries such as medical marijuana dispensaries. However, I agree with Councilwoman Susie Price with how delivery with delivery systems for these. For those who truly need this medication, although this has affected our you in the past, the present, and will affect our future. For our youth as our our future. So please take in. Consideration when making your decision. Thank you for your time. And have a lovely night. Thank you. I thank you for doing Youth Leadership Long Beach. It's a great program. Next speaker. My name is Brett Johnson, born and raised in the Fort District. Thank you, councilman or councilman and mayor. I just have a couple quick questions to address. The original proposal and the second, how can you calculate an accurate revenue number and city police expenses based on only for delivery services? How can you calculate accurate sales numbers that provide city tax revenue from a mobile delivery operation? How can policing be applied with adequate supervision to the safety of delivery service drivers and its patients at home without a brick and mortar location? Where would these delivery service store drones and distributors based on a delivery service and how would they be safe without a storefront? How would you award these delivery service licenses on a fair basis without established brick and mortar locations? How would city police? Rogue operations differentiate than they do currently. How many rogue operations have been identified and closed since the last numbers released in 2014? What examples of working brick and mortar locations in other cities are you basing tax revenue number estimates with the estimated year lead time? What consideration is there from the city to potential dispensary operators paying rent or fees towards locations without an approval from the city? Given location requirement for acquiring a license. How is this structure cost efficient and pro-business to any potential operators? How are these? How are these current proposal changes cost efficient to the city in regards to previously spent funds developing the current program? I feel an extensive amount of time and effort and city funds have been put forth towards the current plan. The best way for the city to streamline in receiving tax revenue is to implement the current developed plan. And just to kind of give you a relative number based on 2013, 2014. In Denver, they've actually had a 6.9% reduced rate in nonviolent crimes since they've approved their recreational facilities and medical marijuana dispensaries. And there are only 100,000 more than we are roughly here in Long Beach. So just some things to think about. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name's Stephanie Morris. And so I'm a attorney and former city employee. I'm going to go and discuss specifically section of page 41, section Q of this ordinance, it's the. Extract ban. There is a host of reasons why this is a particularly bad one, so I'm going to go as. Fast as possible on them. The first is the economic argument. By not providing any. Regulations, just banning extracts per say, you are at best forcing these businesses. The meeting that the other cities are going to be getting. Revenue from it. We are all aware of that. And at worst we're going. To be encouraging more black market concentrate making, which resulted in a rather large house fire in Belmont Shores recently. Today, however, today we. Know that we have licensed both nonvolatile and volatile solvents at the. State level. We have chemists and we have professionals who are now. Making these making these these. Essential oils and every other type of extract you could possibly imagine. Secondly, the public health argument. The black market. Extractors are not going to have any reasons to abide by OSHA standards. Unlike the newly sued the newly created to. State licenses. By excluding these these particular. Manufacturers from the market. Entirely under your ban, again, you're going to be forcing this sort of production either to other cities, meaning more. Revenue to them or to the black market. Banning extract encourages unsafe consumption. Methods as well. The safest way to consume medical. Cannabis is either in an edible format or three vaporized. Particular vaporized oil. I have an example of one right here that I that that I use. This is not something you can. Easily get high off of. I have tried. This is something akin to a morphine. To a morphine pump, if you want to think about it, providing a small dose titrated amount. To two patients who are experiencing severe pain but at the same time do not want to be intoxicated and incapable of performing their jobs. Additionally, you would be banning topicals entirely non psychoactive substances that would be applied to the skin and help people in extreme pain. Alice Huffman of the NAACP. Is is helping aid is support it and uses a product very similar to this. For her for her particular ailments. So then we get to a. Product liability issue by again, not providing the subject. The proper regulation. For this particular subject. One of the most popular substances on in this market you're going to be making. You're going to be guaranteeing that any customers for it, if they suffer from a product liability issue related to the concentrates, are not going to have any means for recovery at the tort level. You're going to be here again putting people in danger. Lastly, this is also an issue of discrimination. People who choose. To medicate in this particular way are usually from. Protected classes. These are people who are already suffering ailments or would be classified. Under the Americans, the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying them their medicine of choice. You're going to be forcing them on to. Pharmaceuticals, which again, debilitate them and deprive them of their ability to live. This is inviting litigation at the civil level. They can have a good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council. My name is Lauren Mendelsohn. I am a resident of the third district. I am also a law student right now. And I have just a few assorted thoughts. First of all, I am a medical marijuana patient. I moved across the country from New Jersey to come to California so that I could legally medicate because I do not feel that I'm a criminal and I wanted to do it legally. I also am on a full ride to law school and I was able to achieve that while smoking cannabis every single day. So just in response to people who say it makes you lazy and don't go to school, that is completely false. Some people have motivation to do things. Some people don't. And whether or not you smoke marijuana will not change that. If anything, it's motivated me to go to law school. Ed In regards to Councilwoman Price's alternate motion. A few thoughts that would, you know, allow fewer operators, only seven total as opposed to nine. So you're limiting the amount of people who have opportunity. Also, just in general, there's all this talk of rogue dispensaries and how we have to tackle that problem before we have to go forward with legal dispensaries. I don't I don't think that's true. I mean, I think rogue dispensaries are always going to be a problem whether or not you have legal facilities. And I don't think that you should hold off on allowing potentially good operators to function in a legal environment just because there were bad actors in the past. And, you know, I also in regards to the comments warning earlier about a lot of people getting delivery. That's not always the case. As a patient, I can tell you I prefer to go to a storefront when you order delivery, you don't know what you're getting. It could be some stuff that you don't see the quality testing versus going to a store. You can have the opportunity. You shouldn't force these customers to do something that no other customer wants to do. Buyer of any other product can go to a store and choose what they want. You shouldn't make these customers treat them any differently. And I also just wanted to caution against the statements someone earlier made about cannabis causing cancer. The science there is really unclear as to whether it causes or whether it doesn't cause it. Studies have actually shown tumor reduction with cannabis treatment. So just don't just, you know, don't don't take that at its face, do your own research and do the science of these things. And I hope that Long Beach can serve as a model for other cities in the area and that we can move forward with progressive ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Jeff Abrams, one Love Beach Club. Thank you so very much for pushing the ball forward. All of you. I really have to congratulate you. It is hard work, but the fact of the matter is that we have someone very close to us, county of Los Angeles, to just look to what's happening there. And I just don't read daily all the problems that seem to be in our minds here. I don't see anything happening in Colorado that's significant. And page one, I don't see anything happening in Lost in Los Angeles, page one. But I do have a couple of comments, if I may. Mayor, particularly in this talk about the delivery services that are available right now. If we're talking about codifying for and putting those as the legal, what do we do about the other 36 or more that we don't even know about? How do we collect taxes from them? Isn't that somewhat discriminatory? But also, I think, Councilman Richardson, you might have talked last time that I heard about Wal-Mart, hesitation about dispensaries being. I just don't think you understand the numbers involved in in Long Beach. It's way more than you think, way more. And I can tell you that with a certain amount of certainty. But if you would, let me just ask you that. When you have a harborside, you all know that name Harborside, 110,000 patients or more in Oakland, California, 110,000 single location. You are creating a self-fulfilling police centric policy because you will have lines out the store. Therefore, public nuisance. Therefore, police call there for enforcement efforts. And we've kind of gone backwards. So please, if you would, let's think about that Wal-Mart position. The rogue operations will cease immediately if Chief Luna assigns one patrolmen to stand outside of a rogue dispensary. How much does that cost? I estimated the cost. The city about 30,000 bucks a year, not 5.9 million, and all these millions of dollars. One cop in front of us, in front of a storefront will prohibit anybody from coming in there. Guaranteed. So I keep hearing comments at the behind the dais here, about a 10% tax. I was under the impression it was a 6% medical marijuana tax. Am I wrong? 6%, not 10%, because I heard 10% a couple of times being talked about. And lastly, I believe as I read through the ordinance, it does speak about banking. And as you know, please review that language in the proposed ordinance because it conflicts with the actual federal banking regulations. Right now, we cannot write you a check. We would like to write you a check, but we can't even bank at a significant bank. What I have proposed earlier is that we bank with your bank, city of Long Beach Bank. That way it can be very well identified. Cash in, cash out. Once again, I thank you so very much for pushing the ball forward. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Libra. And the Park Estates Homeowner's Association representative and also the East Anaheim Street Business Alliance president. We have 500 businesses in our neighborhood. We have 600 residents. And there's a lot of statistics that I could give you. There's a lot of statistics that have been given. The fact of the matter is, I'm not against pot and people are using it. What I am against is people and dispensaries going to dispensaries. First of all, I'm really nervous being up here no matter how much I'm in charge of you guys are used to it. But if the biggest issue is that it's against the law and federal and federal law and that being the case. There's a lot of cash involved. There's a lot of cash that can't be used correctly. And that creates danger. And the danger, no matter what the statistics are, there is a fact of 6.9% nonviolent crime. What if one person is killed because somebody breaks into a pot place and it's been done with messengers. It's been done in other places. Colorado might not have an issue with it. Washington might not have an issue with it. But if it was your sister or brother. Or your cousin. It doesn't matter what the statistics are. One person killed is too much and the federal law prohibits it. I don't as long term, I don't know why this is being pushed. To go forward when there's so many problems that it can cut, then it can cause. And I don't bear anybody, any ill will to promote this. But it's dangerous and it can cause a problem. It can cause one problem for many people or many problems for for many other people. Thanks for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Sam Sams. As our first of all, the war on drugs is racist, and anybody advocating for a prohibition policies, especially from a prosecutorial position, is advocating for a racist war on drugs. The war on drugs has decimated many communities. Those communities. That have been. Destroyed, those families lives that have been destroyed, they know that the war on drugs does to them. They know what prosecuting and promulgating war on drugs does to the individual. And that's far more dangerous than the cannabis plant. Now, you guys have done a very good job trying to get us to this point. And I want to encourage you to look at another permitting mechanism or to like laboratory testing, for example. We'd love to help bring in laboratory testing facilities to ensure the quality of cannabis meets the standards for respect best practices, best manufacture, manufacturing practices, agricultural practices and laboratory tests in the city. You guys could offer permits for and get some more revenues for if you're looking for revenues from permitting the permitting process. From that same position, if you're looking for increasing revenues, offer us a manufacturing permit. We can't offer patients concentrates in any form and topical and non smokable and sublingual and all of the various forms of non smokable, including non psychoactive cannabis. None of that can be offered by our own facilities, with our own strains that we would grow if we don't have a manufacturing license, that we can show that we're following the best manufacturing practices, good manufacturing practices. So I'd like to encourage you to expand and zoom out from your approach, what you're trying to do so that we can find a solution at keeping drugs out of the hands of people who should not have them, and keeping lifesaving medicine in the hands of people who need it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hey. Thank you, Sean Donohoe. I have some questions as well regarding the revenue calculations and the consultant that was hired, 800 active accounts. And I'm not quite sure what sort of a consultant is out there that has access to all of these accounts. And in any event, it would seem that the tax revenue calculations that are based for sort of the pan pay out don't take into account new newly available licenses to be issued that were not available prior to the passage of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act at the state level. I know the state level really well. I worked for the California Cannabis Industry Association, presently local advisor to the California Growers Association, also assisting Ms.. Hoffman of California, Hawaii and ACP on many of the the task force issues that they're appearing over. I absolutely also agree with the on the problem with banning concentrates. One of the most used cannabinoid therapies is for children with epilepsy, intractable epilepsy. I don't think anybody is advocating causing those parents to put a joint in those kids mouths. But in effect, that's what you're doing here in furthering the the idea of creating manufacturing as well as distributor as well as other licenses. I see within the draft ordinance that it calls for a state permit to be held. Those state permits will not exist for two years. You need a local permit to acquire the state permit. So there's a catch 22 that's been created. I think I also commend moving forward on the dispensary, on the retail front. What we're doing in the city of Oakland, where I'm sort of appointed by the council president on our Cannabis Regulatory Commission, we've summed up frankly all that which is retail belongs in one ordinance. Anything that that is non-retail in nature up the supply chain, the distributor, the cultivator, the manufacturer, the accredited testing laboratory. It doesn't seem that that has the same. Sort of deleterious impact that that I've witnessed over the last two years being discussed much of what's been discussed, be they child care facilities, K-12. Um, and obviously the, the, the human trafficking corridors, those all seem to be a matter relating to public visiting these facilities. But if a medical marijuana. Facility, medical marijuana business is a facility that's not visited by the public at large, I'm not sure why all those sensitive use distance requirements are necessary. Again, the state requirement is only 600 feet from a K-12. I think a simple amendment would be would be possible if you made. That nine only only apply to retail locations. Frankly, that seems. To be after observing for the last two years where most of the concern has been about having a retail location. In your in your district, etc.. So I would simply recommend deleting in all due course the ban on concentrate as well as applying the the restriction of nine sirups only to medical marijuana businesses engaged in retail. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Please. Shirley B'stard I address you as senior consultant, pastor for Swarm Group and Associates. I may be representing a host of other pastors who have failed to show up tonight, even though they showed up to light that Christmas tree and menorah Hanukkah candles last night. They failed to realize that the war that they were fighting was tonight. The Scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. My father was 51 when I was born, and when I started being disciplined, the first law he laid down is I am the law of the House. I entered my adult life that way so that when the God of Israel asked me to work for work for the homeless, it was not what I want to do. It is God, what do you want me to do? And I'm following suit to that with that tonight at 55 age of 55. So Mr. Price, you said something regarding financial prudence and I commend you on your your got one to call it a dissertation but I had to make a note and say, what about spirit of prudence? Now I understand that not everybody has the same faith. I understand that. But to those of us who celebrate in December 25th, we have an obligation tonight. What are we standing for here? What are we still? What? One of the one of the movies I used to teach is New Jack City Rent, that it's time to pull it back out. And then you might want to get a point of no return. You might want to look at those two movies. And if the police can't handle your rogue operations, you've got a serious problem going on. Why am I here tonight? Because I heard that the pipe, the sewer pipe leaks started, the gas line lid started to blow off. Right. Then I said, Oh, it started when God gets ready to judge a city, when he gets ready to judge a nation, when he gets ready to judge a town or a person. He has to give them due, due process of warning. And he will give you a warning when you're overstepping a line that you should not overstep. I don't know who's voting. How you're voting tonight. I called Mr. Austin the office. I called Mr. Price's office, and I wanted to know. And I called someone else's office, and I wanted to know why they voted the way they voted. I believe that you should not move so fast just for financial consideration here. This city is not starving for money. And at the point you start making money off of marijuana and you put alcohol then and I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying at some point God is going to say enough and this stuff is going to start happening and you won't be able to explain why it's happening. I can. I serve this as a warning. Yes, I am. Thank you. We must obey God's laws. Thank you. Next speaker, please. These are our last speakers. And we're going back to the council. City Council. Thanks for having me. My name is Chuck Brewer. I'm from the ninth District, and I've been here almost my entire adult life. Hmm. Interesting. You've had a couple of issues. Airport, El Nino, and all deals with quality of life and preparedness. I have to compliment Councilman Price. I think you've come up with a very good. Amendment. The current bill that was they came out with 45 pages of nuisances alone, says there's a problem. When I hear that. We could be so far away from a school district or from a resort 1500 feet away from a high school. But a thousand feet for a junior high. What does that mean? The junior hires don't have to walk so far. I mean, come on. Why do we have all these nuisances? Why do we have these issues? I am a firm believer in the strength of medical marijuana. Under the tone of medical marijuana. Why are we eliminating this nuisance to be away from? Child cares. I don't understand that. Does it make sense to me? I'm going to say child care. Little ones should be exposed to it. But the high school kids only 1500 feet away. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Sort of. My councilwoman, I would say. Stacey, please go ahead. Support this amendment. Under the basis that it is serving those who have medical needs. Tell us about Orson. I'm going to leave you with just a small story. I am a realtor. I travel this entire city and more cities. Lakewood. Does not have this. They've banned it. I think they're pretty smart about it. But in your council, I had a piece of property that I was representing. And in it, it was a commercial piece that was prime for the for a dispensary. I received three phone calls as the agent regarding could we. And use this as a dispensary. We will pay extra for it. They they saw dollars. And in the runners, it wasn't for medical needs. It was for recreation. Because I said, well, I'll tell you what, I'll take it to the owner. He's an ex-cop, retired cop. You know what I heard at the end of the line? Click. They have no desire to do anything but look towards us as a recreational piece. I don't think we need that in our city. I think we need to take care of those who need it for medical purposes. I'm a firm believer the delivery plate is good. So here's my final thought. We have four police stations. Let's put it next to each one of those stations and for those people who do not want it in their district. Put it put your vote to your district to the next election. Do you want it in our district? And if District nine says no, Stacey, you know how to vote. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Scott Montgomery from District five. Real short. I think mispriced your proposal is wonderful. It's not exactly what I want. I'm going the other way. But I think it's a it's the right step to start. Let's follow through to do the due diligence, check the money, check the flow, check the records, do all of that. Stacey, please support it. Thank you. Final speaker. Good evening, honorable mayors, city council and various city departments. We appreciate the City Council's thoughtful deliberation on the topic of medical cannabis and the opportunity to collaborate with the city to create a fair and balanced regulation. Since the ban went into effect in August of 2012, we have organized on behalf of the qualified patients, stakeholders and voters to advocate for safe access. After three years of study sessions and debate. We are thankful that the idea of finalizing an ordinance is finally here, being reviewed and hopefully approved tonight. This is a win for patients and the community as a whole as we look back in the rearview mirror in a few years from today. The ordinance in front of the city council has a fundamental flaw and direction, and I don't believe it's from the study sessions conducted or the long debates, but only from the ideology and stigma that is associated with marijuana. Not in my backyard. We need to protect the children. We need to protect the community from marijuana. The stigma and ideology is exactly what is keeping a good, balanced policy to be established, which will actually protect the community and the youth. Trying to keep this issue in the closet or turning a blind eye to best practices is wrong. We have patients and veterans demanding access to cannabis. We have hundreds of good paying jobs at risk. Tax revenues that have been understated. A black market, which is the true public safety issue at hand. Minority groups being jailed and kept from basic rights like applying for a job. Lastly, thousands of voters that are tired of the failed war on marijuana spending, millions of much needed tax dollars on enforcement and courts. The state legislation has implemented a robust system to regulate. Let's do the same here in Long Beach. In regards to Councilmember Price's motion, completely appreciate the tolerance regarding. Um. You know, deliveries. But in all the reality, it will not be able to captured. The. Market because it's happening every single day here with these deliveries. And it's not being regulated and it's not being tax rights, and it won't even begin to capture the legal markets. With that being said, Please supports the main motion in Vice Mayor Leo Anthony's motion and hopefully review that nine will be in place. And if it does turn out that it's a nuisance because the supply does not meet the demand. Please be swift in reviewing you guys as policy. Thank you very much, guys. Thank you. And I want to thank everyone that spoke on this issue from all sides. Important issue that the council's been discussing. Take this back to the council where we have a substitute motion on the floor which will take a vote on first. Which Councilwoman Price. This is Councilman Price's motion, which he described right before public comment. And so that is that is the motion that's on the floor. And so there's no other comment, which I don't see. We're going to go and take a vote on that motion and. Make it a point of clarification. Yes, sir. On that, we have the cultivation component in that piece already. Channing is that it was your amendment that we adopt the cultivation regulations so that if we adopt regulation in the future, those regulations would carry the day in terms of those businesses. Great. Okay. So we're going to go ahead. You have a question, please, Councilman. Just quickly. What are the zoning requirements on this motion? Where could those four? Where can they be located? Councilmember the four. The four in the motion. Where would they be located? Is there still a per district cap? Well, there's only four. I don't want four to land in the ninth district. Yeah. So is there still for the per district? Yeah. No more than one per district. Just clarify. Just clarify. Okay. There's a there's a motion and an a second on this motion. Members, please go and cast your votes on Councilman Price's motion. Motion carries. Okay. Motion carries. So that's. That's a councilman price motion. Motion carries. Thank you all for for coming out. And again, just just as a reminder, what's going to happen here is this this creates a ordinance that will come back to the council as soon as the city attorney is able to put the ordinance together for discussion and approval at that point, correct. Mr.. Mr.. Mays. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go and going to write right to the next item. Madam Clerk.