Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2018-2023 CIP; creating exempt positions; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119430

The report of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee. Agenda Item one Council Bill 119430. An ordinance amending ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 budget, including the 2018 to 2023 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the City Council pass as amended the Council bill. Great, cause we're in big shock. Thank you very much. I'm pleased to bring you the fourth quarter supplemental budget. This is an ordinance that provides expenditure authority for us to use the grants that we have accepted and for other budget revisions that are requested by various departments. The net operation appropriations increase in this quarter is approximately 85.5 million, of which 18 million is of general fund. Of the amounts, about $12 million is backed by four new grants, and about 788,000 is backed by reimbursement for other new revenues. And in addition to providing appropriations for previously described grant funded projects, the bill would authorize increased operation appropriations totaling $39.7 million. I know you guys were all excited about that. Okay. Is that all you'd like to say? That's all I'd like to say. I have a hundred pages more, if you'd like that, but I thought you'd appreciate just the summary. We appreciate any comments or questions concerning Herbold. I just want to make note of one of the projects in the first quarter up on the earth. Third course, fourth quarter supplemental is the Duwamish Waterway Park Improvements. And this is something that came up a couple months ago because of anticipated funding from the Parks Department not coming through of about $100,000. This is a grant except well, for later on, we'll be talking about a grant acceptance associated with this inclusion in the fourth quarter supplemental. But I also want to just make note, because of the concern a couple of months ago about not receiving the parks fund funding, that we looked into this and found that the $950,000 associated with this project does not require a match from the Parks Department. So a lot of people were nervous that not getting the funds from the department was going to slow up this project and have an impact on our ability to accept these grant funds. Thanks for making that point. Thank you. Herbold Councilmember Herbold, was there any further follow up action you needed from parks or from another department to make sure that? Thanks for checking about that. I know that the Parks Department and some other departments are continuing to work to fully fund the budget associated with this this project. I'm confident that that will happen. My main concern was that we might I was people were worried that we may not be able to accept this funding without the funding from the Parks Department. I'm determined that's not the case. So I'm just speaking to this allowed in case there are folks listening so that they can they can have that reassurance that they can continue to work with the city for the rest of the funding. Nice. Very good. Okay. No further comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Lakeshore High. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi Johnson. Whereas I President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and the chair of Senate. So at this point I would excuse Councilmember Walsh from the remainder of today's meeting. So I'll make a formal motion that we excuse Councilmember Waters for the remainder of today's meetings and their second. Any comments? All those in favor of the motion. Please vote. I opposed. The ayes have it. Councilmember worse. You are officially excused. Thank you for participating. I think I'm just going to sit here and watch you guys on TV. It's kind of fun. Okay, you can do that. You can't vote. You can't vote anymore. Okay, please call the next agenda item. Agenda item two Council Bill 119421. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass transparent back.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32483 with Galls, an Aramark Company, LLC, a Long Beach-based business, for the furnishing, servicing and delivery of uniforms and accessories to the Long Beach Police Department, to increase the contract amount by $55,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,516,150; and Increase interim Purchase Order No. BPPD16000001 with Galls, an Aramark Company, LLC, by $300,000, for a total amount not to exceed $400,000, and extend the interim purchase order through June 30, 2016.

LongBeachCC_12222015_15-1339

Motion carries. Item 11 Report from police recommendation to execute an amendment to contract with galls for the furnishing, servicing and delivery of uniforms and accessories to the Long Beach Police Department. To increase the contract amount by $55,000. There's a motion in a second just to clarify, because I actually won't actually and emailed me this question earlier about this item. The this is not the have anything to do with the body camera issue, which I got a couple of questions about. And from what I understand, Mr. City, Mr. City Manager, the the the body camera purchase contract is coming back on January the fifth. I know we had said a couple of weeks ago, a couple of weeks, and from what I understand from Mr. West, that's the day they're coming back. So. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Scheduled for the. Fifth. Okay. So so that's coming back the fifth. That is not this item in front of us today. Is there any public comment on item 11? CNN members, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Next item report from Public Works Recommendation to amend contract with Excel Paving Company for the rehabilitation of Pacific Avenue between Anaheim and PCH to increase the contract amount by 293,000 to allow for additional street work districts one and six and amend contract with Sally Miller for the rehabilitation of Bixby Road between Atlantic and Orange to

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Concession Agreement with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim’s on the Course), to Provide an Extension for Completion of the Event Center at the Corica Park Golf Complex. (Recreation 5301)

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6586

Okay. So five is adoption of thank you resolution amending the concession agreement with Deli Meat Inc known as Jim's on the course to provide an extension for completion of the event center at the Korea Park Golf Complex. Do we want to hear from staff? Do we have whoever? Oh, it's pulled because we had speakers clips. Right. Okay. Do we want to brief staff overview of. Can you give us the 30,000 foot level as well? Then go ahead and introduce yourself. Thanks. Sure. Absolutely. So, Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager. So let's see, the brief overview is that the concessionaire Jim's on the course is is moving toward is in an agreement with the long term concession agreement with the city of Alameda to provide food and beverage at the golf course at Creek Park. He is building an event center as part of that agreement. That event center, he's expended about 8% of his budget toward completion of that event center. He's received his building permit and his his he has exceeded his original timelines and one as well as one administratively provided extension. And so this this amendment, before you provide additional months to the end of December 31st, 2019, which in which is where full completion and certificate of occupancy would be required. This amendment also adds the event, the enclosed patio and some version of that of design that would be determined later as a requirement as part of this amendment . Those are the key components of this amendment. Okay. Are there any council questions or clarifications and separate work? Councilmember Desai Thank you very much. Mr. Woolridge The question that I have is we received a letter via email from a stakeholder involved with Greenway. I believe the CEO name escapes me. Here was George Kelly, who was concerned about having perhaps a 30 day timeline within which certain plans could be. Is that something that that, you know, is that something that you you were able to review and then come to some activations on that you can share? Absolutely. Thank you, Councilmember De. So, yes, I'm happy to report that I've I've I had previously spoken to another principal with with Greenway Golf last week and also had already spoken with Tom Jacobs, the owner of gyms in the course and and what we can do and council that your purview can certainly add to this amendment is . Well let me back up the goal really here is to ensure ensure a quality that the final product of the event center is a quality product and that really is in line with with the facility as a whole. What we can amend is a few things that I would recommend 45 days that the city has approval of all furniture, furnishings, fixtures and equipment for any. Some examples would be light fixtures, the restroom, counter flooring, walls, fixtures, chairs, tables, the patio furniture and pavers. That's an outdoor patio area adjacent to the event center. The carpeting, any interior exterior wall, finish paint window shades. So I have that detailed out. The other things I would recommend and has been agreed to is a landscape plan that again is approved by the city and that would be required to have approval by also 45 days within signing of the contract amendment. And then also there's been questions about the age vac and whether it is or isn't included. So I think we just put it in writing that there will be a fact included in this in this project. Great. Thank you for clarification, Miss Voltage. When you say you would recommend that in 45 days City has approval of the have ebony fixtures, furnitures and. Equipment. Equipment approval at what level? By you by. Greenway by. Well contractually they're not gyms on the course is in a contractual agreement with the city, not with Greenway. So I would recommend approval by me as the representative of the city. The way I generally operate is, is the reality is I would be working with Greenway staff and I would talk to them and, and make sure that all parties are on the same page. But there's really not a contractual agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the course. Okay. Okay, I've got that. Any other clarifying questions from staff, from counsel, if not will go to you have me. Sorry. Yes, Councilmember. This fall. Where do we see this 45 day? It's not currently in there. This would mean in addition to what what is in the packet. Okay, so my question is, are we allowed to, on the dias make an amendment? Well, what I would mean. If that's what the desire of the council is. So this is what I might suggest. These are clarifying questions, and I'm not sure we've had a discussion yet because I think we'd like to hear. I'll hold. That up. Hold that hold that thought. Okay. Any other clarifying questions at this time? Okay. If not, I'm going to. I'm sorry. Councilmember Vella. So, Amy, if Greenway doesn't like something that you know and they tell you that they don't like it, essentially, is that going to hold this up or what would happen? I know that you're you're kind of offering to mediate between the parties, but if there's some sort of issue or discrepancy or something like that, what happens? Ultimately, it's still city discretion and city approval. So it would be in my discretion of whether I think that's valid or not. My goal with this approval would be that we have a good quality product at the end of the day that benefits the golf course as a whole and benefits the city because any revenue comes back to us. And also my goal would be to make sure it matches. You know, we don't want to have one type of paper over here and another type of paper over here so that it matches the look of the facility as a whole. But ultimately, it's city discretion. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Okay. With that, thank you as well. With that, we will go to our speakers. We just have two speakers, 3 minutes each. Gentleman, it's George Kelly, followed by Ed Downing. Mr.. Mr.. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And Council. My name is George Kelly. I'm the CEO of Greenway Golf. I'm the one that wrote that email yesterday. And basically, to express my concern over the, you know, the division and the quality of the improvement that is proposed to take place with the event center. One of the things that, you know, I'd like to point out, and I think it's very obvious to all of you, is that Greenway has made a tremendous investment in this golf course over the last six years. I got to say that we're one of the only companies in America investing as heavily as we are in golf at a municipal level. I'm proud of that. And I think at the end of the day, it's going to be a good investment for us, but that remains to be seen at this point in time. Everything that we've done to date is with the highest of quality in in our intent. And I just want to make sure that that the event center has this consistent level of quality. We don't want to have a situation where, on the one hand, you see the golf side and you go, wow, this is pretty cool. And then you go over to the event center and there's something missing. So with that being said, one of the things I wanted to point out is that currently most of the patrons at gyms are non golfers with the event center going in. Most of the patrons are going to be golfers. So it's very this is a critical time for us. And but having said that, and in speaking with Amy and understanding the vision and and her commitment to seeing this through, I support the extension until the end of the year with the condition that within the next 45 days , we have some level of specificity in terms of the quality of the improvements that are going into place. Obviously, we're not going to be the ones that can approve or disapprove of it. But I think working with Amy, we have a good relationship with her that will get the result that we want and need. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Downing. Mayor Council City staff. My name is Ed Downing. I'm chairman of the Alameda Golf Commission. A week ago tonight, the Alameda Golf Commission met and took a unanimous vote in support of the city staff recommendation to modify gym's concession agreement. So I'm here tonight just to inform you that and express my strongest support for moving ahead with that. My belief is that Jim, as a longtime Alameda business, he deserves the opportunity to finish this project. And having talked at length to the folks at gyms, I believe that that will happen. I'm also encouraged tonight to hear the discussion about Greenway and the folks at gyms getting together to resolve these issues. I think that would be very beneficial. So I'm just here to express my strongest support. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's my last speaker's. I'm going to close public comment and open council discussion. I'm going to just lead and say that I do have concerns and I've spoken with Ms. Wooldridge about this, that this. And the. Contract was given to gyms on the course back in December of 2017 and there were a number of completion dates that have been missed. I think the first one was probably unrealistic because it was six months to complete an event center. But I am concerned that we are now, when we come to the end of this year, going to be two years from when this project was first supposed to have started. But I you know, I, too, am encouraged by the communication from Mr. Aldridge and from Mr. Kelly. But colleagues, what do you think? Who wants to start? I'll go with Councilmember Vela. And Madam Chair, I think you noted this. I think some of the there's a bit of idealism involved in the original plan in terms of seeing things through and getting things permitted. I don't you know, one question that I had asked Ms. Wooldridge, when when we met, was specifically what's the typical permitting time for some of these things and would it have even been possible for somebody else to have gotten it done? And I think, you know, when we look at it from that angle, I think that, you know, it would have been a lofty goal to get all of that done in the in the time specified. But I also think that the the language proposed and some of the concepts discussed about trying to make sure, you know, first of all, the city still has the ability to make sure that everything's synthesized and works out there. And and the extension, the extensions, not asking for an unreasonable amount of time. So I'm I'm inclined to support it. I saw Councilmember Desai stand up. Thank you. I just want to make three points. First is I had the pleasure several weeks ago of of going through the golf course, the south. BARTLETT Yeah. And, you know, obviously everyone knows I'm not a golfer, but I got to say, that is an incredibly beautiful course. I mean, the the semi athlete in me and the urban planner in me just has to just be amazed by that course. And I hope maybe if residents can, I don't know, walk through there, they will just be startled at how beautiful it is. But in addition to it is functionality in terms of dealing with water and all that kind of stuff, it's just amazing. I mean, I went there after there are some rains and there are people still golfing out there. The rain had occurred the day before, but the golf course was dry and so I was just amazed at the quality of work that's been done there. So I do. So I'm very glad to see that, you know. LAPD Director Woodridge and soon to be assistant. Soon to be interim city manager. Woodridge is, you know, taking will be incorporating, you know, ways in which we can make sure that the project that that's really at hand is aligned with is consistent with the the incredible beauty of the golf course that you have out there. If if residents have a chance, you should go tour it because it's so it's amazing. So I'm very happy that about the 45 day period over which, you know, hopefully landscaping plans will be submitted as well as, you know, city getting approvals with regard to Finney's. I guess the third point I want to say is, you know, yes, for some it's been, you know, maybe two years. But, you know, I remember voting on this, I believe, in 2015. So for me, it's been four years. So. So we do have to get moving in terms of having not only a beautiful golf course, but an event center that that that complements the beautiful golf course. Because, I mean, the extent to which how beautiful it is, as we were people even talking about it in terms of possibly having a PGA event there. So so I'm just talking about, by the way, the South course. I expect that the north course, I think it's called, will be just as beautiful. Anyone else. Okay. And I will just just segway on to that that yes, I believe that completed. Well, this course in the event center has the ability to attract pro golf tournaments and, you know, the banquets and all that follow. It's also been a great opportunity for young golfers, the youth golfers, to learn the sport. And it's a great form of recreation. And also the event center in the beautiful location should be a possible venue, say, for weddings and banquets and such. I will and I very much would approve this adopting this resolution with the amendment that recreation parks director, interim assistant city manager Aldridge made about the 45 days to approve the Fannie's if come December of 2019, this project isn't completed, I will not be inclined to entertain another extension, but I hope it doesn't come to that. So with that, Councilmember Odie. I think the two of us didn't talk. But okay. I mean, I'm going to support this as well. I just want to point out, if you look at the staff report on page two, it wasn't until December 17th, just a mere three months ago that they actually received the building permit and that there's still mechanical electrical permits that that they're waiting for review. So I why some people may be concerned about the the time length and the delay. I mean, a lot of that is probably on the city for not issuing permits. So I don't feel necessary to hold that against the concessionaire. I am concerned about this 45 day thing, which, you know, the public doesn't had notice about. I didn't have notice about. And I mean, I'm just curious whether that's something we're even allowed to do on the fly here. So with that, I'm going to turn to our inner city attorney, Michael Roush. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, mayor and council. I would agree that I would not recommend that we add that to the Second Amendment at this time. I think Council has given direction with respect to what it wants to see with respect to the 45 day review period. Let that run its course. If there's an issue with that in some respect, we can bring back a Third Amendment. But I would be more comfortable with just dealing with the Second Amendment, with the provisions that are in the agenda report, rather than adding this on, because perhaps some member of the community might not have understood that this was going to be part of what the council was going to discuss. So, Mr. Marsh, to your point, what if we were to come out with a language, Madam City Clerk, continue this item to the next meeting in order to get that 45 day period in? Because I do happen to think when we look at the delays and I am I am not aware of any evidence that it was our city's building department that has caused the delay. And so I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that. The fact that they just got the building permit in December, a year after their contract was granted. So is it possible to come back? And before you answer that question, I think I've got comments from, like I said, the vice mayor and then Councilmember Vella. Well, I do think we have the ability I would just say to to add this, I think it's actually adequately noticed. It doesn't specifically tie us into something, but I will not be supporting a Second Amendment without the this this language. I wanted to thank. I'm going to go with Amy. I don't know what to call you anymore. So any. Title must always. Work. She spent a lot of time. We talked a lot about the need for these types of concerns. I know that there is a lot of just concern between the parties out there. And I think this gives us a little bit of control to make sure that we can help everybody reach the goals that we wanted to. I really appreciated Chair Downey coming in speaking. I too agree that this is an operator that's a local business that we should be supporting. We should be going out of our way to support our local businesses that every at every turn. On the other hand, like the mayor, I will not be entertaining future amendments. It's time. It's time to get this thing done. So I however, we decided to go forward related to the noticing. I am not inclined to sign a Second Amendment and then hope that we have a signed Third Amendment at some other future point. Councilmember Vela. I had a couple more questions for this, Will Rich. So that with regarding the permit issues, can you kind of talk a little bit about that in terms of what the timing of the permits were and when or if there was a permit that was delayed longer than others? I can't speak to other permits. Every permit is unique in terms of the level of complexity. It depends on what submitted it. And so there's that. But I will say I don't think this was held up by the permits. I think I worked very closely with staff and public works and in building. And actually I think they worked very hard on this. It took about it was submitted plans were submitted July, beginning in July, the first week of July. So it did take a number of months. And that and I'll say also when you have a complex project, I've been through a number of complex permits myself with the park projects and oftentimes they we had two, three, four rounds of hold comments that you have to respond to and get back. So he had either three or four rounds of hold comments and so it was also our city staff doing their due diligence. You're saying hold the comments. I'm sorry, hold comments. Is is when through in the review process, there's questions from the reviewer and they write down they hold the permit, the issuance of the permit until those questions are answered. You know, and we have an operator who that he then had to go and get the information because he's not an architect from his consultants. And so that takes time. So that permitting process did take however many months. That is off the top of my head to five months. But I think everybody did their best. Okay. And then with regards to some of the items that, you know, that that are of concern in terms of this 45 day period, you know, to what degree are you going to be reviewing them? I mean, to what degree are we going to are you proposing that we kind of get involved? I would be reviewing to the degree, for example, that, you know, the paving matches, as I mentioned, the existing paving the landscape plan is certainly something I would work with on with Greenway because I also want them landscape to match the existing landscape out there. You know, Mr. Daneyko and I have already talked about, for example, treatments in the restrooms and he's confirmed with me, he's already planning on concrete counters and tile. And so I'm looking for for quality and also just for the the overall look of it, I'm certainly not an architect or designer, so I'm really just looking to make sure we have a generally good product. Okay. And my final question is, what happens if this isn't like if the extension isn't approved. If the amendment is not approved, he is in breach of contract. And we have to look at terminate. We have to terminate that contract subsequently. Greenway Golf is it has in their contract that they have the first right of refusal for food and beverage service at the golf course. So essentially Greenway would take it over. If they if they chose to. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I have Councilmember Brody. Thank you so quickly as well, which it sounds like there was really nobody at fault. These things just take time. Yes. Okay. So I'm comfortable with that. But I think we should understand that as we're asked to do a Second Amendment, that these things take time. So it's completely reasonable that the concessionaire would ask for an extension. So through the chair, I I'm curious to hear the vice mayor's logic, if he cares to share on why he thinks it's okay to do this. Because, you know, I'm fine with adding an amendment with this 45 day if if the council believes it's something that we're allowed to do. So I'm actually going to take the first crack at that, if I may. I appreciate the abundance of caution when it comes to noticing items and making sure that we're clearly informing the public. I really do believe in this case we would still be adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the Open Government Commission of the Sunshine Ordinance, because we are being asked to adopt a resolution amending the concession agreement with Daly MI gyms and the course to provide an extension for the completion of the event center. We are presumably about to vote undoing that extension. The fact that within 45 days the recreation parks director, acting city assistant city manager wants to see the the provide the offerings for the the furniture's fixtures and equipment. I don't see has any material impact on the extension that we're being asked to grant, essentially a one year extension. I just I don't see it. It's not I mean, I would imagine we didn't ask her, but that if that 45 days went by, she would probably come back to the council and. Ask for our direction, but I. I just think we might be getting a little too cautious here. I mean, maybe there's no such thing as too cautious, but maybe there is. And then Vice Mayor, did you want to add to that? No, I think based on the way that this is noticed, it's noticed that somebody knows that we're talking about amending the agreement. This is an amendment to the agreement. Anybody who wanted to come and speak to or had concerns about how we might amendment this agreement would be very clear that they knew that this I think this is a great example of how we should title an agenda is are our agendas. So so with that, do I have a motion as I see it? I see. Yeah, go ahead. So, okay. I'm of approval of the item with the additional 45 day provisions outlined by Ms. Wooldridge. And do I have a second and do I have any comments? Discussion. Or shall we. Vote? Well, I mean, I. Have a councilmember village, so I. Do think that that part of the staff report is what was presented to the parties involved. So we're amending it. So if we're amending it, you know, if staff could comment on whether or not this this proposed amendment has been discussed with the parties involved and if they think that they can. Work with that. Actually work with it and comply. Yes. I've discussed with you in the last couple of business days. The amendment with both parties involved in all have agreed both parties being gyms on the course in Greenway. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wooldridge. Councilmember decided you want to say something. Okay. Did I get a second? Okay. We did so. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor. I that was unanimous. Okay. This. This resolution amending the concession agreement is adopted unanimously as amended. Very little. Thank you. Okay, so our next. That's right. Our next item that was pulled from consent is it's 8:00 and we're still in consent. Who?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3900 Elati Street and 3958 Elati Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 3900 and 3958 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-0877

the zoning classification for four 2 to 5 LRT Street. So sorry if that threw anybody off right before the recess tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. 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 Cashman, will you please vote Council Bill eight, seven, seven on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 0877 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council bill 877 is open. May we have. The staff report. There you go. All right. I'm Alice, Stevie. And this is the proposed rezoning for 3930 958 LRT Street. So we are in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. The and this is in the 41st and Fox station area. The subject property is approximately 7.4 acres and currently has residential housing in a225 story building with a 17 story tower. The proposed rezoning to see our X12 Urban Center Neighborhood Context residential mixed use up to 12 stories is to reflect the changing character of the area to a more urban transit oriented development. So the current zoning is AIA with the billboard overlay, which is also found nearby in all directions. Also to the north is see our x 12 and cm x 20. And then to the west is cm x 20. The current land use is multi-unit residential, which is also found to the north along with industrial and office uses. And then there's more industrial and vacant land in the west, and then I-25 is to the south and east. So the bottom right image shows the subject property as seen from above the interstate. And then the top image is residential development to the north, and the middle is a vacant property and some distant industrial buildings to the west. So the 41st and Fox next step study is an ongoing study that is a joint effort between CPD Public Works and the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative to recommend major infrastructure improvements in the study area. The goals of this project are to identify key multimodal infrastructure and roadway improvements, support transit oriented development, the transit oriented development vision and address neighborhood connectivity and traffic congestion. So the Map Amendment application was recommended for approval by Planning Board in August. It was before Luti also in August and then is before city council today. The application includes a list of the outreach conducted by the applicant and staff have not received any comments regarding this rezoning application. So now for the review criteria, there are four plans to consider on this particular site. The proposed map amendment is consistent with several strategies from comprehensive plan. 2040 will enable mixed use infill development, including an increase in allowed housing density near the 41st and Fox station at an intensity that is consistent with the dense, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods around transit that are expressed in the plan. In Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is Urban Center, which is characterized by high intensity residential and significant employment, with a substantial mix of uses, street activation and connectivity. The future place of this area is called high residential, which is a high mix of uses, including many large scale multi-unit residential uses as well as commercial uses. LRT Street is classified as under and designated local, and Fox Street is a mixed use collector. 38th Avenue and Park AV, which are both just south of the scope of this map, are both mixed use arterials. So the street grid in this portion of the city is interrupted by I-25, I-70 and the railroad. But the site is close to the new station platform and there are additional bicycle and pedestrian connections in the area. So according to the Blueprint Growth strategy, the site is within a high and medium high residential area. These areas are anticipated to see 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to C.R. X12 will focus residential mixed use growth near a transit station in an appropriate context, which is intended for this kind of growth. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. So the 41st and Fox station area plan was adopted in 2009 and it talks about development of a high intensity activity node on the east side of the station. The subject site is mapped as urban residential 2 to 12 storeys, which is primarily residential, but may include a noteworthy number of complimentary commercial uses. Some of the infrastructure recommendations that are in this plan have not yet been completed. So the city adopted rules and regulations last November that apply to any development in this area that requires a site development plan. These rules and regulations establish a vehicle trip capacity for the area and then allocate the remaining trips as projects are permitted and built. So then the Globeville neighborhood plan was adopted in 2014, and it includes a vision of a diverse transit supportive urban center at the station area. The subject site is mapped as urban residential in this plan, which is higher density and primarily residential. It's also mapped as an area of change and therefore is an area where it is desirable to channel growth. So the proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementation of adopted plans. And it facilitates increased housing density and a mix of uses which has been linked to several positive health impacts. The staff report details the physical changes in the area, including the 41st and Fox Station and Pedestrian Bridge, the Anchor Street Multi-Use Path and nearby development and redevelopment. This rezoning would recognize the changed character of the area as it transitions to a transit oriented development. And they requested cruises consistent with the neighborhood context, description, zone, district, purpose and intent. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval and the applicant is here for questions. They don't have a presentation, but they're happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Mike Franken. Hello. I'm the. I represent Real Realty Regency Realty investors, and I'm really just here to answer any questions. Could you state your name for the record? Michael Franken. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Good evening. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver, home of Salau. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive action coming in for Social Change, Universal African People's Organization, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. And I was on top of the ballot for city council where last this past May election, I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. We're in favor of this, especially since the city keeps saying now we can do better. So more housing. Yes. My question is, what is the amount level for this housing? I want to know what the AMA level is, who is going to occupy this space, because this is in a rapidly gentrified area uptown like other parts of this city. But Globeville in particular has been gentrified and the people have not been treated well in this area. So I want to know what the AMA level is when development is going to begin on this project and who is going to occupy this space. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? All right, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first say that this particular parcel. Was one of the properties that was included in the 2010 rezoning. There's currently a 12 story building on this site, so it was inadvertently down zoned when it should have allowed to been allowed to keep the zoning that it had. This is the Regency House hotel site. My question, does it have specifically to do with the site as much as it is with the station area and the work that's going on over there? And just wanted to ask maybe Mr. Merritt, who I see sitting in the audience, if you can just give us a very brief because it has a direct correlation on any development in this entire FOX station area. No longer being called the name you gave it before. So can you just briefly talk number one about where we are with the drainage issue, because that's huge for this area. Any of you who have ever been through or tried to get through when it's raining, you cannot go on the 38th Avenue underpass. And that will be an access point for people trying to come off of Park Avenue to get into Fox area or into North Denver. So where are we with that? And then if you could just talk briefly about how many of the developments have already been allotted a trip generation. Assignments, if you will. Right. So my name is Chris Nevitt. I'm the city's top manager, transit oriented development. And I'll take the second question first, if I could. So we established the overall trip ceiling, which is about 25,000 trips. I use rough numbers here rather than precise ones, just for use of explanation. About half the trips are already used, so that leaves about 12,000 trips left. And of those 12,000 trips left. We have projects that have reserved to serve their project. About half of those trips. So we have about 5000 trips left. None of those projects has been constructed. Right. So the rules and regulations lay out a series of milestones that any project has to go through. They secure the trips in the concept phase, and then as they move through site development plan and multiple reviews of site development plan, they get to hang on to their trips and then ultimately build their projects. So no project has actually one project has moved to actual construction documents and that is 50 trips. All the other trips, roughly 6500 trips, are simply in a reserved state, awaiting for future submissions of site development plan to refine that number and actually construct the project. So just the one project is actually in construction. So this particular property is considered within the current baseline? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And of those that have been reserved, is does that include the 43 acre site at the far north end? Yes. Okay. So now talk about the. Weight the the the the the Fox North site that 40 plus acres has has not yet reserved trips. They are part of the system, though. They have not yet reserved trips. But they will have to reserve within the 5000 or so that's remaining. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. I'm not going to go to my next question because I think it's not as relevant to tonight's conversation, but it will be to further conversations that we will have positive. We will have further coverage. Yes. So talk to us about where we're at with the drainage study for this area and how that folds into the next step. Discussion with the property owners. Sure. I want to bring my colleague up here, Karen. Good. Those two, the next step study and the drainage study have been happening in parallel, but in conversation with each other. But I think Karen Good is better equipped to tell you how that conversation. Is, right? I hope so. Karen Good, Denver Public Works. And as Chris mentioned, we are working with our our next step study for forty-firsts and Fox station area that is actually being completed by the same consultant who is working on the Globeville drainage plan. And as the councilwoman mentioned, we do have a flooding area, flooding issue, and that's the 30th underpass. So you can still easily get into FOX, the FOX station area from downtown in extreme flooding situations, which happen probably about once every 3 to 5 years where the underpass floods and it's highly advisable not to go through the underpass . So it's hard to get to that Fox station area from if you're coming from the West, from Highlands, Sunnyside, etc.. And we've had multiple studies looking at what it takes to fix that underpass. It is rather extensive because it is a major regional drainage problem, not a site specific drainage problem. Basically, a majority of the water coming from the west gets held up by the railroad tracks. They they kind of serve as a little bit of a dam and they pull the water into the underpass, which is less than ideal. So that's something we're looking at as part of the next step study, along with additional connections and looking at what the priorities and costs would be for those and what potential options there would be to address those. They're pretty significant infrastructure investments. Does that answer your question? It does. But the only other question I have is whether or not the final implementation of how that gets resolved is to then look at the creation of some kind of improvement district that would ask for participation from all of the developments that are looking to develop in this area. That certainly is something that we're looking at. We, as part of the scope for a study, have brought on experts that are helping us look at the different opportunities for districts. There is already one metro district district in the area, and that's for the Denver Post site. But you can layer metro districts with other district options. So we're looking at those opportunities. And we did have a meeting with all the major property owners in the area to discuss their feelings on what they might want to participate in. Because we we don't just lay those out. They have to everyone has to agree to participate. And folks are definitely thinking about it. But I don't we didn't get a oh, absolutely. We want to move forward with this district. In this district. And we're all in. As Chris mentioned, we don't have a lot of developments that we don't have any developments on a large scale that have broken ground. And so that plays into the factor of that funding and financing and how they're going to move forward. But this study will recommend a couple of different options. It may say this is the preferred option. Here are some other alternatives. It will depend how much feedback we get from those property owners as to how much we can say, Oh, this option is the one way to go. We're not going to say that unless everyone jumps on board in a fairly short time period. But we will have a variety of opportunities and options and pros and cons for different districts and district combinations, so that we can all be informed about what the potential funding and financing mechanisms are and as well as the general public and the private developers. Thank you, Karen. I appreciate the work that's going on over here because this will be one of the higher density areas in a small concentrated area that's going to for sure add more traffic to the area, even though we have created this trip generation cap, if you will, for the area and unless we get additional infrastructure access to the site. I think what I heard is that then potentially frees up more trips to the area, but I appreciate the work that's going on here. So thank you. And the people. Can also change their travel patterns. Yes. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Real quick. It's good if you can come back up and it may take both you and Mr. Nevett, but a question building on Councilwoman Ortega's. So we recognize we need infrastructure. We know we can't do it before the development. We're trying these creative trip management processes, and I'm wondering if there's a potential to attach those trips to fees, some similar to impact fees, where we can incentivize affordability in a different way. By waiving those fees, those trip fees, if they incorporate enough affordability. Is that possible to to use this trip pilot and attach fees to it? So we can build our infrastructure. I don't know offhand from a I know that the way the rules and regs are written currently, it doesn't have a fee structure associated with it. It's a set cap and it's on a first come, first serve basis. I would have to look at look into whether that would be something. And Chris, I don't know if you explored that with the rules and rec's creation. Chris was much more involved in in that rules and rec's creation. But I don't believe that we have any that have those linked. We could certainly look at. Best practices across the country. See if other folks are doing that. Chris, do you have anything to add? Just I mean, I don't want to wander too far off of the subject of the rezoning that's in front of you right now. But when we set up those rules and regulations, we were really addressing what we saw as a potential crisis and to make sure that development didn't get ahead of the infrastructure that we needed to serve it and to protect the neighborhood. So we wanted to put those rules and regs in place. I think some of the ideas that you've articulated about, you know, creating a fee and maybe being able to waive fees for affordable housing, I think that's all for conversation down the road once we've completed the next step study and then we're in a conversation with the community and with the property owners and with the developers about how we could construct this to produce the most the best outcome for the community at large. But I think all your your questions are right on the money. We don't have answers for them yet. Well, we've talked about this many times, and I know we have a habit of throwing things at the wall and seeing if they stick. And I think this is a good opportunity to make sure that we're doing it, addressing this potential crisis in a meaningful way. This property's currently in good hands. It is an it is a highly needed amenity for students trying to go to school in Denver. And for now, it's fine. But if this gets into the wrong hands, we're talking about a lot more development here throughout this property. And I want to make sure that we're building the infrastructure that we need to keep our community safe and accessible. And we're thinking about that before it's too late. So thank. You. And I think we might be able to add a little bit of that assessment and analysis into our next step study, just to look to see if there's anything that we can look at from a lease national standpoint. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple questions. This one, you might not have an answer to either Ella or Karen or or Chris, but there's a parcel identified on the assessor's map in the middle of this, between the between the tower building and the back property on a lady that appears to be an old remnant of railroad , maybe, or something. Do you know, can you explain what that is? Because that's part of what's being resolved, but it's not owned by the applicant. Oh, is that right? I don't. There is a weird it sort. Of looks like a snake. Parcel. Yes. That belongs to I think it belongs to Metro Wastewater. Can you point that out? Is that part of the. Well, this one doesn't have the right. And I beg the president's indulgence, this is. Part of my map is towards 31st Street. I believe what what's being pointed out is not part of the rezoning and. It is not okay and it shows on the presentation just grossly is being encompassed by. Okay. The other. The other question I had is, Alan, maybe you can answer this. The, the C, r X12 is recommended for areas that are served by arterials. So maybe you could talk a little bit more about how we arrived at and I realize there's a 17 story building already on there, but see, our x eight or even five might have fit better with the street classifications that already exist in here. So what? Explain a little bit more the thinking that went into choosing 12. The well, in terms of choosing 12, I would have to defer that to the applicant. But in terms of our analysis of 12, there, there is that language in the intent statement about being served by specific types, primarily by arterials. Right. Exactly. And there is no arterial here. No, no. I mean, there's there are. The area is served by them. But that the language doesn't say that it has to be adjacent to. And so we try and think about it in a more holistic transportation context in this case, because it is close to the turn of the station. First and five. Exactly. And so the combination of of considering other non automobile transportation infrastructure, in considering the appropriate intensity and then also because the the station area plan called this parcel out for 12 storeys. So just kind of it's there's a bit of finesse in terms of balancing different things. And, you know, you don't always get the exact same direction from every piece. But on, on, on the whole, we felt that it was consistent. Thank you. That's that's a great answer. I just wanted to be more comfortable with this. And I understand that when we talk about arterials and collectors and whatnot, we're talking about streets with cars. We and we haven't really taken into consideration transit as an arterial. And there are obviously we have the commuter rail, typically a street that would be an arterial might already have real robust transit on it. So that that makes sense. So it's good to see that. I just want to feel more comfortable with that analysis. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. See no other questions. I will just take a second to recognize that the Honorable Chris Nevitt, formerly representing Denver's Luckey District seven, on this body. Nice to have you back in chambers this evening. And that concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 877. It's now closed. Are there comments by members of city council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I saw that no one else chimed in, but I can't let it go without commenting that this used to be Elvis Presley's preferred place to stay in Denver. When he played in Denver, he always stayed at this hotel top floor. Am I right? Thank you. Elvis Presley. Elvis. Yeah, obviously. Elvis. Do you know any other Elvis clansmen, Kasra? I have not heard of this Elvis. To whom you speak of, I'm sure. Thank you, as always. Custom in Flint for the history lesson to go along with our evening. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that. I was on the fence. But if it really has the connection to Elvis, I. I've made my decision. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hines, I will remind my colleagues that there is no rezoning criteria that includes any preferences of where Elvis like to stay when he was in town. That being said, I want to thank staff for the comprehensive staff report that I think does clearly illustrate that this project, that this application meets the criteria and I will be voting yes tonight, not because of Elvis, but because of the criteria being met. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye Betsy Tobacco I. Flynn High Gilmer I Herndon High. Hinds High. Cashman. High. Kenny. Ortega I. Sandoval High Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, polls close voting in the results. 1339 Council Bill 877 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 878 on the floor?

Recommendation to Award a Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices to the Alameda Journal for Fiscal Year 2018-19. (City Clerk 2210)

AlamedaCC_06192018_2018-5608

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now five s. Recommendation to award contract for the publication of legal notices to the Alameda Journal for Fiscal Year 2018 19. And I don't know if you want a brief report or if you want to hear from the speaker first. I did like a brief. Short, brief report and then your speaker. Right. So every year the charter requires that the council award a contract annually for the publication of legal notices. This past year was the first year we did it with the Sun, and we've had two bidders, again, both the Sun and the Journal. And the costs for the sun are higher again. And the costs didn't show up through the last fiscal year to be higher as we anticipated by choosing them. And so I my recommendation is to go with the journal. There have also been a few instances of issues with publication from the Sun and in notes. It's not making it any more than they said it would. And so I understand the representative from the Sun is here to address that, if there's any questions on that, too. And both submitted letters. All right, so then I'll go ahead of the public speaker. So I don't know. I have once that. Julie I'm going to guess but log us l ogi with the alameda journal. Good evening, City Council Mayor. Thank you for meeting with me tonight. You want to be a little closer to the microphone? I'm sure. I just wanted to thank you very much for the opportunity to bet on the legal business. I've enjoyed working with the city of Alameda for a long time and hope to continue to do that. I do have a letter that I included in your packet. In. Response to a letter that was. Written by the publisher. Of The Sun. So I don't feel the need to have to read it or or say it, but I just wanted to make myself available tonight. If you had questions. Or concerns that I can answer them for you. And again, just wanted to say thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Council. He's a member of Parliament. So it's my understanding there's a recommendation by staff to use the Journal this year. Okay, Castle. I'm happy. Go ahead. I'll make a statement. Way. I think we live in a time where factual reporting is really important. And perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this because reporters from the Bay Area News Group not only Ms. quoted me, but they actually never even reached out for comment and then publish saying that they had. To their credit, one of them did reach out, and eventually the other one did. But I find it a bit ironic that we would contract for legal advertising with a paper that at best engages in sloppy or UN researched or unverified reporting. I also find it interesting. I'm happy that the editor lives here in Alameda. It would also be nice if you're going to have an editorial board that your editor who lives in Alameda might sit on that board rather than just having a single reporter who doesn't live in the city of Alameda. You know. For those reasons. I have a problem with spending public dollars with the Bay Area newsgroup. But I would also say that it's a bit disconcerting that we only had to to people put in bids. I do know that there's other newspapers that do circulate, but I also know that the Sun has been doing this for us or has put in bids for this as well. And they're another local paper. They're headquartered here. A number of their employees work here more than just the editor. So it's something I would consider. And Brody. I mean, I will echo my colleague's comments. I mean, the the staff report says the Alameda Journal is the lowest responsible bidder. I don't think there's anything responsible at all about the Bay Area News Group. I mean, if you consider, you know, what they published last fall and the fact that they published an editorial and then share that editorial as news and that they did just like the vice mayor said, it happened to me, too. They posted an article that said, I declined to comment and I wasn't even contacted. Until like seven or 8 hours later. And to me, that's not responsible. And I also know that last time we did this, when we evaluated what we considered the best bid, we considered other factors like the son's place in our community, the fact that they are a community newspaper, that their own their operated here in Alameda, that a lot of their employees work here and they have a long history here. And, you know, I would much rather have our public money go to what I consider a real responsible newspaper and not an irresponsible newspaper. Member matter. I'd like to make a motion to award the bid to the Alameda Sun, because as part of the my definition of the best, it is the locally operated and locally established institution rather than a large media network. Second discussion. Any other comments? Member Ashcraft If I could just hear from the the city clerk about you mentioned, I believe there were a couple of instances when, when something went to the sender for publication but didn't get in. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? There have been some publication errors and most recently the example was an HB notice that they said would go in the paper. They printed. Ten HB it would be. The Historical Advisory Board notice. Is it a printing? That one they printed the council one twice in error. So just the little system issues that they're working out. And I've been told by their staff that it's a staffing issue and they're redoing staffing and that they're going to, you know, get it nailed down. So they have said that, but they are here if you want them to be responsive. And that a mayor I know we have a motion in a second, but I do see a mr. Aronofsky from the Sun. Would you permit him to speak? Did you want to respond at all like that? I assume that was why he. Might identify yourself and then. I full and out of my pocket there. And for the record, Dennis, I would ask him, I purposely allowed me to sign with Eric cos and I do want to apologize for the mistakes we made first of all. And, but I do want to point out we did 132 ads. And by our calculation, there were three mistakes out of 132 ads. So I'm not saying we're perfect and I'm saying we're going to be perfect in the future. But when the ads when all the city ads come before us, from now on, there's going to be a we have to we have to set a buy rule. Two sets of eyes goes on. Everything. As the publisher I know have instituted a three set of rules for the city ad. So what I'm saying is I will I will either have someone on my staff read the ad, double check the ad for the third time, or I will do it myself. So I promise I can't promise a mistake for a year, but I can certainly promise a little more care in place in your ads. Thank you. Thank you. And then to the secret. Can you tell us the difference in the two price bids? Sure. Basically, there's the sun's is almost. And and dollar wise, what is that come out to. Yeah. It worked out this year to be about. Well, the, the main focus that we usually focus on general fund money, but the main focus was there was like $40,000. Whereas in the past it. Over. Oh. Okay. So. And then just to finish my comments, I am willing to go along with the majority to give the local paper. A chance to rectify after the first year of doing the the work for us, the legal publications.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, consider the appeals from Laurie Angel and Chuck Fowler, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Categorical Exemption (CE 14-114) and Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption at an existing gas station convenience store located at 5740 Atlantic Avenue in the Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian (CNP) zoning district. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0214

Item one. This item requires an oath. Report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Consider the appeal from Laura, Laurie and Angel and Chuck Fowler and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a categorical exemption and conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine for off site consumption at an existing gas station convenience store located at 5740 Atlantic Avenue in the commercial neighborhood pedestrian zone district District eight. Let me turn this over to staff. I believe we need an oath. Yeah. So we do the oath first. Yes. Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. The staff report for this item will be conducted by Amy Bodak, Director of Development Services. Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, thank you for your time tonight. We are here to hear an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission where they approved a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine at an existing gas station convenience store located at 5740 Atlantic Avenue in North Long Beach District eight. As I stated, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in January where they heard the request for a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine at that gas station convenience store. There were a number of public comments that were received at that meeting, and the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to approve the conditional use permit. An appeal was filed by two residents of the area and the appeal was filed timely. And because of that appeal, we are here tonight to hear the appeal and to consider the application and the facts that will be presented into the record. That concludes my staff report. I'm available to answer any questions after you've heard from the appellants. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to give the appellants an opportunity to come up, please. And. What we'll do is just for for the purposes of the hearing, the appellant will get a chance to make a case in a what is considered a reasonable amount of time. So, Miss Angel, five, 5 to 7 minutes is that that's not reasonable. Okay. And then will allow the the applicant to make the same. And then after that if there's any rebuttal that the applicant wants to make in another minute or so, you're able to do that. Okay, so Matt, turn this over. Thank you. And let's go and set the clock, please, for 6 minutes. Okay. I think one of the main reasons I'm here is because we have a new planning commission and because we have a new planning commission, we don't have people that have institutional knowledge or a history of what north long beaches issues are and needs are. And there was some discussion, a lot of questions about public safety and how many alcohol related crimes there were and this and that. But there was nobody there to give any information. So given the fact that it was an incomplete process in my mind and that the Planning Commission was not really attuned to the issues in our part of town, I felt that it was necessary to represent my part of the city because alcohol is a major problem. It's a major problem in our part of town. So much so that we do have a moratorium on additional alcohol uses. That's been an agreement between the eighth and ninth Council District officers because it does adversely impact our our community. So I had a couple of people say when I told them that this was an existing license at a small convenience store that was getting that was purchased and is getting used for another purpose. Many ask me, Well, isn't that illegal? Aren't they? Are they even allowed to do that? Because the idea was to reduce the number of alcohol licenses in the neighborhood. But here we are. So I'm going to go into a little bit of historical perspective. I provided four pages of document to the city council for their review. But first of all, I want to give a historical perspective. And I in the early 1990s, the L.A. riots occurred in our part of town. And when that happened, it changed everything. We had businesses, fi, we go away, we had crime, we had all kinds of issues and problems. And because of that, we got redevelopment. So redevelopment was created in 1996 to address a lot of the blighting problem, problems that we had, and to focus on improving our corridors. And I won't go into a whole lot of detail, but I will say that. The most important area in redevelopment for North Long Beach was designated at the very intersection where this use is planning to go. It's at the corner, southeast corner of South and Atlantic. The new North Library is going to be less than 500 feet away. There's a church less than 500 feet away. It's considered a high crime area. And the ABC folks basically say if it's within the poor, within the area of a church, 600 feet, within the area of a church, and public uses public and sensitive uses then and a high crime area, it should not be allowed. But there was no protest or anybody from police to indicate that there were. Answer the questions at the Planning Commission. I understand there haven't been that many calls for service, but then there isn't any alcohol there yet. So within a half mile distance, there are over 12 convenience stores that sell alcohol. It's a half a mile away. So in the ABC license and the approval by the by Chief Luna, it basically says there is a a need, a necessity, and there's a need for a convenience to have the alcohol here. Well, not as far as I'm concerned and not as far as the ten community meetings that I went to and all the individuals that I spoke to. I have submitted a list of individuals that signed to approve what we're doing here in terms of they're supporting the appeal to deny the license and it's already been submitted to the clerk. I also received a couple of letters and there is an individual that lives catty corner that you that can see everything that goes on in the corner. He says there's police there all the time. So and then when I talked to police officers at the committee meetings, they basically say probably 80 to 90% of the crimes in North Long Beach that they're aware of have a component of alcohol involved with it. So being that this is one of the most important corners in North Long Beach and we're stuck with the fact that we have a. A successful business that's been there since 1968 and has been running profitably since then. And that we have. All these public uses that will be going in. This is going to be a major public area for North Long Beach, a gathering place. It's intended to be a pedestrian friendly area. There is no place for a lot of cars to park on that lot to be able to stop and shop and pick up alcohol. That's not what they're there. They're there to buy gasoline. It's a gas station. There's plenty of places they can just drive a half a block around the corner and they can buy alcohol. They can go next door to the restaurant or or just a half a block away and go to the bar. I mean, there are places to get alcohol and it isn't necessary to have it at this particular location. So this is all I'm going to say for now. But basically, the concern is that it's in the major location in North Long Beach for our improvements. We have alcohol available at a moment's notice. You have children that walk by that intersection, going to church and going up to Jordan High School and our major park at Highland Park every single day, multiple times a day with bus stops right there. So it isn't a necessity. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to the. Appellant. I own both. Both are appellants. I thought you had done it together. There are there. There are two separate appeals. They are separate. They all to come forward. Please. Thank you. Chuck Fowler 458. I'm going to say a few things about liquor stores and violence. There's a article I have in front of me here from Prevention Research Center of the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, where they state a number of studies have been found in and near neighborhoods where there are high density places to sell. A high density of places that sell alcohol and a higher rate of violence. That is when bars, liquor stores or other businesses that sell alcohol are close together. More assaults and other violent crimes occur will point out that there is another liquor store within 300, about 350 feet of this location. There is a supermarket that sells beer and wine less than 300 feet. There's another liquor store within 600 feet. And also this is within 500 feet of the library. There's churches within 3 to 500 feet of this facility. A study of it in a study of Camden, New Jersey, neighborhoods with alcohol outlet density had more violent crime, including homicide, rape, assault and robbery. The association was strong even when other neighborhood characteristics such as poverty and age of residents was taken into account in a study of 74 cities in Los Angeles County. A higher density of alcohol outlets was associated with more violence, even when levels of unemployment, age, ethnicity and racial characteristics of other committed care and other communicate community characteristics was taken into account in a six year study of changes in numbers of alcohol outlets in 551 urban and rural areas within California, an increase in the number of bars and off premises places as in liquor stores, convenience stores, grocery stores was related to an increase in rate of violence. The effects were largest in poor minority areas and and areas of the state. Those areas already saturated with the greatest number. I would go through others because they're all over the place. But I'm going to do this one here looking at a number of things. This is from a research group from USC. At the bottom of the article, it says The research looked at cities with a population of 10,000 or more and examined both onsite liquors, liquor sales such as bars and restaurants, off site, off sale outlets such as many markets and liquor stores. An epidemiologist on the study group. Said that even by satisfying statistically controlling for variation of unemployment rates in the communities, which is considered an indicator of crime rates, the findings still show a connection between the availability of alcohol and crime. Finally, they say this is not to single out liquor stores as the number one contribution to violence, but unlike unemployment rates. It's something we can do something about. Thanks. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to the up the applicant. And give the applicant the reasonable amount of time. You have 6 minutes. Are you the only applicant here? Yes. Okay. Please begin. Good afternoon. A similar assignment. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mark Kelly. Shani. I am the applicant for the existing license, which is located in 55 and corner of the Linden Avenue. And you only bring it to the corner of Atlantic Avenue and South site, which is a gas stations. This has been approved by the city planning on March 15, and they imposed the toughest conditions for it to sell beer and wine in that location. And they will not allow more than after 11 p.m.. No singular no for the Owens noted it was. And on that planning commission, one of the board member mentioned there is no any report that they beer causing the crime. And he was 100% right because they appear silly in all esports games like football, volleyball, basketball, Superbowl and people drinking and there is no problem. And. When I if we sit over there, there is no impact in the community. There is no any crime in my area or even a single call from the police because we are operating very safely and very proficient. One of the things that I want to make mention that to the people up here, this license is not going to go away. You cannot take off a license and then buy the ABC code in Atlantic Avenue. They are open for more to license. Therefore, what they bring up and they said is invalid. And they are talking about their liquor store. This is not the liquor store and not is not a bar. Also, there is not any monitoring moratorium in the city of Long Beach and we are not close to any higher schools. Beside, you know that. I will experience 30 years in this business. I have six locations, three in the Long Beach, three in the Valley. I have four beer and wine license. I never had the any violation because I know how to operate. And my life. I'm the CEO of the large corporation. And we do the business right. If you want to go back and tell me what I did for the city in past 20 years, I spend nearly $8 million and invest in the city of Long Beach. I'd build up to 711 and mobilization at the corner of Atlantic Avenue. And then, I mean, they had the Chilean cortijo a huge mobilization with their car wash. And this is the last one that we, uh, we boarded and we are operating. I am providing the job to the people in the city of Long Beach to location. I have more than 25 employees that are coming in, more than hundreds of their family. They are living over there. I'm supporting for the education and I'm encourage always my employee that send their kids to the college and two of my employees they have three degrees in the college and I care about the education. Also. One the team that. I remember every time I want to do in this city, these people oppose it before I build this 7-Eleven at the corner of the Atlantic and Market. I applied to build a car wash and that location and car wash never, ever makes any crime. And when the city. Polonia Mike Braun, if I don't forget his name is Szilard, right? He went to them and they opposed everything I wanted to. They are opposed against everything. The reason they are opposing they or some competition, iran may be related to them and what to what they see. And also one thing that a year and a half ago, a new 7-Eleven has been built near their park, is less than 200 feet, and they, by law, should be not less than 500. And these people never oppose it. What is wrong? Or you're putting their finger on me only. I'm not against any business. We need to do the revenue. And I am doing more than $10 million revenue in the city and invest a lot of money. And I'm losing a lot of money in this location because since the redevelopment agency, they bought a lot of commercial toys out of the potential, you know, acres and the residential, they turn it down. All the business is gone. I'm losing every year 50 to $75000 and my business is 25% lower because there is nothing around us. And the Atlantic Avenue is like a ghost town. There are all the shops there are, you know, vacant. We need to work together as a community and improve the city while it has its base attraction and base ability. And we need that when the states allow the city selling those land and then they will come and making some difference in this area. Also the people are talking about the parking. They don't know the regulation in the gas station. Every pump called one parking. I have five pump. I have ten parking in the pumps and I have eight parking. Others say there's nothing short of parking. If it was not, the city did not allow us to operate toward the. There is no police activity in my location. Even one because is nothing wrong over there. We are okay and we do the job right. And I have the best employee working for me. Ten years, 15 years, ten years. And they are like my family. Okay, sir, if you can wrap it up with anything else. Well, thank you. I really appreciate if that in question. I'm here. You know, I can. You have. Think, you know, probably you're going to have one more opportunity if you want to have a rebuttal. But first the applicant I'm sorry, the the appellant gets an opportunity to come forward if there's anything else they want to add to that. So I just need you to step away. Just 1/2. Oh, grab a seat, please, sir, if you don't mind. Okay. So I'll be very quick. Thank you. What hasn't been mentioned? We did mention that it's a high crime area. We also have gangs. We have young kids that get into trouble, that are truant, that don't always go to school. And those are the kids that get into trouble. Those are the kids that try the drugs, that try the alcohol, that have access to a lot of issues. And I. I understand that there are a lot of business problems associated with where the the status of that location is right now. But I can guarantee you literally that things are going to be turning around because the long range financial management plan, property management plan was just approved. That property is going to be developed. It's going to have housing. It's going to have people on the street. It's it's going to be pedestrian oriented and things are going to pick up and improve. Unfortunately, we got stuck, stalled out with nothing going on there for a period of four years while the state decided to eliminate redevelopment. This isn't personal. It's just the way economics have gone where the process has gone. It's just that we do not need alcohol at that location. It's within the 600 feet that a church is, which is typically not permitted by ABC. And schoolchildren walk by there every single day. Thank you. Thank you. Now, if the applicant wants one minute, anything else to wrap up? Also, I want to mention that the people up here, they are very far from the location. They are more than one and a half mile. And while this license exists in located near their residential, they are okay and a come to location. They are against it and totally they are. What are they making? It is initially the same thing. They try not to keep a business over there and I don't want to close the door over there and rejoin Italy of six employees over there. I have the old lady working six nights over there as a graveyard. I don't send it out because she's helping the children child in the college and they don't see what I am doing for the city, President Kennedy said one time to the nation, Don't ask what their country did for you. Ask what you did for your country. And I did a lot here, and I hope you don't accept my application. And this is fine. And it I appreciate it. Thank you. With that, we're going to have as many before I come back to the council for the deliberations. Is there any public comment on the hearing? Please come forward. Just say your name for the record, please, and then go ahead. Begin. Good evening, Mayor and councilmembers. My name is Sherry Olson, and I just wanted to make a couple of points here. He went over a couple things that I wanted to add to it. The store is has security cameras throughout the interior exterior of the the site itself. It actually is very well secure. We had no opposition from the police department when we applied for this license. We are not bringing in a new license into the city of Long Beach, even though there is to allow an excuse me there is to allow to bring into this area. We're not bringing in another one. We're actually buying it from around 500 feet from our store. We're taking it down the street and moving it into our location where will be kept secure. We have lockable cooler doors. We have a lot of security measures into the store that other liquor stores that were not a liquor store. We're asking for beer and wine here. We are a market. We are a family market. We service the local community. We offer the local community jobs. And not only to that, to be said, there is not a moratorium in the city of Long Beach. Moratorium is not in Long Beach and it's not in this area. And once again, the PD is not opposing this. We are been in this community for a long time, as the appellant has said, and we want to continue to service this community and be a good community neighbor. And the last thing I want to add here is that it is well, we do have a lot of parking at this location, and we do a lot for the community itself. And we're hoping that you guys will uphold the council's decision and approve our location. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is James Rogers live one line six South Street. And I was I'm here. First of all, I don't even drink beer. I have 13 years clean and sober. But when I am living in North Long Beach, I'm tired of seeing the businesses closed that I've been living in Long Beach since I got back to Vietnam back in 71. And when the riots came, I heard a lady say something about the riots that broke out almost around Long Beach. I used to be homeless. I was homeless 19 years. I was what the city call a chronic homeless. I call it the city money and it all kind of thing. But it's not about me. I went through recovery. I became a. Productive citizen again. I'm a taxpayer today and I've been in Long Beach, like I say, since I got back to Vietnam. I've been out throughout the city living in Long Beach, north Long Beach, high crime area when I first got over there. The city of Long Beach. The police department has done a very good job. It's a clean area. Now, the main reason I'm here is I'm like I say, I'm tired of seeing the businesses closed and in my community with the businesses open. It helps the economy. Okay. If if if this business going if the license is going to make the business better, then they won't close up. But they help the economy. When business is closed down, it hurts families. That's where the crime come from. People who have no place to go then think people start doing things. Okay. So. I'm just. I'm tired of seeing it. You know, I'm long beat up my first guy here saying that some people had shirts say I am Long Beach. And then when I got up here, you know, just see you guys on the news and on the papers. And then I got to see in the district and I just say, we are Long Beach, everyone in it. We Long Beach, we I'm tired of seeing the business. Well, now, if it's, if it's not gonna affect us, then okay. And as far as the about the part, the school because my time running out it was a business open on partying in Atlantic right across the street from the park from Jordan High School. When the people start selling liquor, there didn't nobody say nothing. Now. This is this is the right here. That's my community also. But this. Is we have a. Santa Clause. If it's going to help the business prosper, then let's go with it. I thank you for for listening. Thank you. And God bless. Thank you. I have one more speaker for the hearing. Come forward and then I'm closing the hearing to do council deliberation. Good evening. Honorable mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angie Birchard and I live and work in Long Beach. I'm a an employee of Phillips 66, who represents the 76 branded gasoline station and have worked for them for more than 21 years. I am first for this project. I've known the operator, Mark Keller Shady, in North Long Beach at Atlantic and South for over 14 years. I saw him take this location from a closed service bay location in and rebuilding it into a full service convenience store where he offers his consumers a wide variety of products and services for sale. Mark has been in this business for over 30 years and currently owns six different gasoline and convenience store locations. He knows how to operate the locations in a safe and responsible manner. Three of his locations are currently in North Long. Beach and like he had mentioned. He currently holds four beer and wine licenses and has held those for 25 years without any violations. He operates. In a. Safe and responsible manner. He employs more than. 25 people in Long Beach and has. Invested his funds in rebuilding all three locations in North Long Beach. A convenience store is just that. It's. It's about convenience. And bear in mind. Or just an alternate profit center. They're one of the products that a convenience store sells. I recommend that you approve this permit to carry beer and wine at this location. Thank you. Thank you. Now I'm going to go ahead and close the hearing and have counsel deliberate. But start with Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd like to thank the appellants, the applicant, Mr. Kelly, Shadi, and the other community members who came out and spoke today or provided written comments. I'd also like to thank the Planning Commission for their work on this issue. Mr. KELLER Shadi owns multiple businesses in this area as he testified, and I appreciate his efforts to successfully operate his businesses and to provide jobs. I don't know if there's any evidence that alcohol consumption or sales are going to improve or increase jobs in our area. I will say that there is no future in the past and we need to move on. However, in this case, I have to agree with the residents that this location is not conducive to the sale of beer and wine for site consumption. It's a gas station. I think it sends the wrong message. We oftentimes advocate for no drinking and driving, and picking up alcohol at a gas station is a problem. One of my first actions as a city council member nearly three years ago was to join with then member council member Steven Neal to ask the city to adopt an alcohol nuisance abatement order to address the proliferation of the sale of alcohol in North Long Beach. It's an issue that we have made great progress on and we must continue to be responsible about this. This property has been mentioned as a high crime area in allowing the sale of beer and wine can potentially further exacerbate EVER'S effects. This neighborhood church is located just footsteps away from this proposed location. Calvary Chapel of North Long Beach provided a letter here today to the mayor and city council stating their opposition to the application. And I have the letter right here. Where there are no public schools within 500 feet of this location. There is the creative beginnings YMCA preschool within 600 feet of this location. And the new North Library, which will be a community focal point for children and families throughout the area, is just under construction right across the street. Well, there is not an overconcentration of licenses within this particular census tract. There's certainly no shortage of liquor stores. There are three liquor stores that I know of within a block or two of this particular location in 12 markets that sell alcohol within a half mile of this location. Therefore. I would like to move to receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude this public hearing, grant the appeal and request of staff to return to the City Council with the plan is to deny the conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine for off site consumption at 5640 Atlantic Avenue. So move. Okay. There's been a second by Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Richardson. 57. I stand in unequivocally unequivocal support of Councilmember Austin's. Very well thought out response in motion to this alcohol license. We've done tremendous work over the last four or five years on alcohol in the north Long Beach area. We made tremendous strides. I want to thank our planning commission staff. But I want to also say that this is another opportunity to state that there isn't representation on the Planning Commission and. 90805 and that's a fifth of the city's population. And given the changes and the things that are taking place in North Long Beach, the uptown Renaissance, I think that this is something that we need to address most swiftly. Thank you. Kate. There's been motion in a second and see no other. I'm sorry. Yes. I just a clarification. The motion that's reading says that it is to uphold the Planning Commission decision. But what I heard council member Austin say is something different from that. Have I misunderstood. The motion that he that he said out loud? It reads differently than the text. Okay. And so that will be captured. Yeah. So the clerk should capture the motion as stated by Mr. Austin. I think just our hesitation as well. Uphold the appeal. So just the hesitation when the voting scheme comes up, it just looks like we're voting on that recommendation. Okay. Thank you. No, absolutely not. Very good point. So. Okay. So the motion is to uphold the appeal. That's why that's the motion made by Councilor Brosnan. I do have another councilmember that's plugged in. So, Councilwoman Pryce. I have a question for our planning department. Is that beer and wine sales kind of common at a gas station? I mean, that's been my experience, but it really depends on the individual location because this is a conditional use permit. We have to look at the individual location and the potential for nuisance activities at each individual location. So that's that's part of the setup process. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion on the floor on by councilmember embarrassed and sickened by Councilman Richardson. Please cast your votes. And do we want to just. Mr. Parker, do you want to read it just for the for the public what the actual motion is? Certainly, the motion is to sustain the appeal of the applicants of the Laurie Angel and Chuck Fowler and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the chemical or exemption and to return to the City Council with. Appropriate findings for adoption by the Council at a later date. Okay, and great. And then just Councilman Price, your time still. You're you're done in there, right? Okay. You know, I guess I'm not. I understand what council member Austin is and not knowing. His district is intimately as he knows it. I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding what it is about this. I understand drinking and driving and the the reference to crime and alcohol. I mean, as a prosecutor, I would say that personal choice has a lot to do with people's decisions. And the fact that someone's operating a business that sells beer and wine, I don't know that that contributes to our drinking and driving problem, but nevertheless, we don't have to litigate that at this time. But I guess I don't understand. Maybe you can explain to me why this particular location is of concern for you, because that's what I'm not understanding, because we have several gas stations in the third district that sell beer and wine and we have very responsible operators. And so not knowing the particular specifics of this location, I'm having a difficult time understanding your position, and that's okay. We may agree to disagree on it, but I don't know the neighborhood as intimately as you do. What I would just to help you understand, maybe you would maybe we need to hear from PD and understanding the difference between the beat and the car for crimes in your district versus Beat 21 and the calls for crime in North Long Beach. It's a tale of two cities very clearly. Okay. Well, Councilman Pryce still has the floor. Unless she had any other comments or questions. You know, I don't really believe that was a very constructive answer, but I don't have any additional questions. I apologize if the answer wasn't constructive. And so Councilwoman Price's as far as she's all done. So next up is Councilman Andrews. Yes. I would like to know if this appeal is denied. Will they have a chance to come back and re apply for this being wine license? Certainly, if the the once the city council takes action and chooses to adopt negative findings at when we return with those negative findings, the applicant will have to wait one year and then they can reapply for a conditional use permit. That has happened in other instances where we have had denials of a conditional use permit and the area has changed or has improved and they have come back for an application at a later date and those Cup application has been approved. So we have had situations where that has occurred. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, I have council member Austin. Yes, thank you. And again, I want to thank the residents. I think Miss Angel and Mr. Father did a great job of kind of outline why outlining why we want to uphold their their appeal this evening. This is an area that is of high sensitivity. And there is going to be a lot of economic development going on in this particular area called the North V Village in North Long Beach. We talked about the the the Library of Future Housing and Councilmember Price and any other member of the council who wants to tour the district and understand where we are going. I'll be happy to accommodate you in that regard. But if you see it and you understand it and you understand the the the challenges that we've had, particularly around alcohol in North Long Beach, you would understand our position here this evening. And I would just respectfully ask that you support the motion on the floor. Councilor Richardson. Sure. Just to chime in a little bit more about that area. It's literally on the Border Council, District eight, Council District nine. It's in the heart of a major focus of development and a major effort to clean up the area. It's in the heart of the newly established Uptown Business Improvement District, and they've taken a position opposed to this. This this area is going to be the home to a new education style corridor, because we do have a high school, we have a library, we have Highland Park. All of these are adjacent to one another, right in that same in that same sort of area. And if you take you know, you take will you walk a block in either direction? There's no shortage of liquor stores. So the issue isn't the liquor license itself. It's the specific type of liquor license. We have an overconfidence, concentration of off sale type 21 style licenses that folks can pick up a six pack, pick up, 12 pack, pick up, 40 ounce and go. And so if there was an application for a nice sit down restaurant with alcohol or something, that's a different type of amenity in the community. I think this would be a very different conversation. Or grocery store like we had a conversation about last week. This is the same type of use and I don't think there's any particular benefit to adding one more. Of the same type of license to that area, whether it's a gas station or not. Councilman Mongo. I guess my challenge is. A business took a risk on Long Beach and they purchased an alcohol license from another business that was failing and they want to be able to utilize the license that they purchased. And so I would like to find some kind of way, maybe shorten the length of time before they have to come back again or some middle ground. Because I want North Long Beach to be a place that people can believe that they can invest. I don't want this to be a symbol to our business partners that when you make an investment in Long Beach, that you come before the city council that we're going to deny your. Your choice of how to run a business that there are so many of already in Long Beach. And so I feel that it's not this particular business, but the number of businesses like it in the area that I'm hearing is the bigger challenge. And so this poor business is just a. It's really getting the bad side of circumstance. And so how do we find a way to find to support businesses that want to invest in the north side of Long Beach in this way? Can we reduce? City manager is there a way to reduce the appeal process from one year or. I mean, I don't want to. Right now I'm considering voting against the motion and that that's not my goal. I want to find a way to compromise. Madam Council member and members of the City Council and the Mayor. There is no ability for us to shorten that one year time frame. Right now I will say that the conditional use process in general is a very discretionary process. It is built in order for individual applications to be considered based on specific criteria and based on the location of the request. There are overriding circumstances related to alcohol cups. We certainly look at characteristics that are very easy to define, such as if this was within 500 feet of a school. This in this instance, it is not within 500 feet of a school. We do look at whether it's in a high crime area and clearly this is in a high crime area. We also look at whether there is an overconcentration of the same type of alcohol license in the general census tract. We are limited in our considerations of an ABC license of only looking at the similar alcohol licenses within that census tract. In this instance, we are not able to look at the other 12 or 13 additional licenses that are outside of this census tract only for the purposes of the CFP. But we do have the ability to take those additional licenses into consideration when we are considering the potential nuisance of this activity on the general neighborhood. And that is the the ability that you, as a decision making body have in in deciding and using your discretion in whether to grant or deny this type of permit. And I'm being told later on the agenda tonight, we're going to be approving a fee schedule. Did the business requesting to sell liquor at this location, which they bought the license from something within 500 feet, I think I heard paid $24,000 to have this hearing today. No, not that I'm aware of. There's a. Sir. So I can't. I have to be with the secretary that way. So has to be city staff. Until you aware of a $24,000 fee, we have a standard see up fee. And the appellants paid a fee to appeal. We. I'm looking at my staff planners and they're not aware of of this as well. We we the applicant may have paid for expediting or something like that, but we're not aware of of what that fee schedule would be that would result in a $24,000 fee. Are we able to continue this to a future meeting to find out more information. If you so choose to continue the hearing in the city council approves that? Yes. I'd be curious to know if my colleague would be interested in something like that. I stand by the motion on the floor. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Mongo. You're done with your questions. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank Counsel and Richardson for your response. Really? That's what I was looking for. Just an education of what this particular area is, because I don't I don't really don't think it's constructive to say, well, you don't have these issues in your district and I do in mine. That's really not what I was looking for. What I was asking for is what is it about this particular location? Because certainly I think even in in the eighth District, there are areas that are extremely affluent and where there's a lot of money and perhaps not the same issues of gang violence. So I wasn't trying to pit the two districts against the two. I was just saying, what is it about this particular location? And I appreciate you enlightening me on that. Councilman Richardson, my question would be this is it would it be fair to say then looking into the future, that any applications for alcohol licenses in this particular area would probably be discouraged or not supported by the elected representatives in this area? And for me, I can tell you that as the elected representative in the area, and I think Councilmember Richardson articulated it very well. Restaurants, grocery stores, other types of uses are certainly welcome. And this is not a one size fits all. This is one particular location that we believe will be a problem if there was approval for for beer and wine consumption. Or sales at the store location. Okay. Thank you. Oh, and just one other question, Ms.. Bodak, did did PD weigh in on this this application at some point? Yes, ma'am. We always go to the police department and they provide us with statistics and calls for service in the area. The area in general is a high crime area, and that weighs heavily on on our decision making, particularly if it is in relation to the other two criteria, because this is not an over concentrated area and because it was not within 500 feet of the school. The Planning Commission in a split decision did did decide to support the application. The police department did provide calls for service for the area. And specific to this address, over the course of a one year period, there were six calls for service. And absent that, because it is in a high crime area, they did express concerns. And because of those concerns, we we we did incorporate additional requirements into the application. Having said that, I will say that again, this is a discretionary process. And we, as the council member said, we do not look at this across the board and make general characteristic decisions related to the type of license or or the the individual seller. We, in fact, have approved CHP licenses at gas stations, and we've also denied cops at gas stations. It all comes down to the to the area, the the willingness of the neighborhood to support this, the potential nuisance activities that could result from that activity or the general compatibility of of the request. So it it all is all individualized. And that's the purpose of the CFP. Thank you. Thanks for that answer. I'm going to be supporting the motion made by my colleagues tonight. I think it's important to defer to the elected official in that district because they understand the needs of their community the best. I do think it's important, though, to send a message to the business community that this shouldn't be a discouraging factor for anyone else who wants to to do business in the city and to sell alcohol in the city, because this is a particular decision that's being made about this unique location and not really a broad stroke. And really, I defer a lot to the elected officials that I serve with into their into their guidance in terms of what works for their community and what doesn't. So with that, I have nothing further to. Canterbury Ranga. Then we go to a vote. Thank you, Mary. Having read and heard the testimony, I want to also acknowledge the participation of the residents who came forward to speak on this. There if there's anybody who knows your neighborhood best, it's those who live around the surrounding area and the provided the documentation here with additional information about nearby markets, bars, restaurants, grocery stores that are within a half a mile of this location, I think is compelling to me. Also, what is compelling is the fact that there is a an area that is targeted for renovation, for development, and an additional location to sell liquor out wall to shore. We are and why would not be compatible with that kind of development? So I would be supporting this motion. Okay. Thank you. With that, there is a motion on the floor, as was read by Mr. Parkin and made by Councilor Austin. Please cast your votes on the hearing. Motion carries eight zero. Can you. Thank you. And we're now going to quickly take 23 because it's actually paired with this hearing item. Madam Kirk. Item 23 Report from police recommendation to receive the application of Cerritos Shell from a person to person and premise to premise transfer of an ABC license at 5740 Atlantic Avenue determined that the application serves the public convenience and necessity.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 governing the Board of Health and Human Services. The amendments will simplify the membership requirements and update the role of the commission to match the current responsibilities of the Department of Health and Human Services.

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0419

Item number 12. Communication from Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft an ordinance to amend the Long Beach Municipal Code governing the Board of Health and Human Services. Thank you. This is another kind of cleanup item. This is a recommendation by Health Department staff to make it easier to facilitate and increase membership. And so I want to thank Kelly Colby for making these suggestions. And they make sense. And with that, there's a motion by Councilman Mongo and Councilmember Andrews. Is there any public comment on the item? Seen Councilman Mongo DiGiovanni comments come from our industry. Any comments? OC Commissioner Richardson, do you have a comment? Sure. Just a quick question. How many, how many, how many people sit on this health commission? How many members of the commission have? Waiting for a copy here. No, she's not. Okay. Well, these are these are demonstrators. Question This would be a question for Ms.. Collopy. How much is it? 19. 19. Seems like a big commission. And. And also is a lot of. Like in recent years. Since it's. Since it's begun began. Health has gotten more localized and place based. And I would I would encourage like if we're going to make some changes, we look at like grabbing folks or doing some on the ground work and some of the local communities, the Coalition for Healthy North, Plan B, so on and so forth, that can make sure that the city's strategy around health is complementary to the on the ground strategy. So just some comments. Great. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero.

A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure. Amends the City Council Rules of Procedure to allow for a general public comment prior to each regularly scheduled City Council Meeting. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-11-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02182020_20-0135

I'm secretary. Please. Because the voting announced results 13 hours. 13 is council resolution on 34 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, if we move on to the next item. Councilmember Cashman, I think this one is yours. Go ahead with your comment on Resolution 135. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank my colleagues from the previous city council, as well as those sitting up on the dais tonight for their commitment to welcoming members of the public into these chambers and hearing what they have to say about what we should be doing here at the city. Back in 2016, for the first time in council history, we set up a period of 30 minutes before the first regularly scheduled meeting of each month to hear from members of the community. About a year and a half later, based on the reception of that program. It was doubled to 30 minutes before the first and third meeting of each month. What Resolution 135 does is now welcomes the public for a 30 minute public comment session before every every meeting we hold throughout the year. This will do a couple of things. It will offer more opportunities to speak. Obviously, what it also do make it easier on people to not have to remember when the heck the first and third Mondays fall. And it will also add an immediacy. If there's an issue that the public wants to address, that will be time dependent and might be old news a week further down the line. It's something that we've been looking to make easier on the community, and I thank my colleagues for their willingness to do so in probably two week, two or three weeks down the road . I'll be bringing forward and another change to the rules so that these public comment sessions hopefully will become televised, which they have not been since started back in 2016. So with that, thank you, Mr. President.

A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; adopting a 2021-2026 Strategic Business Plan for Seattle Public Utilities; and endorsing a three-year rate path and a subsequent, three-year rate forecast to support the Strategic Business Plan Update.

SeattleCityCouncil_05102021_Res 32000

Agenda Item 46 Resolution 328000 relating to the Seattle Public Utilities adopting the 2021 three 2026 Strategic Business Plan for Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much, Desmond Petersen, back to you to walk us through this report. You're on mute. Thank you. Counts the president over three separate meetings of our committee. We discussed the Strategic Business Plan and rate path for Seattle Public Utilities. Before us today is the corresponding council resolution, which was unanimously recommended by our committee. Keeping utility rates low is important because rates are regressive, with lower income households paying a larger percentage of their household income for utility bills. Fortunately, the average SPU rate increases are expected to be lower than what was originally promised back in 2017 for this time. It's important to note that Sdo's strategic plan and Rate Path have been endorsed by the rigorous customer review panel. There was also a thorough article in the Seattle Times about the Strategic Plan and Rate Path, which explores all the various cost drivers for these rates, including inflation, pass through rates imposed by King County for wastewater environmental protection projects required by our state and federal governments, labor costs and the utilities taxes charged by our general fund. The Council examines and votes on this strategic plan every three years. Our committee unanimously recommends approval of this important resolution. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution? Well. Sarah. Hi, Peter. Son. Hi. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Whereas I. MORALES Yes. Council President Gonzalez. All right. Eight in favor of. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any other business to come before the Council? I have some business to come before other business to come before the council if there is no objection. I would like to be excused from the May 17th and May 24th City Council meetings. Hearing no objection. I am excused from the May 17th and May 24th City Council meetings. Councilmember Herbold is going to serve as the council president pro tem on both the 17th and the 24th, and she will preside over the council briefing and city council meetings on those dates. And my deep thanks to her for providing me a little bit of coverage as I get away. Okay. Any other further business coming for the council councilmember? Skate up, please. Thank you very much. Madam President, I would also like to be excused from full council and from the morning briefing on the morning of Monday, June 14th, please. Oh. Hey, if there is no objection, Councilmember Mosqueda will be excused from the June 14th City Council meetings. And I say no. I even gave her a heads up because of her. Everything? Yeah. It's all right. Hearing no actual objection, Councilmember Mosqueda will be excused from the June 14th City Council meetings. And there are any. Is there any other further business to come before the council? All right. Hearing on colleagues this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. All 46 items of business on the agenda. At. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, May 17, 2021, at 2:00 PM. Again, that full council meeting will be presided over by Council President Pro Tem. Councilmember Lisa Herbold. And I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. Thank you so much. We are adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 Delaware Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 4201 Delaware Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-15-19.

DenverCityCouncil_02252019_18-1484

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech structure comments to the Council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 18, Dash 1484 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18, dash 1484 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 18 1484 is open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Mr. President, and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to read Zone 4201 Delaware Street from IAU oh two to see our x eight property is located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood in the 41st and Fox Stationary. It's at the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Delaware Street, and that's 7000 square feet. Currently has a house on it. Request is to rezone from IAU road to which is light industrial with the billboard use overlay to see our eight, which is urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use with an eight storey maximum height and the billboard use overlay would be removed. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to redevelop the property. You can see the property is surrounded by the same IAU oh two zoning immediately, but there is a mix of CMC R, X and CMC in the 41st and Fox stationary as well. As I mentioned, the site is currently residential with a mix of industrial residential office, multi-unit, residential and mixed use surrounding it. The subject property is in the bottom right photo and then you can see some of the surrounding properties in the other photos there. This application went to Planning Board on November 7th, 2018, received the unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment at that meeting, went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on January 15th. This year, we received no other public comment on this application. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in your staff report, staff has found the first rezoning is consistent with these six strategies from comp plan 2000, mostly relating to infill development, mixed use and mixed use development around transit stations. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2002. The concept land used for this property is urban residential, which calls for primarily residential, but with complementary mixed uses at a higher density. It's also in an area of change, which is an area where the city wants to direct additional growth in the city. And both 42nd Avenue and Delaware Street are designated locales intended to provide connections from the property to larger streets. Fox Street, BLOCK and a half to the West is a collector and then turns into an arterial two blocks further south and connects down to 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and the I-25 interchange. The 41st and Fox Station area plan from 2009 designates this area urban residential to date stories, which is intended for moderate density residential with a range of housing types that support the commercial in the area, which is again consistent with the proposed see our exit zone district. And then the fourth plan is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan from 2014, which mostly just reinforces the recommendations of the 29/41 and Fox stationary plan, calling for a diverse, transit supportive neighborhood in the area with a broad base of jobs and housing. So staff finds the first criterion that the second criterion is the uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the C r zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Stefan's proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and facilitating the redevelopment of this property in a pedestrian friendly and appropriate manner. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning justified by the changes, change and changing conditions in the area. There's been the recently adopted plan in 2014 and there's also been a fair amount of investment in the area with the new transit station that's been constructed but is not yet open. And there has been some new development, new apartment buildings just to the east of this and some other new development in the 41st and Fox station area, making this proposed rezoning appropriate. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Stefan's proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the description of the urban center neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the See Our Zone District, which is intended to apply to residential areas served primarily by collector or arterial streets where building scale to date stories is desired. As mentioned, the plans call for to date stories consistent with the district purpose and intent. And while the site is not directly on a collector or arterial, it is a block and a half from a collector in an area that is served by collectors and arterials. So staff finds the fifth criterion is met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, I'd ask that you come to the front row. First up, we have Isaiah Salazar. Good evening, council members. I'm here on behalf of the ownership group of 42 A1, one Delaware Street here to answer any questions. We are very. Excited about this. Smaller property we have in the area that we are looking to redevelop. We're looking at building small seven townhomes, hoping to break ground later this summer and very excited for the future of what hold in this neighborhood. This will be one of the first newer townhome projects in this area of the Fox Street neighborhood. We're very excited to see how the light rail continues to change the neighborhood once it does open up. There's been a tremendous amount of rezoning efforts going on, on multiple properties in the area with not a lot of action going on yet, but a lot of a lot of people starting for future development. And we're hoping to be a great townhome addition to the neighborhood. Would you mind stating your name for the record? Isaiah Salazar. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Homicide, a low black star action moment for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019 May election. We are against this, as has been stated numerous times. And involved in this area, this property, this area, this this area. Globeville is under a rapid gentrification. And this is just another rezoning that reinforces that this property is not going to be for those that live in the neighborhood, is not going to be affordable. There is no Amaro level listed on any of these properties. Seven townhomes in the already gentrifying neighborhood. Yeah, we're definitely against this. When you sweep the council, like they sweep the homeless every night. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Just a quick question, Mr. Salazar. You guys owned the Regency as well with student housing? That is correct, yes. And how many students are currently in there? Over 900 students live in the neighborhood or in our complex. Okay. And can you just tell you know, I know you and your family do a lot of work in the community as far as real estate in your own life. Can you just share a little bit about that? Yeah. So my family. Purchased the Regency Hotel in 2000 for under the impression of not knowing exactly what we wanted to develop in the neighborhood yet. And we found that there was a large need at the time for a very a campus to have some sort of housing on site. Unfortunately, we're not on site, but we own and operate a shuttle service that takes kids to and from campus Monday through Friday. And we have developed we were able to renovate the entire inside of the former hotel into a college dormitory. So now gives the three schools honorary a campus, a dorm style of living. In 2014, we developed the north parking lot. That was a vacant parking lot that this property we're looking to resell and kind of overlooks, which was just an empty parking lot. We reasoned that we the actually reason that and we developed that into more traditional apartments three bedroom, three baths, conventional apartment style living. But it's all part of the Regency campus. And that is kind of a continuum of student housing that we have seen. And it's been very successful, very great for the neighborhood. It's really cleaned up the neighborhood from from what the hotel was initially. And we've also developed a lot of other. Parcels in the neighborhood. My my sister actually runs the doggie daycare service at 42nd and a lady that has over 50 employees there. It's a great doggie day care complement to the Sunnyside in the Highlands neighborhood. Uh, extremely busy. And we've also developed the the Fox Street shops is what we call it in house, but it's got the crafty fox, it's a restaurant, there's a yoga studio, a physical therapist, as well as a small liquor boutique liquor store. Okay. I'm just curious, on the Regency, is there any plans? I'm concerned about the 900 students. Any plans to redevelop that or you guys want to continue to preserve that? No, as of right now, we are our goal is to continue to preserve the student housing in that neighborhood. Unfortunately, the Regency. Property is currently under the old. Zoning, which we are looking at to rezone that this upcoming year here soon just to make it a conforming use as well as to help out with the parking requirement. Okay. But our full intention is to continue student housing in the neighborhood. And on this particular project, what have you calculated your linkage fee that a go to affordable housing. For the townhome project? No, we have not. I think it falls under that requirement, but I have to look into that. No. If it's if it's a new build. So if you could just. I'll confirm that. Yeah. Ortega is probably going to. Councilman Ortega ask a question, but just figure out the amount of square footage off of about 50 foot. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. My question is for Scott Robinson from planning. So my question is about. Have we, as a city taken a look at this area in terms of how much more new development we can get? I know that there is the next step study that is going on in this area that's part of some of the the bigger parcels, particularly the Denver Post site. Where we're basically needing to look at that intersection at 38th and Fox High 25 Park Avenue. Can you just kind of give us an update of where things are at with that whole process? And does it include anything related to drainage? So I don't know where we are on drainage. I don't know what we're looking at for that. But as far as the next substudy, that's looking at the infrastructure needs based on the projected build out. In the meantime, we're working on rules and regulations to sort of set a cap on the development based on what the current infrastructure can handle. You mentioned the intersection, so based on what things can handle right now so that once we hit that cap, we'll hold off on development until we get the new infrastructure in place to handle additional development. We're also looking at a an overlay to limit the amount of parking in the area that we're working on right now. Any idea on when that next step study would be available? I don't know. Sorry. Okay. So in the meantime, we're continuing to take applications from the area that is basically increasing the density in every one of the applications that we've seen. This one seems to be much smaller in scale than all the rest of them that we have seen come through. But I'm just curious kind of where we're at with the bigger picture, because we've got one road into this site. And I did see on the application, I believe it was for the other one, that it did include looking at the the little two, two lane road, the two lane unimproved road that goes over I-25 and connects to Globeville, which should not be included as one of the access points into this area. And so I think, you know, as a city, we just keep bringing applications forward without really looking at, you know, how we're addressing whether or not the infrastructure can handle the volume of what is going to be there ultimately. And at some point, we as a body should be concerned about that, because if we're putting more development in there than what the roadway can handle and, you know, the assumption is the next step study identifies perhaps what some of the solutions are and parking to some degree addresses part of that. But, you know, one of my concerns is if if I'm somebody developing in the area and I'm not the first project in and you're capping how much parking can go in and I'm the last project to develop. No banker is going to finance my project if I have no parking and it's already been utilized by all the other projects. So I think looking at that big picture of who's who's managing all of that is really important for us to be paying attention to, even though it's not the level of detail that we as a body get to see. So I'm a little concerned about that. So I appreciate the fact that you all are working on the next step study and look forward to getting some information on when that will in fact, be available. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, maybe could you address for me just briefly the the district that's being applied for allows update stories. This is just one small lot where there's only a single family house right now. Correct. The way I see that from according to the map. And so I'm just concerned that this too dense of a zone, did we look at other zones that would accomplish the same purpose of redevelopment? Because as we develop this under the allowable density that this district allows, as change continues to occur on Delaware and on Aladdin, that whole Fox Island, once once we get the train running and stopping at 41st and Fox Station, it would seem that that block would justify a greater density. And if a project is built and already in place and under utilizes the entitlements. I'm just concerned about the future development here. So how did we arrive at the eight story classification and did we look at any others? Yeah. So the the eight stories was the request of the applicant. Okay. So they can perhaps speak to why they chose its story as the plan, as I mentioned, recommended to date stories. Mm hmm. So we evaluated the request for eight stories, found it consistent with the plan and the other four criteria. And so that's why we're recommending approval. But, you know, as far as whether you can develop eight stories on the lot or whether it's underdeveloped, you know, it's something for the applicant to to worry about. Okay. So we we didn't look at any alternatives. Again, they they requested eight stories. We found it consistent. So, yeah, we didn't try to steer them than anything else. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks, you back up for. Yeah. I just wanted to respond to. Councilman Flynn. But specifically, Councilwoman Ortega, I got to tell you that, you know, I think the concern is right. Looking at the rezonings, but actually, you know, working with CPD, specifically our former colleague Chris Nevitt, and working with the building department, the power is actually in their control and now they are because of the studies that they have done and because now that they they know a number of cars are coming into the area, they're putting certain requirements on building developers and owners. And so one of them was the max maximum parking requirement. We had the community push really hard against that, and we're giving them a a year to get things under control. And we're probably going to have parking maximum and other requirements in this area because of that density that you talked about. And so I'm not sure the answer is in zoning. I think the answer is in and building requirements and the number of units and parking requirements in the area. And so, you know, that conversation is hard, but I encourage you guys to reach out to almost say Councilman Nevitt, Chris Nevitt and our Field Artillery office. And they have done an incredible amount of work on making sure they know exactly how much is coming in, per permits being poured. And they're not letting people just build whatever they want to. There are a lot of requirements things. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other question. The public hearing for Constable eight dash 1484 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? Seeing none. I will just think staff are putting together a comprehensive staff report. I think it's clear that this meets the criteria for rezoning and I will be supportive. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. A. Black Eye Brooks. By. Flynn. By. Herndon Cashman. By. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega by Susman. Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes.

Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Construction Contract and Related Agreements for the 2815 San Diego Road Rehabilitation Project with a Project Budget of up to $502,700. (Housing 236)

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6519

Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's based reuse and community development director. And did you want a short staff reporter? Did you want to ask a question? Just give us the the overview. And actually, in the spirit of full disclosure, I did reach out to Ms.. Potter this afternoon kind of late and asked a couple of questions. And do you want to just but why don't you give the audience a sense of what this project is? Because it's it's really important. And I think it's one of the things that makes Alameda a compassionate community. That's absolutely. My pleasure. The staff came before the council in originally on this project in November of 2017, and we had recommended as part of implementing a referral that the City Council had adopted earlier about assisting refugee and immigrant families in Alameda, that we had been contacted by a nonprofit organization in the city, starting with the Catholic Deanery here in Alameda, who was taking Pope Francis's call that if every parish I think that's what if every parish housed a refugee family, it would go a long way to meeting the needs of refugees worldwide. And they wanted to work to do some refugee resettlement here in Alameda. We were enthusiastic about that proposal because the council did have its referral about assisting immigrant and refugee families. And we identified a house out at the base, one of the ranch houses that was not habitable because it needed foundation work. And we thought that would be a great opportunity to use CDBG funds to fix the Houses Foundation, have it become habitable, and then contract with the nonprofit to do refugee family resettlement on a transitional basis as families. Where we settled the house would then turn over and it would be able to serve another refugee family for the next 15 years. In November of 2017, the council approved that initiative, which we had anticipated might cost about $120,000. And unfortunately, just given the world of contracting and the world of getting bids, we we found that the cost of doing this work was $400,000. And we wanted to bring this item back to council and have the council weigh in if there was a desire to continue to move forward. We have these CDBG funds that are budgeted in the substantial rehab program. Under CDBG, the funds are budgeted and we can move forward. We have identified a contractor. We have the housing authority will project manage the project on behalf of the city and we can get the work done. And hopefully before November of 2019, we will be able to get a family into a house that is currently not habitable. So that is the request this evening for the council to authorize staff to move forward with the negotiation and award of the contract to to do this work. Thank you. And just to to amplify a little bit, the the bid that the lowest responsive bid you got was 400,000. And then a contingency fund of about $60,000 is added for unanticipated things that often come up in the course of construction. It's there, but then beyond the foundation work, then this nonprofit will step in to do the rest. They do, though, if you can imagine, the house has not been rented for several years. It needs new flooring, new carpeting, new painting, that kind of thing that the nonprofit working with congregants and that kind of thing will be taking on that additional work. Thank you very much. Nice job. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Yes, Miss Potter. Sorry. Oh, sorry. One quick. Note. Just to verify it's in the staff report, but I just want to make it clear for the public, this is not. There's no impact on the general fund. This is all out of CDBG funds, right? That is correct. Okay. So I'd like to move approval of the item. Second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Good work, Council, because this continues to be a very important issue. Okay. Moving on then to the regular agenda. The first item is adoption of resolutions, appointing members to a couple of of our commissions and boards. So we have resolutions appointing Amy Barnes to the Recreation and Parks Commission provider, right to the Social Service Human Relations Board and Rebecca Colston Parsons and Tina U.N. to the Transportation Commission. And are there any questions or comments from council move. Approval of the item? 1/2. All in favor. I. Okay. That passes unanimously. And do we have our four appointees here? I've seen some of them. Yeah. And I just want to say I'm so excited and enthused. We have some, for instance, Rebecca Coles, Jan Parsons, who is up here now, and I served on the Planning Commission together, but she's a seasoned veteran in the transportation industry. Prior to Wright, who is next to her, is going to be on our Social Services Human Relations Board. She is currently a caseworker, added Alameda Point Collaborative and has a wonderful life story herself and is bringing her talents to APEC in a year. And next to her is a rock star, a relatively new resident to Alameda, but works in the area of public transportation in city planning and is an avid public transit user herself. And Amy Barnes is a mother of young children, lives on the West End and very enthusiastic new member of our Recreation Parks Commission. So thank you all. And our city clerk will administer the oath to you. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you'll well and safely discharge the duties upon which are about to enter? I do. I do, yes. And and while they're getting there and signing their their certificates, I just want to encourage everyone who's in the audience and anyone who's listening to take a look at our city's website, look at our boards and commissions and see where you might find an area of interest, because these are very important boards and commissions that advise the city council. They they do policy work and whatever the Border Commission is. And I am constantly impressed and appreciative of the talent we have in this community and people's willingness to share their time and talent with their city. And if you all wanted to just really briefly say something, you could do it really briefly if you want to. Or not. Oh, a picture. Okay. Okay. So get turned around for a player to take your picture. Thanks. I like the way you are coordinated. The color. Yeah, that's important. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Okay, next step is item six.

Recommendation to request resolution in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act.

LongBeachCC_05192015_15-0462

Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Council member, Super Nine Council member, your UNGA recommendation to request a resolution in support of the James Zadroga 911 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act. Councilor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm honored to bring this item forward. This request tonight in support of the many responders and citizens who are infected, who are affected in the catastrophic and catastrophic days following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Not only were individuals within New York affected, but all other emergency responders who came from across the country to provide assistance at the disaster sites. Many of the responders and citizens affected continue to experience long term illnesses. An estimated 30,000 individuals remain ill as a result of the attack. Health conditions range from over 60 types of cancer, respiratory and gastrointestinal disease, physical ailments, psychological issues. In order to help these many individuals, Congress passed the James Zadroga 911 Health and Compensation Act in 2010, which establishes programs to provide medical treatment and financial compensation to these thousands of 9/11 survivors. So unfortunately, the bill is set to expire shortly. The World Trade Center health program finishes in October 2015 and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund October 2016. So the bill is up for reauthorization, and so we want to guarantee that victims continue to receive the necessary care. So I urge my colleagues to support this recommendation, to adopt this resolution in support of the reauthorization of the Act. Councilwoman Gonzales. I really want to thank you for bringing this forward. It's it's really important that we recognize this and that we support this. So thank you. Councilman Andrew. Thank you very much. You know, I'm in total support of this item. We have two members of our Long Beach firefighters. You know, who was helped and recovery from the effort of the 911. You know, one of those four New York firemen and the other came from San Diego to work at Ground Zero. They now search the Long Beach, you know, fire department. So we need to make sure that they are taken care of. I think this is extremely important. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? Rex Pritchard, president of Long Beach firefighters. One of the thing, Councilman Richardson, for bringing this forward and the coauthors. Yes, there are. Like Councilman Andrew said, we do have. Two Long Beach firefighters who. Go for yearly checkups and numerous firefighters throughout the county. So this is a nationwide issue. And I appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment, please go and cast your votes. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Next up, we have the end of the end of the agenda. Do any other new business? Q. There isn't a 26 is it. It's not in my. Is there. Is there another item. No. Yep. Councilman Gonzales.

Recommendation to receive and file the results of the user fee and cost recovery studies for the Energy Resources and Public Works Departments and associated departmental recommendations. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02012022_22-0113

I received. Thank you. Item 26 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive and file the results of the user fee and cost recovery studies for the Energy, Resources and Public Works Department citywide. So, Mr. Mayor, we've done this several times with the council over the last probably two years where we pick a department and we go through and we do a really in-depth analysis of the fee structure of what a service costs and what a fee should be set at and determining the right subsidy level. And so we do have a presentation for you tonight. We have gone in-depth into public works and energy resources. You're not adopting or approving any fees tonight. Tonight is the ability to get informed on the work, to ask us questions, to raise any concerns you have. And then we'll come back in April with the actual fee increases and changes. And so I will be turning the presentation over to our finance team to walk through it with the departments. Great. Thanks, Tom. This is Grace. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the city council. As Tom mentioned, this is our second round of the city wide field study and has been completed for two departments, public works and energy resources. And as Tom mentioned, there are no actual changes to the master fee and charges schedule being proposed tonight. But again, the purpose of today's presentation is to provide you all with an overview and an opportunity to make comments, and we will come back for formal approval on April 12th. So with that, I will pass it over to Geraldine Vallejo, our revenue officer, who will be first providing a general background on fees and the citywide fee study. Then we will turn the presentation over to public works and energy resources will each go over the highlights of their department's study findings and their recommended fee changes. Thank you, Grace. If I can get next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the city council. As a reminder, fees and charges include two types of categories user fees and regulatory fees, both of which are included in the city wide measure fees and charges, schedule rent and penalties are also included in master fees and charges. Schedule for convenience, but are not subject to the cost of service limitations. Next slide. User fees and regulatory fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or program. City policy requires that fees are set at the cost of service, except where there is a greater public benefit using a lower fee . As the department presentations will highlight. This includes pandemic related financial hardship and maintaining and encouraging access to popular services. Next slide. The city currently has routine processes in place to ensure that these are reviewed and updated regularly to capture annual cost increases. The city implements an annual inflation adjustment based on city cost increases called the City Cost Index. The master fees and charges schedules are adopted each year with the budget with any proposed changes by the departments and CPI updates. Mid-Year adjustments are also periodically submitted to City Council. The next citywide fee adjustment letter will be presented to City Council on April 12. Next time. Each Fee Adjustment Council letter includes an estimated revenue impact from proposed changes. The revenue impacts are theoretical and may not necessarily result in a budgeted revenue change by the same amount. Any adjustments to actual budgeted revenues must be evaluated holistically and consider a variety of factors such as the stability and certainty of the revenue source, as well as whether the department is meeting its current overall budgeted revenue commitments. This review and update is typically part of the overall budget development process. Next slide. The next slide. As a reminder, in fiscal year 19 and at council's direction, staff initiated an updated city wide study. Each department study will identify and review the fees charged, calculate the full service cost, determine intervention rates by comparing fee revenue to the full cost of service and provide recommendations or fee levels or structures. Next slide. This is a multiyear project, and the project continues to move forward with city manager departments anticipated to be completed by the end of 2022. The first round concluded in fiscal year 21 and covered development services, parks and a portion of health. The second round includes energy, resources and public works. We'll be presenting study findings and department recommendations today. The third round is in progress and includes by our city manager and the remainder of Health and Human Services. Preliminary results and department recommendations are anticipated for summer 2022. Next slide. The consultant applied a consistent methodology across all department studies. Cost components are based on the 21 budget and includes direct costs and indirect costs. The cost components are then included into a fully burdened hourly rate per position. The allocated cost is determined by multiplying the fully paid in hourly rate to the staff time spent to support each service. After the fully allocated service cost is determined, it is compared to current fee revenues to identify the source of the revised service. Next ranks. This table is a summary of the cost, recovery and subvention rates per department and shows that the city is under-recovery for calculated service cost by 2.4 million. More information will be included as part of the fee department presentations. The cost and subvention rates are reported as general service categories or areas. Next site. The departments have reviewed the results of the studies and have the same recommendations. The majority of department recommendations align with the study but do deviate in some cases based on prioritizing different goals other than full cost recovery, as I noted earlier. These factors will be noted as part of each departmental presentation. Next slide. The departments will share more information on the recommendations. But to summarize here, the first table is a summary of the department's 22 midyear recommendations, which include no changes to current fees, rate increases and decreases. New and revised fee structures to align the services. And finally, there are fee deletions related to revised fee structures, as well as clean up to fees schedules for services no longer provided by the city. The department recommendations are anticipated to result in a theoretical annual revenue impact of $334,777, which will be reviewed during the budget process and will vary based on usage and market or economic conditions. Next. This concludes this overview. I will now turn it over to Joshua Hickson of the Public Works Department for an overview of study findings and the department's recommendations for fiscal year 22. All right. Good evening. Thank you for that overview, Geraldine. And good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. The next time, please. Perfect. Thank you. The Pew study before you here tonight is really focused around the public works fees that are recovered based on the cost of services provided. So this study does not include fees related to reviews which are being studied separately as part of another effort and other fees that are not determined based on cost of services . Next slide, please. So the study's broken down. Into four different groups and overall the current fees are below the cost of service provided. Note The one exception is traffic engineering services, which we'll dove into a little bit further on a future slide. Next slide. In aggregate, taking into account the. Fee increases, the decreases in the percentage of cost recovery that Geraldine had had mentioned. Theoretically, the recommendations, if approved, could have a positive revenue impact of over 400,000. Next slide, please. So a couple of key items that we want you to consider. The proposed changes further enhance and streamline our planning, checking, permitting and inspection efforts that have been underway for the last couple of years. The commonly requested items that we receive, such as curb painting, have been added and the costs have been spread out over the next three years to avoid a steep increase given the importance of these items to the community. And finally want to highlight the traffic control plan review is separate from the planned check the as currently outlined in the current schedule. This recommendation will reflect the true cost of services which are actually higher than the cost of service today. Next slide, please. So roughly a quarter of the fees are recommended to be decreased based on processing efficiencies. Since the last study, a quarter are recommended to be removed to align with the current business practices. And you can see a couple examples here on the slide. Next slide, please. Another quarter are recommended to increase for full cost recovery. And approximately the last quarter of the fees are new fees or a restructure to existing fees to better align with today's current operations and to continue providing the critical services to the community. Next slide, please. So in. Summary, if. The recommendations are approved, the public works fees will be in line with or slightly lower than other local agencies. And this concludes the public works portion of the presentation. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Tony Foster with energy resources so he can move forward with presenting his portion of the presentation. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm here with our utility services office serving some of our teenagers to present a brief overview of the Energy Resources Department. Cost Recovery Fees, study results. Next slide, please. I'll keep it on the slide. Currently, Energy Resources lists 81 fees on the master fees and charges schedule. 75 of those fees are reviewed under this cost of services study. The remaining the remaining six fees were not included in the study because those are not what we call customer facing fees, but are rather related to internal administrative fees that do not impact cost to gas utility customers or ratepayers. The subject fees being discussed here fall across four service categories construction and pipeline, gas services, engineering and Construction and Utility Services. Call center of these fees, the overall department cost recovery is 85%. Therefore, subvention currently falls at 15%. Next slide, please. Okay. This matrix illustrates cost recovery intervention rates at current levels across the four service categories by revenue and by percentage of total service costs across all four categories. The total calculated cost of services was 9.8 million, of which 8.3 million was collected, yielding a subvention of 1.5 million or 85% recovery. This is the first time, to our knowledge, that a study of this type has been performed. So as you can see, the cost of recovery by service categories are not uniform. Next slide, please. All right. Based on the energy resources cost recovery frame, study results. Staff recommends proceeding with 56 rate changes in order to recoup costs and maintain operational needs. If all of the study recommendations were to be accepted, the estimated theoretical revenue impact is $8,675. In other words, energy resources would collect roughly 80,000 more than it currently qualifies. However, Energy Resources staff emphasized that this theoretical increase would present a hardship for many of the gas utility customers and ratepayers and support a partial acceptance of these recommended changes. The recommended total theoretical impact based on partial acceptance of the recommended changes is projected to reduce the pension to $104,525 based upon certain assumed variables such as the number of certain services or projects undertaken. In other words, based on the partial acceptance of the recommendations, if the projected number of product projects and services is accurate, energy services subvention losses fall to under $34,000. Next slide, please. Again, full cost recovery is not being recommended for all fees as some relate to. Utility. Ratepayers and department staff strongly believe that increasing these rates would cause a hardship to our customers during the rebound period from the COVID 19 pandemic and should therefore be delayed. The decision to proceed with changes to 56 fee items is based on infrastructure and operational needs as identified by the study. It is related to new construction, engineering projects, gas meter purchase and installations driven by requests for new services. For example, no contract or developer developers request for new gas services. Next slide, please. The next two slides summarize energy resources staff recommendations by change, which, for example, increase or decrease, no change and so on. So let's look at no change. Of the 17 fees recommended not to change, eight in the gas services and utility services were validated as accurate and are currently at cost. Recovery nine Gas services and utility services fees are recommended by staff to hold at current levels for the future, i.e. post-pandemic for review by staff and present. Tony. I think you got muted. Oh, I'm sorry. That's odd. So let's just start going with slide 30 here, if that's okay with you. So for the Fiji decrees, three fees in the engineering and construction services are recommended to decrease to better align with cost recovery and operational need. 16 fees and the gas services segment are recommended to increase to better align with cost recovery and operational need and 35 fees across all energy resource services areas are recommended for restructure to better align with the provision of service. The detailed breakdown of these fees are presented in the attachment. B2 Next slide. The Energy Resources Department's rate structure does not easily compare across utilities in other jurisdictions. A primary reason for jurisdictional uniqueness is due to the specific policy goals and objectives of each city or utilities governing body. And it's important to note, however, that energy resources does consider consumer utility costs as they relate to the Southern California Gas Company to ensure fair and equitable rates. Specific fees are not compared to so-called gas, as energy resources is a municipality as opposed to an investor owned utility and therefore mandated to follow specific local and state guidelines . And this concludes our report, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Tony. So to wrap up this presentation and summary, three key points. The city is generally under-recovery for cost based on the study done for public works and energy resources. E through departments have proposed recommendations that generally align with the study's finding for full cost recovery. Exceptions to full cost recovery is based on the prioritization of other goals, such as resident's needs and the ability to pay and maintaining access to popular city services. And lastly, the theoretical revenues potentially generated from the proposed fee changes will be evaluated and included as appropriate as part of the proposed budget process in line with our financial policy. And again, we'll come back we're scheduled to come back April 12th, where city council can officially adopt these changes at that stage. This concludes the presentation. And Geraldine, the department and I are available for questions. If you have a motion by Councilmember Ringo to make it a second place. Second Bay Councilmember Sara Canterbury Aranda. Examiner During the presentation I saw some of my questions were answered in regards to where we stand with a market study in terms of where our fees lie compared to our competitors or our neighboring cities. Are we competitive? Are we in line? Or what's what's the status of our fees as compared to those of other jurisdictions? Geraldine? Yes. Council member. Each department presentation included the the comparison to comparable jurisdictions. And in it we found that we were generally inline, but it will depend on particular services or areas that you are inquiring about. So if you had a specific area as part of this presentation, will be happy to have the department answer that. Service calls an example. So, for example, getting on certain stuff is good. We're not changing the rules. Yeah, but those remain the same. And in short, they are comparable to other jurisdictions, in our case, Southern California Gas Company. Yes, it's a careful analysis because while we the city charter does mandate that our rates are comparable to their rates, their rates do bake in some cost of services, like turn on turnovers. As you mentioned, our laws do not. So it's not quite apples to apples, but we are mindful of equitable charges for our services. Q What do you see as challenges in the future as we continue with this pandemic? Should it go on another another year or even possibly two? That's a great question. You know, we the state is not giving much guidance as to when we can end moratoriums. In a in a recent memorandum that's coming to you, we plan to end our moratoriums against shutoffs no earlier than June of this year. So with that, you know, as our arrearages continue to grow, you know, we need to try to be mindful of maintaining operations. And it's going to be a balancing act to make sure that we're mindful of hardships to customers but being whole as a as a gas utility. So we'll just move forth cautiously. We're awaiting some assistance from the state in terms of mitigating some of those arrearages. And then when we can finally return to the end of moratorium and. Have a tool to encourage payments will be in a better position to evaluate what total cost of services will be. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have there. Council member, Sarah. Thank you, Mayor. So I definitely understand why we need to make sure that we are evaluating if our fees are ensuring that we're breaking pretty much a balance of it being even and not. And but at the same time, it's always hard when we have to increase fees, especially when it's things like and you know, that impacts the quality of life of our residents that could range from, you know, parking permit, driveway parking permit to, you know, driveway type repaint and all of that. So I'm just wondering how how, how, how, how would we go about making sure that the fees, like some of them, they're increased by almost 50%, if not some higher, and there's some 82 where it's recommended to lower fee. So I'm just wondering, at what point do you decide, hey, we're going to maybe break those costs out over a number a year? Or like, for example, is it the percent threshold that you say, well, we're going to break them up into two years increment of how we increase it, 25%, one year and then 25 the next. And I'm just wondering how how would we go about making sure it doesn't impact people kind of kind of shop in the fees changing and also making it kind of palatable for for residents. Well, with regard to the gas fees, yes, Councilwoman Sara, we're very mindful of that. And so any fee that throwback recommended for a substantial increase, we will defer those increases and implement them slowly so as not to be an undue hardship on ratepayers. Some fees we are quite happy to keep at current levels simply because we can maintain operations at those subvention levels. But where we are massively under collective, we do need to slowly roll in. So to better. Manage the cost of our services. Thank you. What about public works? Is that similar or because there's there's a lot of things here that might. You know, removing certain things that you in the city like in front of businesses as well. I'm just wondering, is that the same approach to. It is the same approach. Yes. And as far as implementing over a period of time, specifically for a couple of those items that you mentioned, the the curb painting and the the other items there, we are facing those in over a period of three years. So it'll be one third each year over the next three years, which would then get us to two whole in year three moving forward. Yeah, because I didn't realize there was 175 per location and then it would be increased to 325 just to do a painting, a driveway like painting the red. Right, kind of red, what you call red tips, right? Yeah, that's correct. So the study takes into account all of the efforts to actually get out there and do it, including the labor and the materials. The existing fee is currently 175 for the driveway tips and the repaint is 87. So the RCC study did recommend a higher fee to recover those costs, but we do understand it was a pretty significant increase and therefore our phasing it in over the three year period. And thank you so much. Thank you. I have council member Austin. Thank you so much for the presentation and I do understand, you know, the need and I do I think we need to be smarter as a city in terms of, you know, recuperating our our cost for poor services. At the same time, I'm also mindful of the fact that we are not for profit entity. And many of the services that we provide as a city will never bring the cost for. And that is that that goes along with public works and our gas and energy, energy and gas departments, but with several other departments as well . I am. And I guess it may be lost on some, but for me I'm concerned. Any time we're talking about raising rates or fees on the gas, the increase in gas fees for services has me a little concerned because of where we are right now with the the the rates going up and increasing literally. At the same time, I think to to councilmember sorrows point, you know, children are concerned about the impacts on our our lower income residents and those seniors who are on fixed incomes and who are being challenged with those of. The rising price of natural gas. But also, you know, now the city is is looking at raising fees for various services. And so, you know, I would ask that we would be doing very, very well with extreme caution here and being very sensitive to the those of those individuals who we all represent, say senior citizens, low income families who would be impacted by by these fees, rates and or fee increases. Also wanted to. And I. Raise this issue with the city manager a little earlier. But I think it's worthy, too, for a public discussion here. You know, some of the services that our public works department provides are obviously indirect services to businesses and residents. But, you know, we as city council members, we may get a complaint. We may be responding to a constituent request or just a notice, for example, you know, painting curves in a business district. Right. Anything, you know, of green curves. Of red curves. These are these are things that we don't necessarily you know, they're not celebrated and talked about. The city council members have to be attentive to those those issues, particularly in support of our our businesses, communities and where it relates to the safety of it in those those areas . My question to the city staff is how if a city council office would request those type of services, are we going to be charged to see a budget that we may control for such fees? Or is it coming from somewhere else? Can't remember. This is Eric Lopez. I know you won't be charged. We still have our regular maintenance crews that do street maintenance that will handle some of these requests. This is for either more regular service from, say, an apartment complex or another private property owner. Not for our regular maintenance. So no, you will not get charged for the regular work will still continue repairs incurred in our right away and maintaining them. This is this is just an added an added work to recover some fees for working extra work. Well, thank you for the clarification. It helps a lot, you know, from time to time. You know, Mr. Lopez, you know, we have a request, special request waiting in the alley. Know whatever it may be, sometimes those photos or even of speed bumps. Right. Because those those those are those works. Those come from our our our our district budgets. All right. I just wanted to get some clarification and show that this was a where we were going. So thank you so much for that. Again, like I say, my concerns, you know, please do not take this into account. Are our rate increases or fee increases for for those who are already rate payers or for gas and energy who are lowest income. I think we need to build in some small provisions to account for those type of hardships. Thank you. Councilman. Awesome. Thank you so much for your comments. I just really want to emphasize that of the proposed fee increases, none of them are to individual ratepayers. All of the increases are directed at construction and new development in fee increases. Nothing to that an individual gas ratepayer would incur. I definitely appreciate that clarification. Thank you. If you count on her supernova. Thank you staff for the report. I have kind of a general question and I hope there's a simple answer, but my question is, how do we how did we get to this point? I, I just to foster use the phrase areas where we are massively interconnected. So if we have a city price index, I'm just wondering how we get so far behind. I assume that might be due to regulations that you're subject to. But if there's a simple answer, I would like to hear it. Council member. So our last piece of citywide study that we had was back in 2006. So fast forward to now, it is through this citywide study where we are taking a very close look at our fees and charges and realigning to the cost of service. So it's been some time and even in the interim, we do have the routine processes in place for us to review as well as the city cost index. The city cost index is a general inflator that is applied to all departments, are all applicable fees and of course that's captured across all departments versus this more specific in-depth study per department at the service level area. Okay. So if I hear you correctly, it's it's it's the the time passage that has done this. So we 2006, that's a while back. So if we did this on a more regular, consistent basis, we probably wouldn't fall this far behind. That is correct. Councilmember And I do want to note that following the completion of the study, there is a cost of service model that will be available to departments as applicable. And as we move forward, departments will be able to reassess their cost and then also their levels of fees and charges. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilmember Allen. Inky so much. I just have a couple of questions. I thank everyone for the presentation. I am with regards to temporary no parking fines. Does that fee change also apply to no parking fines related to neighborhood cleanups or community events? Absolutely. It does not apply. So the idea that it does not apply. Okay, great. Thank you. And then also, Bob, thank you for your your informative presentation. I wanted to ask if your team has looked into subsidizing like home weatherization, like insulating attics or the walls as a way to incentivize gas uses reduction in older homes. I see Bob's on the line, but I can I can answer that question. The short answer is yes. We do have several home efficiency programs that are available offering rebates and in-house services to help customers be more efficient in their consumption of natural gas. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Very public comment. On this report. If there's any members of the public who'd like to speak on this item, please press star nine or use the right hand function. Our first speaker is Dave Shuker. Good evening. Nice to see this agenda. Right after the previous item. Can you hear me? Yes. We hear you. Thank you for confirming. So. We're talking about gas and energy, but not specifically about which utilities other than gas, not electricity, not waste services refuse collection. It'd be nice to only see some more specificity, but how these different institutions relate in the city now specifically calling for a market study for comparisons is a very good idea. And yes, it depends on which particular services the city kind of wants. This is something I think community choice aggregations as well as the DWP. I mean, there's different models, but more integrated models are just better for, you know, deployment. They're they're more effective. They're faster, more responsive. The community owned and controlled the city owns its own assets. It's something I got to keep telling you until we're entirely corporatized. Um. What else? Oh, yeah. So, what are the big things that I wanted to say on this item when I first read it last night was that I'd like to see some dark sky principles for our city lighting and city contracts with lighting. Look at Pittsburgh as a comparison. It works for safety. It works for cost. It works for the environment. There's a lot of things in the city that we could do. But again, you know, we need to. We need to we need to do so. Here is an immediate truth and reconciliation freebie. It's not a rape, nor is it a read. A real estate investment trust. Moderate. But you could restructure measure U.S.. To be in line with signal. That's that there was a missed opportunity. Putting it indexing it to the consumer price index instead of the producer price index. And that would more than double the money, especially now that we're going to have a period of ramp up in the markets, even though we shouldn't. With oil and gas, this is the year. Ladies and gentlemen, science tells us we should stop oil and gas. Period. So every moment that you delay is something that you know you're doing wrong. And it's important to say that on the record. But yeah, you know, if we're going to keep using oil, tax it properly and let us use those moneys properly. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Roll call vote, please. District one. My district to my district three I. District four. I. District five I, District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. I. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary documents including any necessary subsequent amendments, with Home Depot U.S.A., of Atlanta, GA, for furnishing and delivering maintenance, repair, and operations supplies and miscellaneous materials on an as-needed basis, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Maricopa County, AZ, through Omnia Partners, in a total annual amount of $1,000,000, with a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $200,000, for a total annual contract amount not to exceed $1,200,000, until the Omnia Partners contract expires on December 31, 2026, with the option to renew for as long as the Omnia Partners contract is in effect, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0933

Thank you. Number 23, please. Item 23 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to Adobe Resolution Authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Home Depot USA for furnishing and delivering materials on an as needed basis, literally in a total annual amount and not to exceed 1.2 million. Thank you. Moving in second in any public comment on this. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 23 in person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature. See. Now, that concludes public comments. Thank you, members. Please cast your vote. As Women's Sunday has. I. Councilwoman Allen. I can't. WOMAN Price. I. Councilman Spinner. Councilwoman Mango. Hi. Councilwoman Sara I Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. The motion is 87 zero.

Authorizes amendments to the Series 2007 G1-G2 Airport System Supplemental Bond Ordinance for the purposes of extending the maturity and deferring principal on the corresponding bonds. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Authorizes amendments to the Series 2007 G1-G2 Airport System Supplemental Bond Ordinance for the purposes of extending the maturity and deferring principal on the corresponding bonds. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill on consent on 11-13-14.

DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0985

It has been moved. We just need a second has been moved in second and comments from members of council Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. These are all ordinances relating to a series of bonds, a DEA that are being restructured and much like Groundhog Day. This is the same issue again. We have already had two of these ordinances go through and these six are stretching out the debt another six years. So essentially, we can give a package of rewards to United Airlines for 35 million and the other airlines all sharing in 10 million. I didn't like it before. I don't like it tonight. Thank you, counsel, in advance. Any other comments or questions from members of counsel's? Well, that same number voted on 95 to 9090 in a block. Madam Secretary. Roll call. But no. Can each layman I. Monteiro Nevitt. Pi. Ortega. I Rob Sheppard. I Susman. Brooks Brown. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results. 11 Eyes one Name. Webinars 1819 985 through 990 have been published in a block. Madam Secretary, can you take up the next one, which should be 1057? Councilman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this? Please put it on the floor for a vote.

Recommendation to Develop a Work Plan, including Community Dialogue, to Address the Following: 1. Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the Police Department; 2. Systemic Racism; 3. a Review of Police Department Policies and Practices; 4. Police Department Accountability and Oversight; 5. a Review of Laws that Criminalize Survival; and 6. Other Matters which may be Pertinent, including Vacancies. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_06292020_2020-8095

Our recommendation tonight is to continue to develop a work plan, including the community participation components for the topic areas around the police department policies that we've been discussing. Also review other systemic issues that the Council has identified to date as a starting point for tonight's discussion. Staff is suggesting that we might move forward with two rounds or tranches of work. The first grouping would be our review of police policies and reimagining our police department and related services all in one bundle of the topics that have been identified by the City Council for consideration to date. We see the following topics possibly fitting into this first tranche of work. So first, it would be the review of use of force policies where the public participation and review of options could be implemented as soon as later this year and possibly into next year. And this really does tie back to the mayor's pledge, where we committed to review, engage, report and reform with respect to those use of force policies. Simultaneously. We believe that we can be working on a second topic, which is review police accountability and oversight options, where we see the possibility of working with the City Council and the community in the coming months to identify and consider options with a target to implement those changes with the 2020 122 budget, if not sooner. And the third police related item is considering unbundling police services where we would explore options in the coming months, make possible near-term changes in connection with our budget as soon as this October, when we do our first first quarter review, which is what we've committed to do as part of the budget process, and then we'd be able to fully link those service changes as we develop the 2021 and 22 budget process. So with that, with that work fully underway, staff is suggesting that we might see a second round of work that would follow in early 2021, where we would review laws that criminalize survival, which is another topic area that that was brought forward. We would envision making any changes to those local laws as appropriate. And there's a strong possibility that we'll see we'll gain insights from our our work on bundling police services and possibly some of the other police related work that we would be doing. And then advocating for state and federal legislative changes with cities 2021 and 22 legislative platform. There are obviously a lot of different ways that we might move forward with that work, so we put that forward as one possibility for Council's consideration. We have not incorporated an approach to addressing systemic racism for the organization or the broader community at this time, or any other topic that council may wish to incorporate going forward. So we we are looking for additional direction in those areas tonight. And to get this work done, we'd be looking for council input and direction on our approach to the public participation process, including our process for convening and engaging with the community on an ongoing basis for these for these various topic areas. There are a number of options here as well. I'll suggest a few possibilities that might be appropriate to apply to five or six of the topic areas or to the two broad groupings that I just outlined for the for the presentation this evening. There is the possibility of creating multiple council led committees with support from staff for each of those committees. Council might ask the mayor to appoint a subcommittee to oversee and guide the public process for various topics. Council could create a task force or possibly two to work through these various topic areas. Or council may have other ideas for us to approach the public engagement component of this work and to develop the various options under each topic area. So with that, I'll conclude staff's presentation this evening and make make us available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bowden, for that report. So, Councilor, at this time, do we have any clarifying questions of Mr. Bowden before we get to our public comment? Mr. Rowley, I see your hand up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks. Assistant City Manager. Um, this is partly a question. Um. I guess when we talk about systemic racism, uh, are we looking at this as a broader society, you know, maybe a citywide issue and not focusing specifically on, you know, accusing the police department or officers in our police department of, you know, being racist. I just want to be clear on what it is that we're looking at. Yeah, I think so far. And I'll defer to the city manager if I if I if I don't hit the nail right on the head. We've heard it to be a conversation about either organizationally or with the community. This this has not been that particular component of the work program has not been directed toward the police department. It has been a kind of a level up organizationally as the city of Alameda and then as the broader community. And that's really why it's not embedded in the the work plan this evening is to further discuss that. Okay. So do you think it would be helpful in the future? You know, that would be kind of bifurcate that from an agenda that talks about, you know, for lack of a better word, police reform. So there's not a confusion that we're just focusing on one particular department. Yeah. I think that the work plan could do that going forward. Okay. Thank you. Hey, is that it for you even study? Oh, yes. I'm sorry, I forgot. Yeah, I suppose we'll get the hand signal. Dad? Yeah? Sorry to pitch the pitcher to the catcher. All those things. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, any other hands up before we get to our public comment? I'm not seeing any. So, Madam Clerk, how many. How many public comments have you received so far? We have received ten. And we have one. Okay. About five people waiting to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Ten. Okay. So ten written comments and another ten waiting to speak. That is correct. Okay. So that's 20 speakers. So then our rule of 10 minutes per speaker applies. So with that, we will take are you going to take the live speakers first? How are you doing this? Yes, we will take the live speakers first. Thank you. I mean, they're all life, but. Yes, but the ones who are waiting to speak in person. Thank you. Okay. And I announced that the most current version of Zoom is needed to be able to speak. So any attendees wishing to speak, you can raise your hands now. And the first speaker is Ben Kaleka. Hello. Morning, Ms.. Is it Kaleka? Kaleka? Yes, I. Got it right after the Holocaust. So there's a lot of debate about about how we end up solving these particular sorts of problems. And obviously, if we're trying to put into place something that lasts for, you know, another couple hundred years, hopefully we want to take that time to do it properly. But I think that there are some things that we could codify now in terms of what the goals and the measurements are or whatever the thing is in the next over the next time. And those are those the things that we could all agree on. So, you know, just to go through it specifically, things like, you know, making sure the acceptable behavior stops, which means defining what that is and saying that, you know, by this time next year, you know, there are, you know, more than X number of incidents. You know, that that there is, you know, whatever that entity is, you know, we're not we're the victim within a certain number of incidents when there are incidents that are means to to go through those. Number two is and really stating it out, both in terms of the specifics and in terms of the philosophy that must be , you know, that we expect from the people that are representing us, too, is the notion of there being a protocol transparency. So setting up a requirement for whatever entities, including the ones we have now that treats the gun the in the way that other government or government agencies are treated so that things are allowed to be publicly accessible unless there is a very real reason not to be in. That reason is enforced by somebody that is a third party. That also includes making sure that all officers have body cams and those that, you know, if they're on duty, they have body cams. And if not, it's assumed that whatever time you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Lauren Salima. Welcome. It's Salem, actually. Hi. So I am Salem. Yes, yes, yes. It's just like the town where the witch trials. Um. Um. Okay, so I don't have any specific comments about how to go about the process of doing that, but I just wanted to speak to the importance and the urgency with which we need to do this work, and specifically with the unbundling of police services and police accountability. I was very troubled by the recent article in the Chronicle about the settlement reached with Shelby and his mother after he was killed by the Army at a police department in December of 2018. Um, Mr. Gordon, he was not black, but I think it does really highlight the serious problems that we have with using our police. To. Help with mentally ill people in our community. And it's a very real need. We have to unbundle those services and find a new way of dealing with the mentally ill and other people in our community who need help but unfortunately criminal. Um, I wrote an article recently in Life magazine that said that mentally ill people are 16 times more likely to be killed by police officers, and one in four people killed by police in 2015 had a serious mental illness. So I just want to make sure we all know the urgency of this work that we're doing. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Our next speaker. Jason Horvath. Hello. Hi, counsel. My name is Jason Horvath, and I'm one of your police officers. I'd like to address the decision that was made recently to force us to get rid of our emergency response armored vehicle. I'd like to talk a little bit about what that vehicle is. The purpose behind it and why it's a valuable lifesaving tool that we should absolutely keeping our toolbox. Despite uninformed opinions, I've heard voiced in recent council meetings the emergency response vehicle, or for short, as we call it, is not a tank. It has no offensive capabilities and is essentially an armored ambulance in the event of a school shooting or other active shooter event. It is a way officers can respond to the scene with a little bit of extra protection to keep people safe in the event civilians or officers have been shot and the shooter is still active. The Earth can be positioned between the shooter and the victim to allow a slightly safer rescue. Our regular patrol cars do not provide anywhere near the level of protection the Earth does when responding to critical incidents. It seems to me this decision was made purely on emotion. Well, casting logic, reason and facts to the wind when creating public policy that is terrifying. The only reason I can think of that inspired getting rid of it is it looked scary and any perceived militarization of police. Again, the vehicle has no offensive capabilities and exists to get people safely into and out of dangerous situations. It's already paid for. So what legitimate, logical reason is there to take it away and make my job more dangerous? We are the ones who run into gunfire to save lives when other when others run away. Don't take away a shield that makes it a little safer for us to do that, because it might be your child or your loved one or you that we are unable to rescue. Thank you. Thank you, sir Horvath. Our next speaker. Janice Anderson. Welcome. Tennis, maybe? Yes, to me. Hi. Thank you. Um, thank you for hearing our concerns. I am hopeful that you will take our suggestions and feedback seriously as we move forward to change policing in our community. First, I wholeheartedly support the call from ACLU. People Power to defund the police budget by 50%. Despite publicity attempts to emphasize a few recent incidents of crime, we would have in a relatively safe city and do not require the militarized force that our tax dollars currently pay for and the interest of current and future budgetary concerns. I also support the funding the pay of officers involved in the detainment of Mr. Watkins pending independent review. I also would like to see action taken towards a more thorough investigation of the death of the Forgotten Me in 2018, which resulted in a six figure settlement. Perhaps further dismissals of officers involved in that would offer budgetary saving as details are worked out and finalized and creating oversight. I have several concerns. Primarily about this process itself. My hope is that we set clear dates and benchmarks to support a process of valuable change instead of making commitments to make plans to make change. I also have concerns about the makeup of such an oversight committee, figuring it would end up being establishment members who are resistant to new community leadership and ideas. I also. Very. Very. Serious concerns about what kind of power such an oversight committee would have to implement change in a police department that seems accustomed to a level of autonomy few departments have. For example, if we a civilian for civilian committee can't oversee things like use of force, what coin is there and having one? I look forward to continuing to see a commitment from all of you dedicated to making important changes. In this community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Anderson. Our next speaker. Cherrie Johansen. Hello, Mr. Hansen. I am. Oh, counseling. And there I am delighted that you are listening to us again. And I'm hoping that we will have come to some really solid, progressive actions from from all of the comments. I, too, was taken aback by the story in the Chronicle about Mr. Dutton. BE And what disturbs me the most is that that was a fairly recent incident and I really feel like if we're going to move forward, we have to have information on what's happened before. And I would like to know if this was a. How many of these incidences have happened where we've had to pay out for. Civil. Rights? That's what we paid the mother $250,000. For. Violation of. Her son's civil. Rights. And also that brings to mind about what kinds of procedures happened after that event. If we paid out the money, what happened to the officers? Was there a discipline? Are they still in the force? Um. Did we do training? What procedures were put in place? And, um, I also was wondering if an EMT is called automatically on these kinds of calls. Um, so I know that, um, the chief is very proud of the fact that there hasn't been a shooting death, which I think is, is admirable. But, um. George Floyd wasn't shot. He wasn't shot. And, quite frankly, Mr. Watkins wasn't shot. And we're still talking about the police abuse of power. So I'm hoping going forward that will have some real teeth where we can have accountability and transparency. Thank you. Thank. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Our next speaker is Laura Cutrone. Welcome. Hi. Hi. Hello, Mayor and City Council. I want to meet a resident. I applaud your intentional approach to enact needed change that will ensure the safety of our black and brown neighbors. As you create a work plan. I implore you to proceed with these things in mind to build trust and to make lasting, impactful change. One listen to act. And three, be accountable. Listen, Vice Mayor Knox White's plan outlines the steering committee selection and community participation. Systemic racism perpetuates distrust in a system that was designed to keep community members of color down. So there needs to be time and attention spent building trust. The community needs to hear you, to hear what they need and how they have been impacted by past actions. Please, please, please trust their experience and don't question it. Even if it's hard to hear. Act. Shifting from talk to action is absolutely critical. Without action and change, this work plan becomes a meaningless performance. A commitment to reduce APD budget by a specific percentage will set the precedent that the steering committee's recommendations will be taken seriously. Be accountable. Give the steering committee leverage so that their recommendations can be enacted. That's also the foundation for change and increase accountability to the community. I also question City Council's objectivity as council members take donations or are affiliated with public safety unions, not accepting donations will build the community's trust. Thank you so much for your continued, difficult and necessary work to make the city, our city, a place that we are so proud to live in. Thank you for your comments. And our next speaker is Jonas Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin. Thank you, Madam Chair and council members, I appreciate the opportunity to address you this evening. There's a some dots to connect tonight going from just recent thoughts of the killing, the tragic killing of George Floyd, the unjustified detention of Molly Watkins and her own streets, the racist graffiti this weekend, which was just, just stunning and upsetting. And then the other tragedy happening right now in San Quentin, one quarter of the prison population that's gone and the population is having people killed. It's distressing. And what we know now through our COVID experience is significant. Change can happen. It can be done. And I'm so glad that you've got this on your agenda and you're keeping it moving forward. I have a couple of specific points to address. I fully agree that the review of laws that criminalize survival can be put off. Most of those laws are state laws. That's not something the council can change anyway in the short term. More importantly, in terms of community participation in a committee, yes, we are a robust process, inclusive, fact based. I would urge against a council led commission or committee maybe something that is community led, citizen led. In terms of inclusivity, we need obviously a significant presence of people of color who have that life experience. I would also suggest you might look for individuals who are formerly incarcerated and have that experience of having been through that system. And then in terms of unbundling, and that's maybe the biggest, biggest question I want to address tonight. I fully support blowing up the system, looking at the community needs, and then creating what you would do if you were to start from scratch in terms of how you deliver services. Build it from scratch and then implement it. You can't do that overnight, but you could at least tonight. Thank you, Mr. Silence. Our next speaker. James Bergquist. Hello, Mr. Bergquist. Hi. I'm sorry. This is actually just like a chat. Oh, hello. Welcome. Hi. My name's Lester Urrutia. I'm a ten year resident and I live here with my family. I hear a lot of people say that they need police, that it's not possible to defund or unbundle. But I think we need to take a moment to realize what this means and to recognize the history. Policing as an institution was built on racist ideals and principles. To assume that these are no longer relevant or inaction is simply naive and privileged. Black and brown people on this island have countless stories of racist encounters with the police, some of which were shared at previous meetings. The problem isn't only the police, but we all note the racist citizens that also call the police. We don't need so much money in our budget going towards police. And previously Councilmember O.D. talked at length about how maybe training would be useful. But I disagree. And there are countless stories and data about how trainings actually do not. Fix. These situations and they just waste money. Anyone can Google what it means to defund the police and what redirecting that money would go toward. And I'm very concerned about the previous officer's statements a few minutes ago. I highly doubt the herb was being used in Oakland riots as a shield to help people. And that same problematic rhetoric is what put cops in schools and Columbine. However, cops have yet to stop a school shooting and instead have basically funneled the school to prison pipeline. So I reject his argument and commend the decision to act on removing that grossly expensive and unnecessary vehicle. We must unbundle services and reroute the massive amounts of money currently going toward Alameda Police Department. And I also agree with the previous speaker that we need to really be including community members involved in this future planning that's being discussed. Thank you for your time. Thank you for. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker. Leon Dillon. Hello. Right. Thank you, major american city council. I organize this alameda use for BLM. I'm not sure how many staff members support the assistant city manager. You don't seem. I'm not really sure the structure or if it's the or they receive adequate funding or maybe it's the time from the last city council meeting. But the suggestion for the work fund is so, so, so underwhelming. What have you done in these past few weeks that you shared the basic talking points? We are in a political moment where people cannot wait anymore. We have tons of resources, examples from all over the nation and from the world. We have scholars, but most importantly, we have experts here in the community, people who have faced police harassment and racism. So really, please, let's use those resources and coming up with our work plan. My question is, how do we input into your research all your suggested policies? Is the work plan accessible in writing before your city council presentation? A lot of the youth that I work with are currently in middle school and high school and it's for their first time engaging in city politics. And so we're figuring out ways to increase public participation. And so if there's any way we can then put in these before the meetings or see what you're going to present, I think it'd be really, really helpful. And since these past two weeks, hate crimes have been taking place in that city. We had a vigil as well to see how in city hall. And slowly we started seeing people taking it down. We are seeing white supremacists put QR codes on top of our posters all over the island. We have heard about bikes being stolen that had BLM friends and most literally over the weekend we had some vandalism happening to cars and property for a black family. And so the more time you take in meeting the and the more time you take in meeting the youth demands, it's just ways that we feel like you are falling. And so as a reminder, I'm going to reread our demands, and one is to release the names of the officers and the rest of. This is, of course, public comment, not Q&A. But I do want to just clarify a point that was raised, because I don't want the listening audience to be confused about what we're doing. We did not ask Mr. Bowden, our assistant city manager, to come back to us with a work plan. What we asked for was to come back with the framework of five items and possibly more that a couple of council members presented to us at our last meeting on July 7th, June 17th, and. And then to recommend to staff to give them our direction as counsel for the work plan that we want to see adopted. And that will include a timeline and all kinds of things that this Council will, when we finished listening to input from the public, get to work on this very evening. But the assistant city manager did as we asked and set up a framework. And I think that if we ask him during our discussion, he'll tell you about some more input. He's gathered from talking to various different city and city leaders in other cities that are doing or have done similar things to what we're looking into doing. Okay. So our next public speaker. Seth May been Marvin. Sorry to Seth. Marvin. Mr. Marvin, good evening. Good evening. I'd like to actually request to be put at the end of the line and for you to center black and brown voices. I think what we're seeing here is a great example of equal but not equitable and so impacted. Community members who don't have a way to get in line as easily as I did aren't able to share their voices here. So I would encourage you in both public comments to center black and brown voices. I've got other things to say, but I'll wait until the end of the line. Okay. That might have been part of your time, but let's see. So I'm certainly amenable to any such any suggestions. And I'm just wondering, um. Madam Clerk, um. What would you. What would you suggest? I mean, councilmembers. Are you. I gather this is something, but I shouldn't read your minds. But this is something that the vice mayor did on his Zoom town hall, which I thought works well and was very respectful. So we give it a try here. If our assistant city clerk and I see a thumbs up from Councilmember Vela, vice mayor, two thumbs from scowls, everybody. And I can't see your thumbs. Councilmember de Third. Just a quick question. So are you asking, are you going to ask persons of color. If I get to go and I will take the next step. To. Oh, I see. Well, I'll tell you what. I've got a majority because I would vote. So let's. Let's give it a try. Bear with me. Um, I have. I have huge faith in the city clerk's office. She's probably turning pale as I speak, but, um. Madam, could we ask anyone who identifies as a person of color, um. Black, brown person of color, um, to raise their hand. Are you using the raise hand function on Zoom? Is that how we're doing it? Um, yes. Hold on 1/2, Mayor. Um, we're trying to determine a process. Sorry. Bless you. I and I will just take this opportunity to tell the public how amazing our city clerk's office has been, because literally overnight they had to transition from doing live meetings. I mean, we always streamed our meetings and you could watch it online, but this is just totally different. And from the time when we first started, I guess in March until now, we've used a number of different platforms because some have been more successful than others. When we do closed session, we started on the WebEx because that provides a secure platform. And then we add that meeting and we switch over to Zoom and they manage to do troubleshooting and all kinds of things behind the scenes that make us here on camera, on the screen look good. So and then the mayor tosses them a curveball from time to time. So I'm concerned about. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Yeah, I was just going to suggest that perhaps to the process we ask everybody to lower their hands and then for people that identify as a person of color to raise their hands and that might expedite this and then we can call for other speakers after that. It's just how does that work. Yeah. What we because they are in order already of how they raised their hands. What we were going to recommend was that at the start of their speaking or at the start of their comment, they can ask or let us know whether they would like to go to the end and then we will start their time at that point. And that might keep the meeting moving along more quickly rather than ask everybody it can send but up again. Okay, that sounds like a reasonable way to do it. Okay. I'm seeing heads nodding. So. Okay. So what we're going to do is ask you when your name is called, if you are not a person of color, it would be appreciated if you would defer. We will get you right back into the queue. But to hear from our voices of of people of color first, let's give it a try. Thank you. Okay. So the next speaker is Keesha. Good evening. I can you hear me? I can. I can subtract. DISPATCHER High confidence. Oh, do we? I keep hearing about, you know, the community change, things like that going forward. I'm old school. I like people to put their money where their mouth is. Councilman O.D. actually came to the police department. He sat with me for 3 hours to see how it feels to be a dispatcher. The calls that come in, watch calls that we can filter through, or which calls that needed to go out right away, things of that nature. He got a feel for how things work. Instead of just criticizing and pointing fingers and what I keep hearing a lot from the community, I actually I don't live in Alameda, but. I consider myself part of the community because I've been a civil servant to Alameda for almost eight years. And yes, I work for a police department. Yes, there are bad cops out in the world, but for Alameda, there are none. They're a mixed race of officers. We have Asian descent. We have Polynesian descent. We have Hispanic. There are all kinds and there are some who are actually married to black women or, you know, Hispanic, white and Asian. It doesn't matter. I just don't understand why people that can't close their eyes take a breath and just put yourself in their shoes for just 1/2 of your day and realize the decisions that they have to make are to save someone's life or to. Look in another direction and help someone who's been a mental crisis or potentially go help an animal that people call and they're upset because it's not breathing. Just think about those people. Something needs to. Change. That's time. Thank you, Keisha. And our next speaker, Tenney. And if. Okay. So, um, Tony, you have the option of, um, I giving your place in line next to a person of color or. Passages. Mr. Green. Oh, you're muted. Miscreant think you are my leader? She said to give up her place. Thank you, Ms.. Graham. Next speaker, Dr. Jeff Lewis. It's true. This. I'll give up my place later. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Next speaker. Amos White. He must wait. Good evening. Hi. Good evening Matt American evening council and thank you and I represent Alameda people power Asia. Excuse me show your people power and just the deployment process. I just don't understand how city council. As others have pointed out can. It's kind of like asking the police to police or investigate the police. I don't know how council can actually run its own process where the community is actually asking for or demanding that leadership and what is basically an issue of systemic racism and having to deal with the systemic issues of which council is actually a part of . And to say that we cannot hold a community process until there is first accountability, as the young member said a couple of people ago, it kind of just seems like talking points and processes being thrown up in front of the public as opposed to actually demanding accountability of the chief or even of council. This is an asymmetrical comment to council and we have no open dialog in exchange that would ensure accountability of our elected officials and our public officials. All meetings right now are controlled by council, council driven, and this is an open and it doesn't ensure accountability of our officials who they themselves are moving a process along. This isn't exactly the democracy that I think the thousands of people that showed up on the rallies to actually demand and ask for we to believe that do systemic racism here in our city and in particular with an opinion that an independent citizen oversight commission should be formed. However, before that can be done again, we must act immediately in one of two ways either to provide for the public health and safety and general welfare for black community members in all. Alameda by first abolishing AP, APD and reallocating those funds to community support programs and services or enacting an immediate 50% reduction in their budget as as nationwide, over 54% of all crimes are either health care or mental health care related, diverting the public in a process like this. Thank you, Mr. White. Our next speaker. Quinn Weaver. Hello. So, yeah, if there are people behind me, I'd like to yield for different voices. Thank you, Mr. Weaver. Our next speaker, then. Rasheed Shabazz. Rasheed Shabazz. Good evening. Great to be with you. My name is Rosie Shabbat, and I'm an Alameda resident. For alaikum salaam. I attempted to close my eyes and imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of those who were employed by the city of Alameda, with the army, the police force. And when I close my eyes, I remember when I was seven years old and I found a bike at Woodstock Park and I brought it back to my mom and she told me I had to turn it in. When we called the police department and a female officer came and she told me and my mother she was going to take me to jail because I was in possession of stolen property. My mom wasn't having that, fortunately, and I didn't have to experience the criminal justice system at that time. Unfortunately, I had to experience policing in Alameda for a very long time. And so I'm going to some of that personal history today or some of the histories that I've shared with you on multiple occasions, speaking publicly or my correspondence. But what I do want to suggest a framework overarching on this whole process is truth and reconciliation. As it was mentioned earlier, you can't have accountability without having a history and a truthful examination. And so I urge this council and the city to engage in a truth and reconciliation process that can engage those who have been targeted by not only police, but victimized by other public and private institutions in Alameda to be able to come forward and speak our truth until you have that history and face that, there can be no justice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Abbas. Our next speaker. Annie. Marie. Ms.. Murray. I can go at the end if there's any more people. Thank you. Thank you. I really do appreciate all of you speakers who are doing this so graciously and respectfully. Next speaker, then Walter Ian. Mr. John. Mr. Young, you're still, you know, aunt. Hello? Can you hear me? I can. And first of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember Bello for responding my to my letter that I sent to the city manager and to all of you. And I'd like to emphasize that I think it's important for any of these changes, a consideration of these changes, to be successful, that the police department needs to change its leadership under a Chief Guillory and Captain McMullen, both who've been in the department for over 20 years. They are the creators and the leaders of the current culture in the PD. And I find it extraordinary that every PD member that has bothered to show up in public comments is not indicated that there is a single problem with race . It must be living in a different world. And perhaps if the. PD. In Alameda has magically avoided any of the problems the whole nation is grappling with. So I'd encourage the city manager to consider that and consider I'd ask that all of you consider that as well, too. And I'm still looking forward to a truly independent review of the recent May 23rd incident or any previous incidents. I don't believe the PD's in a position to examine itself, and I guess it will become an ongoing tradition for a police officer to show up in public comments and tell a scary story about why they need an armored vehicle. Or to say that none of them are are affected by race or racism. But those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. John. Our next speaker. Thomas Merry Addison. Good evening. Hi. Um, so I'm a civil rights attorney practicing for more than a decade on issues of criminalization with a focus on policing. And I'm a ten year resident and a person of color and actually someone that lives very close to where Mr. Watkins was assaulted by a police officer here in Alameda. I just want to say that, you know, to councilman, at this point, to credibly address systemic racism, quintessentially means acknowledging that policing as a system in America, including in the city of Alameda, was designed to uphold white supremacy. This would be the controlling and violent oppression of black people. And there's a ton of literature on it. And there's the lived experience of black and brown people, both here in Alameda and across the country, to evidence that reality and many allegations that I've seen in my two years here, including represent the future of the city, are actively engaging and being better civically educated on that issue. And as residents, we should expect that the city council to become better educated, to truly represent our interests. Interests. And as Mr. Famous Whitey alluded to, I don't think there are many elements who are not interested in regurgitated talking points about reform. And I'm grateful personally for the work of politicians like the future. Boss has been a voice as both a community member and researcher on Alameda. The Simple Story of racism here on the island. I'm not clear what unbundling means, and I'm especially wary, given the miserable track record that reformers strategies have had on police departments big and small across the nation, as another speaker rightly noted. And again, there's considerable literature on that as well. Most importantly, and finally, I agree with the speaker from Alameda, BLM, there's an urgency to deal with these issues and for a work plan to be worthwhile. It must be community led. Police, like government, only execute good public officers at our consent, at the governance consent and the use of force and violence in particular is not something that public consent to willingly. There are other ways to manifest public safety that require, first, a reckoning of the community's racial history and current realities and the common sense that real safety is derived from meeting community needs for food, shelter, education and care. I thank you, but. I thank you for your comments, sir. Our next speaker. Cheryl Taylor. Ms.. Taylor. Hi. Am I unmuted? You are indeed. Hi. Thank you very much. Mayor Ashcroft, council members and city staff. My name is Cheryl Taylor. I am an African-American. Let me see. 13 year resident of Alameda. I vote in every election. I'm a taxpayer. So I just want to say, I appreciate your attention to this for. Your continued attention to. These. Issues. While I've been fortunate in Alameda never to have had an issue with police. I stand by those who have had. Issues with. Police, as well as some of our neighbors who may need some help. Understanding that black lives. Do matter. So one thing I would like to say about police, maybe in the interim. I'm on your way to sort. Of reevaluating the role of police in Alameda is to really look at the union and the union agreement. My sense is that changing the police chief will do very little, but it really is the union agreement that kind of binds. You, unfortunately. To some of. The practices that endanger our lives in town. So I just, again, want to thank you very much for for your attention to this issue and your sustained attention. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Taylor. And our next speaker. James Bergquist. Yes. Yes. Hi. Firstly, Officer Harbach called one or more of the speakers from the last town hall uninformed. One that's disparaging and unnecessary. The officer could have made his comments without disparaging others. One of the speakers I called is Hank was a middle school student, and I think they were quite informed for their age. We all know it's not a literal tank. Secondly, while unbundling police services, I'd like to know how many times the armored vehicles been fired upon in Alameda. I didn't hear this data addressed in order to determine how necessary it really is. Just because schools may have crime doesn't mean we need police in schools. It's a faulty argument. And just because people have guns doesn't mean we need an armored vehicle. I believe the value of the vehicle would be better used to protect people of color with enhanced social services in our community. Thirdly, I'd like to suggest to all community members to talk to at least five friends each and suggest to them that they pay close attention to which side of these issues their council members are taking so that we can elect council members that represent us, the people. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bergquist. Our next speaker. Wesley Swed Lowe. Good evening. You just need to go. I yield my time to any speakers of color. Hold their four minute. Madam Clerk, did we get Barry back in the rotation or. Yeah, he's the last one. You are the last speaker. Okay, great. Hey. Yeah, I just a few points. The first one is a comment in the beginning about systematic racism, and I just sort of like to clarify that it has nothing to do with intention and it's really about outcomes. So systematic racism is really about unequal outcomes. And I'm hoping that that what happens will take on a deliberately anti-racist approach to kind of create equity with those outcomes. Secondly, I'd like to just kind of bring up something that's been mentioned, which is the school to prison pipeline. I see that. I mean, it has sorrows. And these are definitely the the literature is out there. This is definitely tied into the school to prison pipeline. And also for students of color, it's generally considered kind of increased sense of psychological risk as well as physical. I agree with 50% of the funding. The police the police departments has been pointed out, has a long history of racism. And the bloat in police departments is a function of the war on crime, which itself was a directly racist sort of creation in the late sixties. Training is not the way to go. Minneapolis and other places went through years of training. We saw the outcome there. And also anti-bias training has actually been shown to have negative consequences for people of color. I think we need to go in other ways. Last point. The main ways I would suggest is what's also been recommended community led organizations that have their own kind of intervention approaches, as well as the authority that's separate from the council. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Butler. And just briefly, if we could touch on the issue of the SRO, is that school resource officers? Either the assistant city manager or the police chief is on the call with one of you. Just bring everyone on who's listening to the meeting up to date on the status of police officers in Alameda schools . Go ahead, Mr. Burton. Actually kind of chief for Larry. That's amazing. Okay. I think she for Larry, welcome. I I informed city manager several weeks ago and the school superintendent about a month before that that I intended to pull the school resource officers out of the schools. It was primarily a staffing issue at the time. The one of the school resource officers had promoted to sergeant the high school SRO. And so she was not going to be returning to that position. And with our our reduced staffing were 16 vacancies today and the fact that school was not in session since March 16. And as we're having this conversation now, there's no plan for regular classroom learning. It just made no sense to try to continue the program. So it's been temporarily suspended and I believe that was one item that the council voted to approve. And so that's where we are. There's no sorrows in the school right now. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So then those for all our spoken comments for people speaking live and then if I understand correctly, we have another one. Actually, Mayor, we can start back with the speakers who decided to go to the end. Right. Thank you. Of course. Yes. Thank you. For all those who graciously stated your time, you will now be called upon to speak. Thank you. Seth Marvin. Thank you, Mr. Marvin. Thank you. Thanks for taking the suggestion and centering black and brown voices. I encourage you to think about creative ways to do that in the future that don't rely on the the the good intentions of white people, because that is structural racism. Essentially, if it's all white people or people or there aren't any people of color making those decisions about how long people get to talk, who gets the talk and what order they get to talking. I'm not saying anything you don't know, but I think it's important to name it. I think it's also important to name that there aren't any people that I know of who identify as black on the city council. And no matter how well-intentioned you are and no matter how well-intentioned we are as a community, we don't have that lived experience. So it's one thing to say, Oh, we can never defund the police, it'll make us less safe. It's another to say to think about every time you leave your house. If what you experience is that any interaction with the police makes you feel less safe than it is, then it will only be a benefit to actually reduce the number of police officers. Reduce the funds to the police. That's all I have to say for today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marvin. Okay. Next we hear. Tony Grimm. Ms.. Cram, welcome back. This. Grandma, you there? Yes, sir. Your. Just mute. It just. There you go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I was watching television, the local news coverage, I think it was Channel seven on June 11 about the Molly Watkins situation. I saw Chief O'Leary appear and he made a statement that the next day the city of Alameda was no longer going to be answering noncriminal calls. I thought that was, wow, that's pretty, pretty, you know, drastic situation. And I didn't know until later on that that that that decision had been put on hold by the city manager . I went around thinking myself for a long while that the city was not answering those calls. And I also heard from in a previous council meeting they had police dispatchers spoke and he said those were the majority of the calls that were coming in. So I would so this was kind of upsetting to me because I thought that this was our policy for a while. And other people also mentioned that to me even from other cities. They said, well, what's happening in Alameda? So I would like to know, basically, it begs the question, who is setting policy on on withdrawing city services? Is it the police chief? Does he have the authority to do that or is it the city manager? Because what happened in this particular incident didn't make our city look very well organized. And I would like to ask that we have a clear decision making process and so that we can have accountability and not. No, he said he said and people aren't confuse. I didn't I never had to call in myself for a police for police help thank goodness. But I can't help but wonder how many people during that time may have wanted to call in, and they didn't because they thought the police weren't going to be answering it. So I would just like to have a better a better clear decision making policy on the subject of withdrawing city services. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Graham. And our next speaker. Jeff Lewis. Mr. Lewis? Yes. Thank you. I'm glad to see you moving forward with this over the time. The timeline that I see things taking until 2022 to establish a police accountability review board or or to do significant changes in the budget seems like a very long time time period to enact these things are things that we see police doing, such as the events on May 23rd seem like a very clear cause for firing someone. And I I'm disappointed that we needed to have an accountability board that would help to fight the police in order to achieve something like this. So I would like to see that. And also in terms of budget changes, I'm seeing some municipalities in the area starting to announce reductions in police budgets, preliminary to reprioritizing and unbundling services. And I think it would be good to see the city of Alameda do something similar to that, as well as kind of a demonstration of where we're moving in this process. And I think you. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Our next speaker. Quinn Weaver. Hello. Hello. So a number of other people have touched on the issues they want to talk about and really address them more eloquently than I can. Mr. JUST. Mr. Rasheed. Mr. WHITE. Mr.. Henderson But I just want to underscore this point that most of this national conversation has been about the use of deadly force, and the reasons for that are are quite obvious, and it's an appropriate thing to worry about. But there are deeper underlying issues of sort of cultural racism in police departments. Structural racism in the system itself that perhaps most members of that system are one. And I think it's really reflected in these lower level cases, like the recent cases of people being arrested for dancing while black, you know, exercising while black and like playing outside of home, you know, and handcuffed for 2 hours while the police came the third degree. And don't listen to his neighbors. That's just massively. Inappropriate. And I can only imagine that that's being driven by. A culture or perception of one's role within the police department, that sort of thing. You know, this is the thing to do. You're going to be a tough person and you're going to be, you know, really use force and demand submission. And I think that in itself is a very legitimate reason to unbundle services from the police. I think that deliberative approach, a community based approach, when, you know, there's some desire here in this undesirable but non-criminal assessment is reported, is much better. And and these conversations we had by mental health workers or simply by neighbors or people who are willing to engage in plate conversations without bringing out the handcuffs. So I would urge you to consider that as well as critical cases like mental illness and you're put in front of somebody. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weaver. And our next speaker. Annie Murray. Ms.. Murray. Hi. Hi. I have been a lifelong Alameda resident. I was born and raised here and I studied criminal justice over at San Jose State. So I'm pretty well informed of our community as well as the criminal justice system. On a scale of a nationwide scale, and I learned very early on, I think it was my first angel class that they told me a lot of your peers want to join this major to become cops, but probably about 5% of you will actually become cops because once you realize how unjust, implicitly biased and just racist the system is, you don't want to be a part of that because there's not a point where you can fix it from the inside, really. So we're definitely going to need to defund the police. 50% is a good. Start, but it's. Definitely going to need to be more. And the Citizen's Oversight Committee about something. I have no idea why we haven't already implemented that. I don't know why it's taking so long, but something that needs to be implemented immediately and needs to. Have. Oversight on the policies as well as individual police officers. There needs to be some type of oversight committee where people can make complaints about police officers and someone oversees that oversees the investigation. I think that should be a community oversight committee on something that's not affiliated with any police officers. And I think that's all I have to do. Thank you, Miss Murray. Our next figure. In the Casey. Hello. Hi there. Hi. Thank you for. Taking my call. I'm a resident of Alameda, and I appreciate that you're holding a special meeting to hear from students and also appreciate your responsiveness to immediately changing your public speaking order in order to prioritize students of color. And I just want to say that's an excellent example of the kind of quick responsiveness that the public is asking for in light of the current concerns surrounding police and policing in Alameda. So you've already shown you can do it. And I just encourage you to have that kind of creative mindset as we continue. I'm a local educator who works with teachers, especially other white educators, around the ways that systemic racism impacts our teaching and young people. And I've been personally moved by the efforts of local young people demanding that the city undergo critical self-reflection on its funding priorities and become a model for transforming the role of police and policing in our community. And I agree with past speakers that I'd like to see a community led process involving people of color, especially young people of color, to feature committees, to make recommendations from bundling police services, as well as serving on community oversight committees. I think that focusing on reducing police funding, specifically addressing systemic racism, since police has, as mentioned before, historically been used to uphold white supremacy and protect white and affluent community members to the detriment of communities of color, especially black communities. And this has been documented with Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. And this apartheid system is effectively upheld by local funding. And so it's our ability to, like, think creatively and make some changes. One last change I'd like to make. I have a friend of mine who's a firefighter, and she told me recently a story about having to support a man who had been accused of rape but was complaining of chest pains while being questioned by police. She felt disgusted that she had to provide care for him, but that was ultimately her job to provide care. And I would like more people like her and mental health practitioners to be the first responders to a mental health crisis or any other violent call. These are unarmed folks with training and. Thank you for your comments, Mr. McAfee. Our next speaker. Melody Montgomery. Miss Montgomery. Hi. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I appreciate the time. I want to talk about accountability and oversight. Mayor Ashcroft, you did speak a while ago about the chief sitting down with a young group of people and how emotional he was about it. I understand that. But that didn't that didn't change the fact that when he looked at the case of Mr. Mallory, he looked the other way. Showing emotion to a group. Of. Children or young people is not the same as taking. Action for your. Community. Please let us not get distracted by his. Emotional response to one group. Meeting and remember that he did look the other way over the Mr. Mallory. We need better oversight. We need better accountability. We actually need to get. The. Community. People, the community. Citizens involved in this oversight committee immediately, because you guys are out there making decisions for us and we're not in the process. We're going, What did they do today? What have they decided today? Where are we today? Where are we going to be tomorrow? In 2022 is just too far away for us black and brown people to be scared. To drive across our island where we live. Every time I get in the car, since these meetings have started, I go off island as quick as I can because I don't want to be driving around in Alameda. I feel like I'm a target because. I've spoken out. I feel like probably a lot of. Black and brown people. Might feel. More uncomfortable having spoken out. And so please. Let's take action sooner rather than later because. We're still being targeted. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Montgomery. Our next speaker. Michelle Elson. Good evening, Ms.. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members, and thank so much for giving me the time to speak today. Um, I wanted to thank you for putting together what I think will be a fairly thoughtful process for how we can maybe reimagine policing in this community. And I urge you to kind of take a look at that from a 30,000 foot level. I think we really need to be thinking about what do we need, um, what do we want and what can we achieve? Um, I think, you know, it's probably fairly clear to everybody that tugging at the edges of this has not been effective in any community. Um, and that systemic change is needed. Um, and I appreciate that you all are trying to be thoughtful about doing that. Um, I, obviously, this is a really awful time, but I think that there's also a lot of opportunity here, um, to do something good and real and build a system that works for everyone that we can all have faith in, maybe even be proud of. Um, that's part of the community and it's not in some of them. Um, it's not a, a system that, you know, people will think twice about accessing. But I guess that's all I can say. So thanks for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Our next or final live speaker is Jeanette NG. Good evening was saying. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us in the community. See, this past weekend, as you know, an African-American family had their car vandalized by white supremacists. And city hall needs to take a very public stand against. This. Incident and use it as a teaching moment for the racists that we know lived here among us. It was sickening and cowardly and a crime. I would hope that the police are investigating this because vandalism is a crime. And I know that people of color and that family in particular would feel less safe. I know I would if someone had done that to my car. So I hope that the police are doing something about this, and I hope that they take this as a chance to stand against racism. I also hope that the Citizens Oversight Board includes people of color who are specifically been hurt by racism and also people of color who specifically had negative experiences with the police. I feel like those voices need to be included in any kind of oversight board. Thank you. Thank you. Missing. And one more thing before we go on, though, I just want to highlight the incident, the missing reference. This did happen yesterday. It has been covered, I know, in the East Bay Times. I posted a message on the city's Facebook page on my mayor's Facebook page, which has been shared many times. But indeed, the city responded immediately. Police came to investigate. Three members of the city council and our assistant city manager, Mr. Bowden, were all present and witness the amazing outpouring of community support from not only neighbors, of people who happened to just be driving by, biking by, read about it on social media, who came immediately to offer their support. Good wishes, clean. Once the car had been in a photograph from evidence actually two cars because the family's car and the mother in law's car were both parked out front. And but members of the community, including vice mayor, was there with a rag in his hand, cleaned the cars, spoke with the the residents. So, yes, this case is being investigated by police. And I, I hope you'll take a look at the message that I put out and, uh, and I hope we catch the people who did it. And so we I think it's good. And you were saying we have one more loudspeaker. Yes, but let's have it. Doris Roberts. Good evening. Hi there. Hi, everybody. Number one, I'm Bobby Deutsch, and I'm a long term resident of Alameda. I'm a physician at the hospital. Number one, I appreciate the city council in a timely fashion addressing this very important issue. I think that being proactive and hear what the community has to say really shows your commitment to really doing right by your community. I endorse the comments that have been made, I think unanimously that we need to relook at policing nationally, of course, but including in our community. And I also endorse strongly the idea of looking at whether we do need officers with weapons to respond to many of the issues that arise on a daily basis. So I think the envision and how we look at policing, which which really has not done in the past, I think is a great opportunity and maybe it's a window that won't happen again. So I hope that you folks will kind of seize the moment and recognize what important time this is and think about how we can make our community more responsive to the needs of our citizenry and a more compassionate community. I think that serves so well. And thank you so much. One specific issue, I think I emailed it, but I guess the city council looked at whether the police departments received any military equipment under the Obama program and I guess continued by Trump. And I would like to make sure that your least aware, if they have military equipment and also take a look at that as well, make sure if that's necessary in our community. But again, thank you so much for this important issue that you'll be addressing. Thanks again. And Dr. Deutch, stay there for a minute, if you would. So Dr. George is a pulmonologist at Alma Mater Hospital. I've known him since I served on the board of directors there, and I'm sure he would amplify the message that I've been trying to carry about protecting ourselves from COVID 19. Do you have anything quickly you want to say on this topic, Dr. Deutch? It's rare for him to be speechless. But you have to ask yourself. Okay. Yeah. We are seeing increased cases at Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital, Alameda Health System in the Bay Area. And I would say the things that we've done so far have been helpful and have avoided what's happened perhaps in Houston and some of the community. So I would say the message that you sent out repeatedly, Marilyn, is for all of us to do the right thing and remind people that the masking does protect you to some extent, but more importantly, it protects the people around you, your community, your loved ones, your family. And it's a reminder to everybody that we're all in this together and that if we all do the right thing, we're not going to get out of this, you know, without any damage. But perhaps we can minimize the damage to everybody. Please continue to not let our guard down and, you know, do this until we get vaccines and medications and we can do a better job and minimize, if not eliminate this this scourge to us. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Deutch, for sharing that. So you heard it straight from a doctor whose life work this is. Take his good word for it and follow it. Thank you so much. Good. And do we have more live speakers or do I really transition to the written remarks? Now we can transition to the written remarks and we do have 19 written comments. Okay. And they get the same 2 minutes. All right, everyone get comfortable. Thank you. The first one is Molly Montgomery. My name is Molly and I am an Alameda resident. First of all, I want to thank you for your commitment to exploring ways to make Alameda safer for all of its residents by directing more resources towards community programs that support mental health and public safety that are alternatives to giving the police the responsibility of being our social safety net. I think your proposal to set up committees to gain input into this process is commendable. However, I have a few comments and questions about this proposal. First of all, while these committees are a good idea, you first need to commit to a concrete goal of reducing the police budget while investing that money into community programs . I am concerned that this committee process will take a long time and during the mean time, black and brown elements will continue to be disproportionately affected by the current system of policing, which by its nature is targeting them. I urge you to commit to defunding the APD by 50% in the long term. In the short term. We need an immediate, concrete commitment of reducing the police budget by 10% at the very least, and redirecting those funds to alternatives to policing. Our neighbor city, San Leandro, has already committed to reducing its police budget by $1.5 million, approximately 4% of its police budget. And the city of Los Angeles has committed to redirecting $150 million, around 8% from its police budget to other services. As a forward thinking city. Surely we can commit to do just as much, if not more, than Los Angeles and San Leandro, considering we also have lower rates of crime. Second of all, I am glad that you are proposing that the committees you are creating highlight the voices of black residents and black youth in Alameda. Please make sure you are not being exclusive when using the term from Alameda. Everyone who is currently living in Alameda, no matter how long they have been living here, deserves to be considered in this process. The fact is that Alameda has grown more diverse in recent decades. So many of the people of color who are most impacted by policing in Alameda might not have grown up here since birth. Yet they still are. That it's time. The next speaker is. I'm sorry. The next comment is Marilyn grabbing a. Questions posed to the Alameda City Council to answer one. Mr. Watkins, May 23rd Dancing in the Street did not comply, answering officer questions. This was a law and order issue. You do not dismiss an officer by not responding to police questions. Mr. Watkins was arrested for physically resisting. City council members made the say race issue, which council members names wanted called for the officers to be fired upon viewing the first person on video. Now hiring of new officers to APD has been frozen by the city council. What qualifications does the council have to run the APD? Where do they rewrite their experience on police matters? Whom have been in drive alongs with officers to see why they put their lives on the line daily in the city and assisting other cities too. Why is the City Council not supporting the APD Chief of police? These officers put their lives on the line daily for this entire community, treating everyone equally. I've lived here long enough to make that statement. HIV. Can this community trust this city council to keep our city safe when they clearly exhibit no support for the APD? This council has deaf ears to the majority of voices. W.H.O. want independent APD run by qualified professionals independent of city council politics. ADP does not need to be defunded. What they need is not to have to respond to the mental health issue calls they receive, picking up dead animal carcasses, making teens go to school, etc.. Next commenter Savannah Cheer. Good evening. Thank you for holding this special meeting tonight. While you're considering how to move forward on this critical work that needs to be done here in Alameda, I would like you to keep a few things in mind. First, you need to make an actual commitment to defund the Alameda Police Department. I support the ACLU. People powers demand of a 50% reduction of NYPD's budget. In order to achieve immediate accountability for the harm APD has caused our community. Council must definitively commit to reducing the policing footprint in our city. There are many national examples of how to move forward on this. Please take time to study the man. Reach out to other cities next. While it's great to see council members Vela and Knox White providing some framework for a process moving forward, I have some concerns with how these proposals came about and what the next steps will be. As you've heard or we'll hear from others tonight, the involvement of the community needs to be centered around individuals and groups that have a focus on dismantling white supremacy in Alameda. Moving forward, this process should center black voices and the voices of those who have experienced harm from policing. What we do not need is a convoluted process with committee upon committee that slows progress down. Excludes those most crucial to success and stalls activity, thereby deflating the energy that community has around this work. Lastly, every council member needs to make a commitment to not take any public safety union nor lobbyists money at this time. Alabamians cannot trust your commitment to real systemic change if you're working on behalf of a special interest. The only way to prove you're not is to refuse these types of contributions. Please accept that the outline that council is currently working with might need to be changed based on the feedback from the public. I would ask that each of you remain flexible and nimble moving forward. Your flexibility should arise naturally as you normalize being wrong and needing to unlearn past racist ideas. Our city will not be able to holistically address reducing policing and reimagining public health and safety if there are not clear, actionable goals to begin with. Time. Next commenter, Aaron Frazer. Dear City Council. I am an Alameda resident and I am pleased that the City Council is holding this meeting. This meeting is a first step in listening to your constituents overwhelming support for radically transforming the Alameda Police Department. Tonight, I ask you to do three things. One Pledge to return all campaign or lobbying funds received from public sector unions or stakeholders. While this process is ongoing, the citizens of Alameda are your constituents. The police union and the fire union are not constituents. They are special interest groups that have interests which do not always align with the citizens of Alameda specifically. I call on mayor as he Ashcraft Council member Vela and Council member Artie to make this pledge. All three of you received directly or indirectly funds from public sector unions in the last election. It is important that we, the citizens of Alameda, can trust that you work for us and not for the police and fire unions. That funded your campaigns too, because the city council did not take the opportunity to defund the police at the June 16th mid budget meeting. The best you can do now is make a commitment about what you will do in October and beyond. I urge you to commit to defunding APD by 50% in long term, more meaningfully. I urge you to instruct staff to prepare the upcoming changes to the budget to take into account a 50% reduction in the budget of APD . Finally, with regard to the proposed measures posted by Councilmember Knox White to Facebook, I think you should clarify some things. I think we need clarity on what you mean by the phrases community interest groups and from Alameda specifically. I hope that the police or their proxy are a community interest group and I hope that from Alameda is not a dog whistle to the anti progressive special interest groups, but rather a poor word choice for resident in Alameda because length of residency is irrelevant to these discussions. We are talking about the future, not the past. And especially given the hate crime in our city at the weekend, it is important that black and brown elements have several prominent roles in the committees and book. Time. Next commenter initials D and. Dear City Council, thank you for your efforts so far in establishing a work plan as you decide on the final process tonight. I ask that you continue to make every possible effort to significantly decrease the APD budget. I support the call from others to cut the budget by 50%. We are asking for commitment on this as you decide on the work plan. I have some suggestions that I ask you to consider. First, please change committee one titled Unbundling Services, currently delivered by the police department to something that is more focused on reducing police budget and increasing budget for community programs. We need to ensure that we focus on diverting funds to the community, not just rearranging the management of different existing services. Several cities across the nation have already made commitments to divert police funding. Alameda has the opportunity to be a leader on this as well. Second, please be precise and rigorous in the committee selection process in a way that ensures that the steering committees are made up of a range of people committed to ending white supremacy in Alameda. For example, Councilmember Knox White's proposal names three members representing community interest groups and to representing the business community. The proposal overall is a great start, but I ask that we sharpen these parameters to focus on selecting members that are committed to directly addressing the various inequalities that we see in our city, especially racial inequality. Next, please empower the steering committees with true agency and truly let them steer final decisions. Also, please centralize the voices of black people and those most impacted by the harms of policing. This would involve going the extra distance to include those who would otherwise not be able to afford to be on a committee. Finally, please make a commitment to not take any public safety union nor lobbyists money at this time. This is a matter not to be influenced by monetary power. Thank you. Next commenter, Robert K. As a senior citizen and 50 year resident of Alameda, I thought it was about time to speak up. I typically don't write letters post on social media or address the city council. However, I do watch and read a great deal to stay informed. Lately there has been a lot of hateful and negative media written about our police. Last council meeting, for example, featured individuals that were not even members of our community and all in favor of defunding our police department. That's not the way all of us feel. Rather than listening to a small, angry vocal group, it's more important to get an individual sampling of how local residents feel. Take time to visit the Mastic Center and talk to people in front of one of the local grocery stores, or possibly visit individuals living in Section eight housing. Of course, I understand all communities evolve and revisiting their policies are a good idea. But cutting or defunding our police is something I'm not in favor of. This would disproportionately affect the low income residents as the more affluent citizens can pay for private security to patrol in their neighborhoods. Stop for a moment and consider who would arrive when your security alarm goes off or your child doesn't come home from school or someone has just dropped you in your garage? No one. Police are the ones who are first on the scene when there's a suicide domestic abuse call. Not to mention the numerous robberies and car thefts. As long as I have lived in Alameda, the police have been courteous, committed and diligent in protecting us. Now is the time to stand up and support our police. The motto in our community is Alameda stands against hate. And that includes the hate shown towards our wonderful police. Next commenter Mikayla be. My name is Michael Hall. I am a lifelong black resident and I am concerned about recent the direction this Council has taken on behalf of the city, me and my family living across the nation and here locally. We have heard from thousands, including advocacy groups, who are seeking equality, evaluations of police policies and for minimal police interactions for non-criminal offenses. I think we can all agree that this is an important and overdue conversation. And without hesitation, APD took swift self-initiated action in reviewing policies, removing officers from the schools and minimizing unnecessary contacts for non-criminal offenses. While this is a large topic to tackle, these actions provided the community with an initial course of action from the PD. However, through a motion put forth by this council, the same council that has sat and sympathized with protesters demanded change. And we have facilitated a slew of town hall meetings. APD was forced to continue business as usual, was placed on a hiring freeze and forced to give up a vital safety equipment, despite CPD's desires to initiate long term community policing. Last week, the city saw several violent crimes a shooting, a number of assaults with deadly weapons, kidnaping, sexual assault, a home invasion and multiple robberies just to name a few. Yet, as directed by council, APD is to continue business as usual and must do so with less staffing, less life saving and protective equipment, and must respond to our calls for service, including these non-criminal calls. From June 22nd, a child refusing to do chores. A tenant refusing to pay rent. A person collecting recyclables. An unknown person walking in a neighborhood by an anonymous caller. And a neighbor who threw egg shells over a fence. If you're okay with APD going to calls about eggshells as opposed to people being held up at gunpoint while walking down the street, that is blood on your hands and is not a reflection of the majority of residents. Peeps does not speak for our island. My. Next commenter Anna s. The last meeting, a fellow alum had mentioned the name Miko, the 15 year old girl who was shot in the back in Washington Park in 2008. Iko actually sat next to me in math class. Her death was senseless and an atrocity to the community. Thanks to Alameda Police Department's investigation, her murder and his accomplices were brought to justice. This is just one of the many incredible things are alameda police officers do on a daily basis. Alameda is population is growing and so is the crime. Look at the police blotter. I've personally been a victim of assault, robbery and attempt to steal my car. Our police department is extremely understaffed and overworked. No wonder they can't keep up with the crime on social media. I've never seen as much hate towards another human being as I've seen towards these cops. Why would anyone want to work for a community that hates you and a local government that won't have your back? How are you going to defund a department who doesn't have enough cops as it is? Who's going to protect us? I think it's questionable that our vice mayor, John Knox White and Councilmember Giamatti, show up for racially charged graffiti on a car, but not for a victim who was shot at this week on the island. This further proves that our city council care more about political persona than the actual well-being of all of our citizens. I wonder if they even know the name of the victim who was shot at. Do they even care what race they are? Where's their social media post about that? Two of our council's key priorities are to one protect core services and to support enhanced livability and quality of life. This Council fails to support the entire community as a whole and is pushing policies that put our families in danger. I honestly believe that more funding, more training and support of our police department is the only way to keep our community safe. Thank you. Next commenter, Amy. Dismissed. I am emailing to demand serious and swift reallocation of money from Almeida's budget, from the police department to community services, mental health, education, health care, homeless services. And let me be clear I'm not calling for reform, implicit bias trainings or independent investigations. Those tired solutions have only resulted in the continued brutalization and murder of black Americans. It is time for a different strategy, and you have the power to enact that change now. We need to defund the police and reinvest in our community, especially communities of color. We need to follow in Oakland school districts footsteps and cut ties between Alameda police and Alameda schools. We need mental health counselors, not police in our schools. We need more senior and low income housing, not increased police budgets. We need to follow in Minneapolis footsteps and pledge to defund the police. We need to show other cities and governments that Alameda cares about its citizens lives more than its police badges. It has been too long, too many black people harassed, profiled, brutalized, too many black lives lost to state sanctioned, city sanctioned violence. Alameda hasn't seen a black resident killed by its police force yet, but it has seen a black man arrested for dancing in front of his street. And it could so easily become the next Minneapolis. Ferguson. Louisville. What will you do to ensure it doesn't? What will you do to actually protect your citizens of color? Will you stand up in the face of racism, police brutality and injustice with action and change? Will you honor and fight for the black lives lost to police violence as if it were your own child? Husband, father? I hope so. Next commenter, Maria Gutierrez. I have been a citizen in Alameda for over 15 years now. I wanted to express my support for the police department. I have some concerns with the changes that you are proposing to make. I have always felt safe here and I believe we depend on our police department to keep all of the citizens safe. I feel like cutting the budget or having a hiring freeze will put the citizens in danger. We live next to a city that is always on top of the list as most dangerous or most homicides in the United States. I do not want Alameda to turn into Oakland. We need all of these officers to keep crime down and continue to make the citizens feel safe. The last meeting hosted by this council discussed the possibility of selling the police department's armored vehicle. Is this a joke? Can you explain the reason why we are thinking about getting rid of a safety tool that could potentially save lives? If you mistakenly decide to do that, I suggest you call this move the Vela NOx white move. So if we lose a life in the future due to not having a bulletproof vehicle, we can say we lost a life because of the Vela NOx white move. I feel sorry. We are so misrepresented in this city. Thank you for letting my opinion be heard. Next commenter is Paul Foreman. I strongly oppose those who call for an immediate for defunding of the police or an immediate large budget reduction. We clearly need to reallocate funding to other agencies for services that can be performed without police intervention. But until we go through the process of determining what service is to transfer the cost thereof and the funding necessary to provide for police response to serious crime, we cannot strip them of their current funding. To do an immediate, full or partial defunding at this time would place the entire community at risk. Council has acted prudently in temporarily freezing the hiring of new police officers until we work through the allocation process. And do we have more? Um, yes. I'm sorry. There were two mentors. April Madison. I am concerned that Councilmember Ortiz seems more concerned about accusing the police of being racist than he is about the conduct of the police department. The issue of systemic racism within the Alameda Police Department is the concern we are here to address. To be sure, there is work to do in our larger society. But the reality is that only the police department has a badge, a gun, and apparently a license to kill. Let's start. There. Next commenter is Tiffany Jackson. Hello. My name is Tiffany Jackson. And for several council meetings I have listened to teens recite lines from the latest season of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why, in some cases verbatim, as to why police officers make them feel a particular way. Adults who recount, embellished, inaccurate or one sided stories of something they saw online as to why APD is not needed or why they are so bad. But as a black woman, I feel nothing but respect and safety from our APD, a resident for over 35 years, I have been pulled over once, one time not for being black , but because I was pushing 55 down McCartney. The officer was polite, unthreatening, and I even learned about his favorite baseball team. Alameda is in the heart of the bay, surrounded by San Francisco with 55,000 reported crimes last year. Oakland with 28,000 reports. Berkeley 6000. San Leandro 4000. Hayward 5000. And Richmond 12,000. Despite all of our surrounding city's crime rates, Alameda has been blessed with 2300 reports. This is not by luck, but because of the work our PD has put in. Livermore has 90,000 residents and 90 police officers with only 1800 crimes reported. They have more residents, more officers and less crime. And yet we are trying to take away the lifeline to our safety. Black lives do matter. Having a fair judicial system is absolutely necessary. Racism on this island is not OC, and I applauded APD for taking self-initiated steps in addressing these matters. They removed officers from schools before anyone asked, addressed policies to enhance safety on the street, and even tried to have officers respond to criminal matters to address the Karen calls and minimize non-criminal contact. But council told them they must must continue business as normal and even imposed a hiring freeze. Council two of you in particular. With all due respect, you have no experience in public safety and you are putting our island and the lives of people of color in jeopardy. Despite all. Next commenter is received from an anonymous text. Hmm. Hello, counsel. I have a few follow up questions and new inquiries about the way we're handling our system of policing in Alameda. One Why have you delayed a response to the list of demands written and publicized by the youth activist group in regards to Amara Watkins arrest and our path to police abolition? Two Mayor Ashcraft has shared her comments regarding the hate crimes that took place in Alameda recently targeting and vandalizing the only black family on their block. I understand that APD will investigate this as a hate crime. However, knowing that your police officers wear blue lives matter facemasks, how do we know that the investigation will be thorough and non-biased? Three. Upon revising and redistributing Alameda Police's budget. How will you ensure that you listen to black, indigenous and other people of color about where the funds are directed? How do you guarantee your city that black residents, families and youth are safe in Alameda? Four. Why has the City Council and Alameda Police Department not yet issued a public statement regarding the militarization and brutality present in neighboring police forces such as S.F. PD or Oakland Police Department, as they terrorize protesters, particularly black and brown protesters. What are you so afraid of? Your silence shows that Alameda can sense to the police officers responsible for violent injuries, sometimes deaths of protesters. I expect you all to speak out now. You represent us and you need to use your privilege for good. When I serve on a city council, if you choose not to care about the lives of black residents. Next commenter is Melissa Scott. Melissa Scott I am sharing a link here from the Web site showing up for racial justice or that outlines how white supremacy manifests in organizational culture. This page outlines common problematic characteristics and dynamics that emerge in particularly white led institutions, as well as constructive actions to take in order to change organizational culture. I call on the City Council to thoroughly read this piece and take into consideration its suggestions when making institutional reforms. Next commenter is Anthony Russell. Dear Council members, I am writing to express my support of the police and distress over recent proposals to defund and alter the current leadership structure. I understand that what you may want is a fair and just system, but I fear that the policies you are enacting are rooted in ignorance, fear and lack historical foresight. The national debate over defunding the police has ideological and philosophical connections to Marx, as a man, historically, has been the first step in fascist regimes. For those who think this claim is alarmist, please look up Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. The first step the Nazi Party took was the defund the police and install a community operated platform, much similar to what this council is proposing. Secondly, what our police need is more support and funding from this council, not less. Our police force is already understaffed and underrepresented in this community. Serving our community takes a team skilled professionals. If the goal is to have a quality police force, then vacancies must be felt over time shortened, leave taken, and training improved. All of these require more funding and more candidates, not less. Please look into these issues and educate yourselves on the actual problems. I assure you it won't be a problem of too many police officers. Next commenter Carlos Williams. Morris Morales Dear Alameda City Council and Mayor. Police budgets grow because the prison industrial complex grows. As long as we have prisons, then police will feed demand for prison labor by arresting predominantly black people and also poor people because their society has attached to profit motive to jailing. We must decrease contact between oppressed people and police in order to make a meaningful change. Police are looking for people to arrest. They will always target the most vulnerable in our society because we measure their effectiveness and how many arrests they make. That metric is commonly mistaken for how many crimes they've prevented. When we say police violence is systemic. That is to say that violent targeting of oppressed people is built into the institution of policing. Body cameras will not help. Banning chokeholds will not help. There are many jokes and officers will learn new ones. What will help is policy that diminishes policing. And if we're going to do that, we might as well cut the budget as well. By the way, where is the police chief tonight? Did he get sick of us? Also, for the police dispatchers who repeatedly call in and try to trivialize this issue by individualizing the crimes of officers. This is an institutional problem. It doesn't matter if a cop is a good person because the badge turns them into an oppressor. Next concert be before before the next come in is ready just for the listening public that might not be aware. Police Chief Popolare has been present at this meeting since it started at 530. Thank you. And go ahead, Ms.. Quittin. The next commenter is anonymous. If you honestly believe that defunding the police is going to make us a safer community, then we deserve what comes next. We deserve the consequences of a 50% deduction of funds to our police department. This will not make us a safer community. I implore everyone in this community to do a ride along with our police officers to see what a day is really like in their shoes, to see what each interaction is really like. Next commenter is Debra mendoza. Tonight, I would like to address the mayor and council. I would like the council to make an amendment to the city charter and create a citizen led oversight committee. And two members represent system impact at people appointed by the council, not the mayor. I am concerned that the plan presented by Vela and NOx White will have no power. We need oversight and power with accountability, not suggestions or recommendations that will not be followed ultimately. Lastly, what are you going to do with the $150,000 that was earmarked for the 4th of July parade? I would suggest you distribute that money to the black residents of Alameda as a beginning gesture and action towards reparations. Next commenter is Zack BOLLING. Hello, members of the council, thank you for quickly bringing this issue forward. Most of you know where I stand and my issues with the current Alameda police policy and some of the reforms I think we need to make from my past emails and discussions with many of you to speak quickly on the steering committee plan. I think the plan put forward by John Knox White and Malia Vella is a good starting point. One point I am concerned with is the need to give every council member a subcommittee in this plan. I understand it's structured this way to give each member a chance to contribute, given Brown Act issues, but the layering may be adding a bit of excess complexity. I would ask. We are on the side of moving quickly by reducing some of the complexity the five subcommittees create, given a great amount of overlap with the topics to be discussed. Thank you. Next commenter is Roland Wing. Roland Wing is being Asian a person of color. Alameda resident for over 30 years. One on June 8th, 2020. I was offended by what Vice Mayor Knox White said. I was appalled to see that body camera footage released on Friday. Police wasn't fully transparent about what initially happened. In my opinion, Mollie escalated the situation by not listening to the police and resisting. He was in violation of a pedestrian being in a bike lane. 21,966 CVC 21,955 PED not in a crosswalk and 21,950 bcbc ped leaving the curb too. I would like to keep our armored vehicle because it's a depreciating asset. If you get rid of it, the city will never make the budget to purchase one one needed. If there is a citizen hurt, I needed to be rescued. This would be a life saving tool for the police. It would also be invaluable for protecting our police in an active shooter situation. Three mental health cases are not arrest. It's a detainment called a 5150 when I possible up to 72 hours or longer if necessary. Four. How does anyone on the city council or government criticize police for their use of force protocols without the training? Until you go hands on with a resistor, I don't really think you could experience how difficult it is to arrest a resistor without using more force to overcome the resistance of a resistor. Governor Newsom was correct in banning the chokehold. However, he should not have taken away the carotid restraint, which is a very useful tool to be used with resistors to minimize injury to both parties, suspect and police. Five. I think the police in Alameda do an excellent professional job given the resources that they have. Six. I request that you do not defund the police. There are certain training requirements by the CIA. Post Police Officers Standards training. Seven. I think the police would be open to the idea of having the city assign professional social workers for mental health and homeless issues. Is this what unbundling services mean? If not, what does it. That is time. And that was our last submitted written comment. All right. Thank you very much for and so council and audience we have now been here to sell it ours and listen to lots of comments I'm going to call a 15 minute break and so it is almost 730. So I will say that we will return here at 745. So see you back here. 745 everyone. Thank you. And you probably want to mute your microphones for your and maybe close your cameras while you're away. Thank you. Q okay. Going live now. Thank you. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to this special city council meeting. This is Monday, June the 29th, 2020. And we are here to, um, uh, to continue the discussion we began in a previous special meeting about developing a work plan, including community dialog, to address a number of items. And we've heard from many public speakers. Um, the. I, um. So, um, I want to first suggest that counsel make a motion that we've done before when we've discussed substantive, substantive matters, which is to waive our nine minute speaking time. Because I think sometimes the things we need to discuss at these times cannot be contained in nine minute segments. I see. Okay. Um, counselor, I just made the motion. I see. Vice mayor, not content or piece. Um, and so then maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember Jason. Can't decide. Yeah. Sorry. Yes, I think you did. I thought you. Yes. Council member Vella. By Council member OTI. Hi. Vice Mayor Knox White. Hi. Mayor SC Ashcroft. Hi. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. So we will begin. And of course, we are respectful of the time and we have lots to a lot to address tonight. I am just going to start out with a few brief thoughts and I've thought a lot about this topic since the last time we met. This process, all of the topics that are before us tonight is about finding solutions to serious long standing issues in our community. The process should not be about further dividing our community or increasing mistrust. We need to direct all of our energies to achieving these important objectives. I feel that it's important to know what problems we are trying to solve, and I'd like to see a discussion of that this evening, because I believe you always need to start with the end in mind. If we don't know what the different problems are we are trying to solve or address and we won't be as successful in the outcomes and we want to look at the the most effective ways to accomplish our goals. There is something. There are a lot of topics and I'll I'll touch on each of them when I speak, which will be when I've listened to all of you. But I've thought a lot about the topic of systemic racism. That was among the topics brought to us by the Vice Mayor and Council member. Vela And systemic racism is is a topic we hear a lot, especially now. It's very appropriate that we're discussing this in. But what do we mean when we say systemic racism? One definition or discussion point that I saw was from Derek Johnson, who's the president of the NAACP, who defines systemic racism or structural racism or institutional racism as systems or structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage African Americans. And this can include schools. It does include schools, workplaces, the court systems, police departments, housing policies, medical care, medical system and more. I believe it's extremely important to just to address systemic racism, but I think we all would also acknowledge that racism exists outside of our institutions in the community. And while we may not be able to, to legislate to address some, uh, racism that occurs in the community or all racism that occurs in the community, I feel that it's something that needs to be a part of the discussion. So I'd like you to keep that in mind, and then I'm just going to raise something that is of concern to me because I believe that this is such an important topic. These topics taken together are so important that we need the input from all five of the city council members. We we work as a team on this and we will do our best work if we work together. So I was somewhat taken aback when two council members, my colleagues, the Vice Mayor and council member Vela, came to us with a proposal ready made and presented it to us for a vote and the way we voted to to move forward. And and with this as a framework, I always like a discussion that actually is a little more organic and starts with us all starting at the same place rather than going from something that was brought to us. Um, I also am mindful of transparency and bringing the public along. And so, you know, an occasional statement to be included is, is probably fine. And I will always defer to the city attorney's office on this. But I was concerned or a little confused, I should say, when I heard a number of speakers refer to the vice mayor's proposal and the vice mayor's proposal. And I, I take notes on everything people say, at least until my iPod freezes. But it was pretty good. And there was detail that was shared about the vice mayor's proposal. And I was scratching my head metaphorically because that wasn't included in the the proposal that the vice mayor and Councilman Ravello brought to us at the last meeting. It certainly was in the staff report, so it wasn't out there for the public. What I did realize when I did a little searching on our break is that it was opposed. From the vice mayor's Facebook page, I think maybe on Saturday of this or maybe even yesterday or on the weekend, and it's a rather detailed outline. I was seeing it for the first time, and I would imagine there's a lot of people that haven't seen it. And I'm just concerned because I really envision this as an opportunity for all of us to sit down, to listen to staff and some suggestions they have, because after all, it is staff who's going to do a lot of this work, but we're going to direct them. And I was anticipating that we were all coming at this. Starting fresh today. I know we've all been thinking about these topics since we last met, but I I'm just I'm concerned. I'm a little thrown off. And I, I would have preferred that say the proposals the suggested for part of this staff report or an attachment that we could all be on the same page. Um, and, you know, I've referenced your, um, your proposal, which unfortunately I'm reading on my little bitty phone screen and I'm, I'm having a hard time enlarging it enough to really get a sense of it. But, um. Vice Mayor, help me out here. How can we how can we, how can we, um, how can we have a full and, um, participatory discussion? Sure. So, you know, it was not my intent to, uh, to drop this and say, I want you to support this. But I, you know, as you know, I like to get a lot of community input on things. So, uh, working along with Councilmember Vela as a, as a partner, we started thinking about what would one way for us to go forward look like, what would be important in that? How would we design it? How would make sure that it was, you know, kind of fair, that it centered black voices, that it centered youth voices , that it really brought to the table people and members of our community who are not often led. And so yeah, I posted it on Facebook and ask people for their feedback. Um, I didn't encourage. No, I'm sorry if I could. Okay. I was going to ask if you could share it with us so we could be looking at it in real terms. Like to send it to the council. The city clerk has a copy of it. I did send it because at some point after we had all had a chance to speak, I was going to say, Hey, I've been thinking about this and here is one way we can go forward for consideration. The reason you haven't seen it is because I wanted to make sure that there was space for everybody to have their say before we started diving into something that has bullet points, etc. So while it's true I was way I probably should have, but I wasn't expecting people to say I support a specific proposal. What I would say is I think that, you know, try to find something that outlined what the way I think would be a way for us to consider going. If you'd like, I'd be happy to talk about actually my thoughts instead of defending why I thought engaging the community before the meeting was a worthwhile thing. So I want to hear your thoughts first, Mayor. And I also believe in engaging the community. My concern is simply that it's a limited community, although maybe you shared it other than with people who might follow you on Facebook. But I want to have I want to have a full and robust discussion. And I want to hear yours and Councilmember Vella's thoughts. But I also want to hear my other colleagues and also from from staff. This is going to definitely be a team effort. That's okay. So should we wait a moment until or maybe has it been sent to us? I see it in the email now, which is popped up on my screen. Okay. Um, as the council member already has his hand up. Next question, Madam Mayor, since I think you suggested this, it might be wise to first, in my opinion, to hear your thoughts before we get into a specific plan of action. Because when I glanced at that proposal and it has a couple of things I wanted to chat about it, I really haven't thought about it in depth . So yeah, that was that was that was my idea actually, that we would not talk about a specific proposal, but actually I'll talk about what our, what we had to say. Okay. Hi. Um, that sounds good. So, um. So shall we start with you? Councilmember Odie. Oh, okay. Sure. So I thank you. I appreciate your comments of of being includes what's the word inclusionary for all of our council members. And I think I mean some of this may be. Repetitive to folks. But no, our job as the city council, as the elected representatives of our 80,000 residents, give or take, is to set policy. You know, our city manager's job is to take that policy direction and implemented. And those who work for him, you know, report up to him. So if I can just ask staff a couple of questions before I get into my comments. So there was an allegation that, uh, uh, our officers were wearing blue lives matter face masks. Is that true? Can somebody answer that? Who wants to take that that question? Just go ahead and unmute yourself. Uh. I see. City Manager Levitt. Sure. I'll answer it. Although I can't answer it. Well, I'm not aware of it, but I was going to check on that tomorrow. At this point, the chief might have better information on it. I heard it for the first time tonight as well as you did. Okay. As I did. I, um. And I guess I'm sorry if that's true. Do you really think that that's conducive to us all coming together and working together? Because we heard pretty divergent views today. Maybe. Mr. City Manager. I do. I understand how some people have taken that. And so that's why it's going to look into it tomorrow. And then there was a lot of talk that a lot of commentary in the public comment about the fate of the officers involved with Mr. Watkins. I mean, can you kind of update us on what you can say and what you can't say and what we can say and what we can't say? And, you know, if if hypothetically, we told you today we wanted you to fire these guys. That's against the charter, right? I mean, we can't do that. And so you're this is a question either for I am you know, whichever of these two city managers would like to answer, please do that. Or the city attorney for the sake of the audience listening. And I appreciate that, um, Councilmember Rudy is going back on some of these points that were raised because as I stated earlier , public comment is just that it is not question and answer and I did on a couple of occasions clarify something in real time, but I see the city attorney unmuted. So, um. Mr. Chan, please. Yes, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, I'm happy to clarify for the members of the public. The first question Councilmember City inquired about was could council members ask the city manager or the police chief to take any kind of disciplinary or terminating action against any of the officers? No, that would be a violation of the charter. Councilmember Ody also asked what, if any, information could be made public and very, very little state law makes clear that any information related to an investigation of a police officer are considered confidential peace officer files. And so therefore, the city could not invite, for example, public participation in the interview and office of the Officer, or allow the public to review any investigators findings or conclusions about the officer. And the city could confirm the employment status of the officer when asked. So, for example, the city could say, officer, you know, Joe is employed with the city of Alameda or as a state officer Joe is not. The amount of information that could be shared is quite limited. Okay, Mr. Shinn. And then correct me if I'm wrong, because I read our our contract with our our police union that's not contained in the state law. The police officer civil rights, not in our our our contract. That's right. That is covered by state law, but the council does not. The confidentiality provisions are all covered by state law. So the council would not have the ability to either adopt ordinances or contracts to change those confidentiality provisions. Okay. So I just want to make clear that, you know, there's a lot of people that are asking, you know, as to make statements this way or that way and, you know, call for this this type of action or other type of action. And, you know, we're not doing it because we're being idle or being incompetent or we're being ignorant of the public's outcry. We're doing it because this is what the state law guarantees for these officers, whether you agree with it or not, you know, that's up to you to talk to your state representatives about. And as far as the investigation process is going, I mean, there's a limited amount of things that we could say, except that there's one that is going to be initiated or is initiated or whatever, whatever stage it is in. So I want people to just you know, they're now kind of transitioned to my my thoughts. I mean, this is like coming up on six years here and. I don't think I've had an issue that has been so emotional and so raw, and there's just such a dichotomy of viewpoints on one side or the other. Ranch was kind of that way, but I don't remember it being this vitriolic and some of the words that are being used. And, you know, I'm used to being called a lot of stuff. You know, we we kind of let it roll off our backs. But, you know, I think we've been called, um, you know, insensitive, racist, reactionary, too slow, corrupt, um, you know, complicit, you know, all, you know, a wide gamut of things and you know, the cannot be true. Um, but what was missing from the conversation, which was disappointing to me, was, except for maybe a few people, I think . Mr. Sondland and, you know, maybe Mr. Forman kind of had a little more of a moderating, um, comments, but, you know, it was either an, either or. And, you know, policymaking is not an either or. And you know, I the first to admit, you know, I have never walked in the shoes of a African American teenager who , you know, was walking to his car or walking to school and, you know, worries or his mother worries whether he's going to come home alive that night. You know, one of my first experiences here in Alameda when I got involved with the Democratic side is Tony. You remember Wilbert Wilbert Crane. You know, he was one of the officers and he was an FBI agent, lived on the West End. And, you know, I drove him home one day and he just talked to me about how he'd even get routinely stopped from the police walking from his car parked on the street in his apartment building. And this is an FBI agent. So, you know, I don't know if that makes him any special or any any better than anyone else. But, you know, there seemed to be 20 years ago, law enforcement didn't even know who other law enforcement was living in their town. So. And, you know, I'll I'll never know the experience of, you know, a Central American immigrant that has a tail light out and, you know, worries about getting pulled over and, you know, could be deported because their tail light is burned out. You know, I do know what it's like to walk down the street with the person you love and worry about getting your head bashed in. But, you know, I don't think that that's, um, anywhere near what what some of our young African-American youth, um, experience. But, you know, there is somebody who I think is that has known those experiences and that and experiences of being an elected official. And she was actually one of my new heroes since she was elected mayor of Chicago. And that's Lori Lightfoot, woman of color, progressive LGBT community member. And, you know, she basically said last week, and I know the mayor quoted somebody, so I'm going and I'll quote somebody, um, she says, Defund the police. It's a nice hashtag, but it ignores how reform works and it hurts the diversity of the force. And, you know, I'm not going to make policy by hashtag. You know, I'm just not going to do that. And, you know, whether it's, you know, defund the police or abolish the police or, you know, cut 50% or, you know, any of this stuff, you know, it's just it's just not the best way to make policy. Know it sounds good when you write about it, you know, but you know, it is it's not it's not going to work. And then, you know, Mayor Lightfoot went on and she talked about how if you literally defund the police, it puts the newer recruits the city needs at risk because they lack seniority. So what you have is the most young, the most diverse, the most well trained officers. No offense to those in our force who have been here many years, but I think you'll agree, if you look at the hiring, that we have done a good job or at least a better job than we have in the past of of adding diversity. And, you know, with that diversity comes better training. And then you lose that if you just say a 2% cut or whatever. But she did say and this is what I completely agree with, the status quo has failed. So, um, you know, that's not an indictment. That's not to say that every single police officer in the country is a racist. That's not to say that every police officer in Alameda is is a racist. I have not met one, but I know other people in town have had experiences. Like I said, I can't live with I mean, I can't understand or walk in their shoes. But I think we have to be cognizant of that. And then, you know, Mayor likes it also talked about, um, um. You know, you can't just snap your fingers and make these changes. She says. And this is what I think we need to do here. And the vice mayor's idea and others, I think, are going to help with that. We're talking about building authentic, authentic, lasting relationships. And in some instances you're starting to see some partnership. In some other instances, you're starting with nothing. That's hard work, but it's necessary work, and we've got to take that time that is necessary to build those relationships. So to me, what that means is everyone that spoke today and everyone else and this council, we have to put in the time and the hard work to kind of build partnerships. And you start, in my opinion, doing that with having a little empathy and trying to understand, you know, what it's like to be in the other person's shoes. That's why Keesha invited me to sit in on this batch and, you know, to see that people are calling the police because their kids are doing their chores . And I think there's a there's a numbers on that. And to hear, you know, that it's, you know, there's an animal problem or eggshells. And, you know, it's just we've asked a lot of our police departments. So the onus is on changing. It has to be on us. So I do want to talk a little bit. So I think that empathy is important. And, you know, people may look at us council members and say, oh, you know, their elected officials, they're really not people. They're like names on a wall or their pictures on a wall. They're people that sit on the dais. But you know what? You know, we're everyday human beings. You know, I see the mayor walking with her husband, you know, every couple of days around the neighborhood. I see the vice mayor riding his bike. You know, I see Councilmember Bella with her baby going around town. You know, I see Councilmember Desai sitting out of the of the maybe not now, but before at the farmer's market in front of his house. And people think we have no emotion, but it's not true. You know, we're real people. And the same goes for, you know, just because somebody puts on a blue uniform and wears a badge that doesn't make them a robot. It doesn't make them a totally unfeeling human being. You know, we have, you know, officers that are are very diverse. I mean, when I was with Keisha, she showed me the list of the names. You know, there's names on there that, you know, are not your basic white American names. So and, you know, we have they have families who are interracial families. And I think we have to put ourselves in those shoes before we start hating on them. Are there bad cops in the country? Yes, other racist cops in the country, yes. But you know, does that mean we have to paint a broad brush on every single police officer that works in the city of Alameda? I don't think so. And does that mean we have to paint a broad brush on every single councilmember that, you know, work hard every day to make sure we we keep Alameda a great place to live? I don't think so. But, you know, on the flip side, you know, our officers, I think, need to do a better job of of empathizing with what it means to be a young African-American child. You know what it means to see when you've been traumatized by police, you know? But she talked about his seven year old experience. You know, if that had happened two or three times and that individual child, whether it's received or someone else, sees a police officer in their school every day in school uniform, you know, that's trauma and that's terror to them. And we have to understand that and we have to empathize with that. And, you know, that's why I think it's important that we when we think about community policing and we think about cops in schools, you know, that that we we think about, you know, that person's frame of reference. So cross empathy, I think, is super important. And that has to. Be. In my opinion, a willingness to change. So, I mean, if you're responding to a call with a Blue Lives Matter mask and it's a it's a hate crime where somebody put a alarm on African-American person's car, that to me does not indicate that there's a willingness to change culture. You know, some of the emails I got today from employees of the city that were criticizing the council took in your pocket, take any criticism. But what it showed me was there's a culture that's resistant, and I know that everyone is is that way, because I've talked to a few police officers. I met with many of them last Thursday when I spent the morning there. And they want to be part of the solution. They don't want to be painted with the broad brush. They want to be at the table. They want to be proud of their department. They want to be proud of their city, and they want to be proud to wear the badge and they want their city to be proud of them. So I just want to, you know, two last things before I give get off my soapbox. You know, it's just ironic that there's. So people that want to talk about race and how ugly it is and it is, but then they use the word Karen calls. And, you know, a lot of women don't like that. It's misogynistic. So I think we need to be careful about the words we choose. And if you want to say a fragile white person, be my guest. Go ahead. But you need to understand that, you know, Karen is offensive to a lot of women. And I think we need to worry about that lasting, you know, systemic. This is why I brought this up, because there's a lot of systemic race issues in this country, in this city. You know, look at our schools. My kids were at Bay Farm. We raised $64,000 for the PTA. But yet Peyton, you know, barely scratched 10% of that. And nobody on the Bay Farm side wanted to share their PTA money with those people. And Peyton and I'm not on the school board. I'm on the PTA. But something seems wrong there. You know, we have new schools on one side of town, and we had crumbling schools years ago. On the other side of town. You know, we have constant battles over taking care of homeless and ballot initiatives to fight, helping out the homeless. And the battle cry that we hear is, well, we don't want homeless people from Oakland coming into Alameda. Well, sorry, stopped with a dog whistle. We all know what that means. Okay. So these are this is an ingrained city thing that these attitudes need to change. You know, we have zoning issues. Now. We're going to have this discussion next week. I'm not going to talk too much about it, but we have something in our charter, whether it had a racial intent or not. It sure as hell has a racial impact. And, you know, those are things like statues of Robert de Lee that need to start coming down. We had restrictive covenants. You know, I bought a house with my spouse here in Alameda. We couldn't have done that in France like 50 years ago because he's Asian. Mr. Chen is here. He couldn't have bought a house here in Alameda 50 years ago. And for inside that, there's still people that think that way. You know, we have other departments that, you know, I don't think there's racism there. But let's look at public works. Let's look at parks. You know, we have a transportation system that values wealthy people driving cars and not public transit. That helps those that can't afford cars to get to and from their jobs, which we make them cheap during the pandemic and don't even want to give them protection. And then I you even get into it because it's not our jurisdiction, but the entire criminal justice system outside the police department. You know, we wouldn't even get into that because we all know that that needs a lot of reform. So I think I've said enough. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Odie, who would like to go next. Um. Okay. Councilmember Desai, I. She is being forward. Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to. Um. Well, thank you very much. Person. See any other hands up? That's first and. Foremost. Just want to say thank you very much to all the residents who had emailed us and participated in this evening's, um, uh, meeting, uh, directly or also indirectly through emailing our city clerk. Um, I think this is an indication that, you know, of democracy clearly at work. Um, I just want to, uh, start off by talking further about the experiences that I have had with the Alameda Police Force. I think the last time we met, I spoke about having grown up and, and having known as a youth of a, of the police forces, at least individual members involvement in in various parts of of of Alameda, whether as coaches of the football team, the Porter team or me directly. Having met officer bonded on the way back in 1984 when he was a member not only of the police department but also a member of the Veterans American Legion. Of course, unfortunately, the officer bonded on a passed away many years ago. Um, but I think more than the, my experience of growing up with the Alameda police force and getting to know them and be involved with them through different strands of our of our community as a youth, first and foremost, the police department is here because they serve they serve the residents. You know, we remember that old line on Adam 12 on on the car. To protect and to serve. And so let me tell you a story about March 2016 when I was on city council at that time in March of 2016. On a Wednesday night, I went over to my significant other, Carrie. She, by the way, provides all the flowers you see behind me. So I went to Carrie's place on Wednesday night because I need to move her car because Thursday is a street cleaning day and she was away in Arizona. And so this was on a Wednesday night. I go into her house over there on the in the Broadway area. And as I go there, I enter in the house. One of the things I notice is why are all the drawers open in the kitchen? And I'm going because she's not around open drawers and no one's around open drawers. And I'm looking further around in the first floor and I'm and I'm realizing, oh, my goodness, there was a break in. It had just occurred. And I call Carrie and say, you know, I think there was a break in. And then I go ahead and call the police department. And as I'm calling the Alameda Police Department, I could have sworn I kind of heard something upstairs. At which point, you know, I left the house, the front door, as I was leaving the house from the front door. So there were already two separate police cars there, one on one end coming in from one end of Broadway and the other one coming on the other. And as I was, you know, kind of told the situation and by the way, I didn't tell people, oh, I'm Tony Harris or city council member. I don't think they knew. I don't think they cared, although I believe I saw off as America there. So. So she might have known me. Um, but the thing that I. That I was impressed by was, you know, within minutes of standing outside, you know, policemen suddenly lined up and they went into the house with their guns drawn and they went in. And a group, you know, I don't know what the technique of police is, but I was kind of amazed the fact that, you know, on a moment's notice, these men and women, they put their lives at risk in order to protect and serve all of us. And I will never forget that. I will never forget how on a moment's notice those guys just went and they didn't ask, you know, should we wait? You know, they went in and apparently the there was a someone who did go in. And our thinking was that when I was in the house that indeed the person was upstairs because lo and behold, upstairs we found a cash, a wad of cash on the floor, which meant that, you know, he heard someone. A man. And then so he screamed whoever that was. So I just want to recount that story with regard to my personal interaction with our police force in a time of emergency and crisis. And I think it's not because, you know, as a council member at the time March 2016, I don't think they knew me, but they just go in there and they put their lives on the line. Now we can recount these stories of heroism by the men and women in blue. But as, uh, Rasheed Shabazz had earlier said, that we also have to face up to what had happened in the past. So when I look at reforming the police, you know, I see this as an opportunity to institutionalize new ways of doing things in light of what happened in 1991, but as well as what happened in just recently in May 23rd. And and so I look forward to this conversation of improving our Alameda police force. And it is my opinion that in improving the way in which we deliver our service, it is my opinion that there is that there is no need to to frame this discussion in a rhetoric from which there is no you know, there is no reconciliation. There is no middle ground. Um, when I look at the Alameda police force know, I look at people who are going to put their lives on the line for you at a time of emergency. And you also look at a police force that has always been there as a vital part of our social fabric, whether it has coaches of a Pop Warner football team or coaches of the baseball teams or or persons who are there as a member of the whether they're members of Rotary Clubs or members of the American Legion. So that is the lens with which I see the police force. But that doesn't stop me from from from realizing that, yes, we should seize this opportunity to improve our police force here in Alameda. So let me talk about the ways that I want to change the police force. But when I talk about the ways that I want to change the police force, also, let me be clear to the residents of Alameda about. What I am for and what I am not for. So in terms of the latter, I clearly I am not in favor of a 50% defunding of the police department. Earlier, I had indicated that I wasn't in favor of 40% defunding of the police department. So and my sense is that this is a city council that won't defund the police department by 50%. But that is not to say, though, that this is a city council that won't look at ways to generate some efficiencies, to provide the new level and types of services that we think is needed. So that's what I'm not in favor of. I'm not in favor of defunding the police by 50%. Let me also talk about one other thing that I'm not in favor of. And this might not be a popular position because as I counted, I think 97% of the vote of the persons who spoke on the subject matters that do away with the armored vehicle. Well, you know, I. I asked. The city clerk if she can show some pictures of the armor of our armored vehicle. If we can just if you can indulge me just for 10 seconds, if we can look at those pictures, that'd be great. Is a. City clerk able to put that on. Right now? I think there are two or three. Okay, great. So we'll share the screen. All right. This is the inside of the armored vehicle. It almost looks like Kari's Honda SUV, a Honda van. So another picture. And one more. Are we seeing different pictures? It just looks like the inside console. Yeah, this is the inside console. Um, and if there's another picture, I think there's two more. Is the other one up? I don't see. Oh, here we go. Oops. This is the armor. And this is the inside of. So it's basically kind of the seats that you see inside the armored vehicle. This is another one. Great. So you can kind of see how it looks like. So it's basically a transport material vehicle and this is the armored vehicle from the outside. So I think we all agree it's certainly not a tank, but to me it seems like it could provide a useful service in time of an emergency. So I would encourage my colleagues on the city council to reconsider doing away with this armored vehicle, because I think the chief of police is right. Or even the even the Officer Horvath is right. Is that in times of emergency, this is a type of civilian vehicle that you might need. Okay, that's enough about the armored vehicle. I know that's not a popular position because I do agree with all of you that that we need to not militarize our police and that that does appear to be a national trend to militarized the police. Because when you look at the police as a military or paramilitary force, the lens with which they do their job is looking at this basically shoot to kill. And that's not the lens with which we want our police to operate. The lens which we want our police to operate is as a civilian force whose job is to protect and to serve. Okay. So let me talk about what I am for. So let me close by talking. There are three things that I like that's on the staff report. I certainly like unbundling services currently delivered by the police force. My only problem with that is it's a little too amorphous in my opinion. I think we should just be more direct and say something like, you know, going after some kind of service, sort of like the cahoots that mayor, as he Ashcroft had, I believe, is in Eugene, Oregon. The summary, if you look at on the website, say cahoots. Eugene, Oregon, is just that seems to be the answer that we're all looking for in terms of changing the way in which our police force might deal with mental health issues. And so and budget budget wise, it seems as though we can scale it to the size of the city of Alameda and it seems like something can work. The second thing I do want to work on is systemic racism, but I want to come back to number two in the staff report. Systemic racism stands as an isolated item. But to me, in and of itself, it's like, you know, systemic racism, whatever. I took classes with Professor Litvack and all the other professors at Cal about race relations. So systematic. No, no. I think the power of dealing with the systemic racism occurs when we we now see that with item number four, police department accountability and oversight. So I am of the opinion that if we are going to pursue a police commission or police advisory board, that we need to be upfront and say one of the reasons why we're creating this is because we want to deal with longstanding issues of race that had been a part of our police force. For example, looking back in 1991, whether a May 23rd is as part of that longstanding history. It is nonetheless, an issue that that that that that forces us to take action along with what's been going on in Minneapolis recently. But but it has always been going on across the United States. So I would want to marry systemic racism along with police accountability and oversight. Again, in my particular take on this is to have a commission or advisory board or whatever. I'm open to hearing what Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Vella have to say, but making sure that that they understand that there is an intentional lens with regard to dealing with issues of race. But what does that mean in terms of practice and programs? Well, I don't know. Maybe it means that you strengthen our policies and our manual with regard to training, with regard to racial profiling. I mean, so that might be one particular task that would come out of a police commission with an intentional lens of looking at systemic racism and solving that within our institution. And the third item that I do want to look at is reviewing police department policies and practices. You know, my my I raised two things previously, and I will continue to push them. One is looking at how we deal with crowd control issues, largely because that's what I'm hearing from Facebook, from people who are communicating with me saying tear gas. You know, the thing that I think going on in Oakland is awful and and we need to understand. You know, how are we going to be involved in those kinds of crowd control situations? And what are our policies with regard to use of peer groups or any other kind of. Things like rubber bullets, etc.. So, um, so I certainly would want to move forward on reviewing police policies and practices with regard to crowd control situations. Part of that is also looking at training with regard to racial profiling, etc.. So those are the three things that that that, you know, I want to move forward on concretely when I look at the staff report. Um, uh, I see this whole issue about criminalizing survival. I get that. Um, but I think someone clearly said earlier that, that, you know, that a lot of that is addressed at the state level. Okay. So let me just conclude by saying, you know, I want to thank everybody who have taken part. And the reality is that as a council member and I'm speaking just for myself, we can't we have to try our best to speak the truth as we see it. And sometimes, you know, that might not coincide with with the way that you see the world. But my responsibility to you is as best as possible to articulate what's on my mind and what I think are the best policies for the city of Alameda going forward. And I'm in a unique position in that, you know, I happen to have grown up in the city of Alameda. And as a result, you know, I've been able to see this our police force with a certain lens on that that maybe others don't, you know, maybe others are just so affected by and rightfully so affected by what's been going on nationally, whether it was the George Floyd issue or maybe all the other issues that that had occurred. But and I respect that. But the lens with which I approach this issue is the history that I've had with our police force and our individuals there who had been a vital part of our social fabric and the particular crises in which they responded in such a heroic fashion. And so I hear what you're saying, and I hope that we as a community can move forward around concrete issues that have been put forward. And and I think this is at the end of the day, we're going to come out the better for it . Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember de side for your remarks. Okay. Who wants to go next? Councilmember Val, I see your handout. Until I feel so. You know, I want to just start with kind of addressing the process of speakers. Essentially what we did, in my opinion, was allowed white or non people of color speakers to essentially center themselves in that space by basically saying, you know, I'm going to go ahead and cede my time. And I just which actually ended up taking, I think, more time. So I just in the future, I feel like if we could if we if we want to move forward by saying, you know, we're going to give a particular space or priority to a certain group, I think. It's. Just clear the hands down and reset. And I don't think it'll take that much time to do that. And then it's not about each person kind of waving the flag of, hey, look, I'm going to go ahead and cede my time. The second thing is, you know, the the I guess this is perhaps a conversation for another time, but the the robotic voices are really hard to follow. And and I guess I also want to understand the and that's just what the inflections are. And what's getting highlighted is sometimes disconcerting. And anyways, I want to put that out there. I also am curious about how how speakers get lined up into that, because some of them seem to be emails from like earlier in the afternoon and then some of them seem to be from 530 or on. It just seems odd to me. And then we had some anonymous text messages that were like seemed to be a continuation of speakers and getting around the time limit as like additional thoughts. So I just anyways, I feel like we need to kind of figure out what that process looks like a little more and perhaps even go back to having somebody read the, the emails because it's just, I don't know if it's just me, but it's, it's very, it's, it's hard to follow for a long period of time when we have a lot of those. I. You know, I want to talk about and I'm glad we've heard from a number of different members of our community. We certainly gotten a lot of emails and. Phone. Calls messages, but I'm still trying to reply to everybody. I and I'm glad to hear some members of our community and talk about how safe and secure they feel in Alameda. I think it's my goal and the goal of my fellow council members to make sure that that's the experience of everybody in Alameda and not something that occurs at the fact that some members of our community feel safe and secure at the expense of others feeling that way. And so, you know, I want to acknowledge that. And I think it's really important that we hear people when they say they do not feel safe and secure. They do not feel comfortable that they feel unsafe moving around in our community. I think that that is something that we all need to take heed of, listen to process and find a way to respond to. Because I think we can have both. We can move towards a community that really provides safety and security for all. And I know that those are loaded words. We've heard about Secure Communities. That's loaded in a way that I certainly am not aiming towards. But I think part of redefining how our community services are structured is about redefining what those words mean and making sure that there is space for everybody in our community, regardless of race, gender, creed, ethnicity, you know, status, to feel those things. And I think, you know. Yes. Our police or residents are our every city department serves residents. None of our departments are independent, autonomous wings of government. We are all accountable. I like to think I have 80,000 plus bosses. We all do because we represent the community and we are not. We don't represent districts. We don't represent segments of the community. We represent the entire community. And so when there are people that say that they don't feel like they are being served, you know, that concerns me. And I want to think about how we can improve that. And I think that that's a value and a virtue that's shared by my colleagues. You know, we can hear anecdotes about good responses. What I know is that when you have a bad response, the trauma from that is life changing. I'm going to share an anecdote, not because I think that it's part of data or anything like that, and it's not a mark on our department, but I think it's reflective of kind of a bigger thing that that we we need to keep in mind. I am a woman of color. I serve on city council. I was heavily pregnant when several members of APD were called to my house and banged on my door in the middle of the night trying to come in for a mental health call. And they were ready to go. My concern is and they were ready to to come inside. They had been called by somebody who was a criminal stalker, who was literally trying to force out somebody that they had been stalking. It was a woman who called in for somebody that my husband and I are friends with. And she had been doing this to any friend she thought he was staying with. He was a domestic violence victim, and she was doing this to make him feel unsafe wherever she thought he might be seeking refuge. I use this anecdote for several reasons. One, because I think the commentary and the discussion on anti-racism is beyond. And I want to make this very clear. It is beyond the four walls of the police department. Yes, it should be inherently part of our review of policies within LAPD. It also needs to be part of our larger conversation throughout the city, through our hiring processes, through our policies for our practices, through the outcomes that we are seeing in terms of a number of different things. And I think it's beyond just anti-racism. I think it's just the need to have a concerted conversation about that continuum. But I think it's beyond that. It's about diversity in all and not a mayor. I know that. But you have been a stalwart in terms of making sure that there's gender diversity, that there's different types of diversity throughout. And I think that that is also part of that conversation citywide. How do we get a city that is reflective of the diverse community that we have? I also raise the anecdote because there is also a bigger problem of the community and people weaponizing the police force and that experience. And it was it was it was terrifying. It was the middle of the night. People were banging on our door. But the fact that we have community members and people that feel confident and comfortable enough to call in to misused police authority that way. That is also, and I think inherently needs to be part of the overall anti-racism conversation that we have. It's not just about systemic racism, it's about anti-racism. It's about misuse of different different types of governmental or structural or institutional power. So I think that that that's all part of it. I. I also think that this is about. More than just law enforcement. And I want to make it very clear that this conversation, while there will be certain aspects of it that should be law enforcement centered, particularly a review of policing policies that absolutely needs to happen. And I stand by the direction that we unanimously gave as a council to do that. But it's about so much more it's about the overall reimagining of services. And I think if we give this the title and the heading law enforcement, law enforcement reform, we are going to continue to get law enforcement responses. And I think we want to transcend that. We want to move beyond that. We want to think about how do we provide services that are responsive to what people need. Now, that call that was made to my house was for somebody who was supposedly a threat to himself or committing suicide. And that's concerning. I want people that are prepared and ready to handle that. I think we we do not do a service to our officers. We do not do a service to members of the public. When we send a team of armed officers to respond in that scenario, I think we can do better. I know we can do better. We've done better. We certainly have models for that. We know of models for that. I think we have an ability as a city to to shift how we reimagine services. I also want us to focus on the process. I think to me tonight, what I really want to do is I want to talk about what is that end goal that we're trying to get at. I want to think, you know, I think it's very difficult being on council in that we can't because of the Brown Act, we can't deliberate kind of beyond just this meeting . And I want to have a transparent conversation about that. So I kind of want to explain my thought process behind what was put together in the document by the Vice Mayor, at least in terms of goals and objectives. And by the way, I'm not married to what the subcommittees look like or don't look like in terms of these are the five categories. I think that there are five categories of things to talk about. Whether we combine them is a separate issue. I think there will inherently be some overlap that is okay. But I also think that some of these issues require a deep dove. Like I said, beyond APD and require are going to require more than that. So where there may be some overlap, I think it also will be good to have one group focus specifically on one lens of things, and that needs to help inform policy and practices moving forward, going back to the goals and objectives. The other thing I want to put out there is yes, this is that this is I think whenever you talk about racism, systemic racism, anti-racism or power structures, there will be attention. Tension is okay. This is not an either or conversation. Sometimes it's going to be uncomfortable. Madam Mayor, when you had your roundtable, that was one of the points that came up was that tension that existed. We have to acknowledge it. I think sometimes that tension helps lead to a better conversation and a better work product. We need to be deliberative and thoughtful. We also need to create a safe space for people. And and by that, I mean not inviting people to the table who are not usually part of the conversation. By that I mean creating space and letting people lead us. And and sometimes that takes, you know, outlining goals and a process. And so for me, you know, and this is just kind of generally is how are we going to create safety and security for all all people in Alameda? And I think that that schematically is something that we've been talking about. Or general, good welfare. That's really what we're talking about. I want us to spend time and we can talk about steering committees, ad hoc committees, all these different things. I think there are a bigger question who selects these individuals? What is the process for assembling? What type of commitment are we asking from these individuals when we ask them to serve? Madam Chair, you made a fantastic point at the other meeting about states, and it's it's kind of ironic because we're going to have all these special meetings and as council members and I'm going to just put it out there, we don't get paid for all those who think we're making big bucks. We're not getting paid and getting paid for an act for tonight's meeting, and that's fine. But if we're going to go out and ask our members of the public for their time, we need to be thoughtful and inclusive. And that may include stipends to cover things like transportation or childcare or purchasing dinner for the family. Because you don't have time to cook that day because you have, you are going to be a part of a larger conversation. I think the other the other thing is, I think including a variety of voices finding a way to do that in the long term, you know, that that means diversity on a number of different levels . It also means trying to find individuals not just because they have a title next to their name, but trying to find individuals who are members of the community. And I don't care how long they've been members of the community, but that are members of the community that are going to want to be a part of this and that have a unique experience. Who can speak from that perspective. I also you know, I'm also just going to put out there, you know, I feel very strongly that whatever we do, we need to create space in the short term so that we can start working on this, understanding that there is going to be a long and a short term process. And finally, I just want to put out there again and I'm not married to the number of people on it, on the steering committees or committee. I think it's going to be difficult to have too many people because getting everybody to set aside time and have a facilitated, you know, productive conversation with too many voices can be very difficult. But I also don't want to have too few seats that we are not including people. And then I also want to put out there that I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the mayor and to be a part of the overarching process conversation. She is the mayor. And so at least in my kind of vision of this, Madam Chair, you would be part of it if we did have kind of a two person committee to lay out this whole process. I think you should be a part of it. So I would have loved to been able to have this conversation with you and with the vice mayor. We're having it now. That's the purpose of this meeting. But that's at least my thoughts and where I'm coming from. And I think we need to create the process. The people will tell us what they want and within the finer lines, and then we can work with staff and there will certainly be space for staff to weigh in. And I think also part of having ad hoc council members involved or ex-officio members is to kind of remind people of the confines of of both the city charter and what rests within council authority as well as where we might be overreaching or in an area of state law, that sort of thing. So I think, you know, I think that the you know, I'm certainly biased and that I and I support kind of the overall structure of the process laid out that the vice mayor and I put together. But I also think and want to put out there that I really tried to hear my colleagues in terms of the things that you had said that you wanted to include and to include those things. Because I also think that everyone made some really valuable and everybody contributed and made great points. And so I just want it to be a process that we can all stand by so that we can get to an end product that that is going to really be transformative. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Vela, and I appreciate it. I appreciate everyone's comments as far. And before I call on the vice mayor to go next. My preference would be that we all throw out some ideas and suggestions for the way we would like to see this move forward. I, I actually don't want to work from the attachment. I know the assistant city clerk sent it to us, but I'm not a good multitasker and I can't vote to read a document while I'm running a meeting. So I think that's something that can certainly be sent on to staff and we can ask them to factor into the mix and I'll I'll amplify further on my thoughts, but I am going to go last. And so that leads us to Vice Mayor. That's right. Thank you. I won't deliver the point, but I will acknowledge being a little taken aback at being called out for talking to the people we represent about ideas. You know, I thought it was great when you called some residents and met with the police chief and had a conversation and learned and heard from the community, etc.. And I think actually all of us have a reason to do that. So while I appreciate that you were surprised to learn that I had talked to people and that they had liked an idea. I'm not going to I don't feel chastised for having engaged my community in doing that. So I will also just quickly point out the confusion. City Manager Levitt, I have forwarded you the email that we received from the Salem police chief. Larry, the mayor and I all received an email. It was about two and a half weeks ago. The chief responded about our officers wearing blue Lives Matter face masks at that time. The chief explained why, you know, it's not really a big deal, but that we now have a policy that says they can't do that. And yeah, I raised that because I was very concerned by the comments of my my colleague, Councilmember Odie, who I consider a friend and I respect. But it was very difficult to listen to nearly 10 minutes of of tone policing, of people of color and them expressing their feelings about their interactions with the police and whatnot, and basically telling them that they need to step back and and accept. And equivocate that everybody's experience is the same. Everybody's experience is not the same. I am very lucky. This white male, middle aged. You know, I am. I try to keep myself centered and remember how entitled and privileged I am. We, you know, I. I just I can't sit here and listen to the idea that, you know, I agree. Our officers, our people, they do a difficult job. I have a lot of respect for them. I have done ride alongs and I have talked about the impact those ride alongs have had on me. I do not discount any of that. But the impact of them hearing the community complain about the racist system that we live in is not equivalent to the impact on people and the speakers that we have heard and the people who are speaking up for the people over here. And I just I have to say that we can move on. I look forward to having many conversations about this because I think we need to keep talking about it. Racism is not an individual action. It is a system. Making it into an individual action allows us to feel that we are somehow morally superior to people that we label as racists. So while I am very I really wish it didn't land this way that when we talk about the racism and the outcomes that we saw on May 23rd, that that lands as if we are complaining . We are we are indicting specific people as being immoral. That is not what is happening. And if anybody listens, the way that I have spoken about this, I have never once talked about the specific actions of any given person involved in that incident, because at the end of the day, it was a system and it's a system that we as the council perpetuate and when we tell people to calm down and step back on that. We are perpetuating that system. That is exactly what how that how this works. So I'm going to start. I appreciate Councilmember Vela's comments. I echo them all. We spoke at length about this, about how we weren't going to try to just float something out and say approve this, but that we wanted to hear from people and that we wanted to make sure that there was a conversation before we talked about it. I think almost everything that Councilmember Vela said we discussed and are in agreement on. I'm a little disappointed. The Council adopted and asked to have a specific conversation come forward, and it was not a conversation about enforcement. We actually wrote the language and we adopted the language for this item, and it was regarding the city provision of community services responses and law enforcement, including policy reviews of existing policies. And it was intentional because we did not want to get into this. Are the cops good or bad argument? Because at the end of the day, at least from my perspective, we are going to have law enforcement in this town to provide crime prevention and violence prevention. When I talk to our APD staff at all levels, they talk about all sorts of the mental health issue responses, all sorts of responses. When our dispatchers call, they talk about the silly calls that they get, that they are, because the council has asked them to be responsible for responding to when the police department's TIO writes in and chastises says Having no idea what we're talking about. We are supporting the chief is at the same time literally proposing the types of things we are saying we should be talking to our community about. All we have done is say that we need to have plans and programs in place to be responsive, that we cannot on one day say that the police are no longer responding to 5150 calls and that the fire department can do it and not talking to the fire department about it. And not talking to the city manager about it. So my idea, which I was hoping was going to we would be able to talk about without the drama. And what I hear from a lot of our speakers is that I think we need a community led process, not a staff led process. I mean, we need to bring the community in and we need to trust them to tell us which direction we need to go. We need them to help us identify our goals and our objectives. And that was what we proposed tonight, was to actually identify a couple of council members who could work to find 79 people, to fill it, to fill a steering committee, bring back those names. We can even continue tonight's meeting so those names could come back for a Final Four for approval by the council next Tuesday. And and to hold some town halls this month to get community feedback and propose for the full council the objectives and goals that we are looking for as a community. I don't think that those seven or nine people or 11 people or whatever the right number is, should be of all like minds. I think that they should represent a diverse, diverse range of voices, because when I talk to people that we are getting emails from about what they want. What I find is as we as we converse, most, not all are going to agree with everybody. Most actually agree with what we're trying to talk about, providing safety and security for everybody. People are under the idea because of this conversation, which is perpetuated by city staff and is extremely problematic to me, that we are somehow suggesting the police are not going to come if somebody is attacking you, that the police is not going to come if your house is broken into and things are robbed. Nobody has proposed that. So what I would propose tonight, just as a general idea, is that we have a community led process that kicks off tonight. We're a month into this. Next week will be a month since the video came out. We need to take we need to start moving forward that we identify a couple of council members. I do not need to be one of them unless this body decided that they would want me to be so to serve as ex-officio non-voting members of a steering committee that they identify the people and that they bring back for just input and ratification from this document. And that additionally, we have requested our city staff start looking at Chief Hillary's June 10th policy direction to his staff and identify ways to put things into action and come back for discussion so that when we tell our community we're not we're not going to respond to non crime calls. We're going to also be able to tell them what that means and how we're how we're responding to their concerns or let them know that we're not going to provide that input in that conversation for our community before we before we move forward . I won't walk through the entire process, but for me, what is important is that we get going and that by the end of the month we have a goals and objectives that we have agreed to and we can start moving forward. When we talk about anti-racism. It's not systemic racism. Systemic racism is the thing that we are trying to overcome. But what we want to talk about is the anti-racism. How can our city start acting as anti-racist? How can we take actions that are working against racism? It imbues everything we do. I can sit here and I will sit here and is uncomfortable. And it is I have benefited from racist racism. I have participated in racism. I am a part of a racist system. And every time I don't speak up and take action, I am perpetuating that. So I absolutely reject the idea that we can talk about law enforcement, community services, planning anything without talking about racism. What we need to do is work with our, I guess, in this case, our law enforcement staff and help them understand that we can talk about racism and racist outcomes without impugning people's moral goodness or badness, because that is a false dichotomy. So I appreciate like I said, I one of the first things I did when I got elected was take a ride along with Officer Schmidt. I had one of the scariest experiences I've had. On that ride along, pulling over somebody who just had dark tinted windows. I have talked about this a lot. It informed me heavily about what people who are doing policing are going through and why they respond the way they do. I can understand that and also think that we need to do better and that we do not have to set up this, this, this, this dichotomy where if if we're not, you know, cheering on the police as saviors and patriots, that somehow we are anti the people in the job that they are doing. And so I would say to the people that carry guns. Every year we meet with you outside the police station and we honor the officers who have been shot and killed in Alameda. Anytime somebody is hurt, we are there. When you do great things, we honor you at the city council meeting. This conversation is not about us people. We appreciate you as people. I appreciate Mr. Horvath coming and speaking out and being open. We may disagree on the ballistic armored tactical transport, but I appreciate that he at least comes out, acknowledges who he is, speaks his truth, and engages in the conversation. And I hope he will continue to do so. But at the end of the day, I am also here to represent the people that voted our community. I don't want to get into a conversation about law enforcement, good or bad. I want to talk about what we want and who we want to be as our as and as a community. And then I want to talk about how we get the outcomes that we that we say we want. And somewhere in there is absolutely going to be law enforcement. And somewhere in there, we're going to have to talk about oversight. We're going to have to talk about policies and all this other stuff. But I don't want to start there. I want to start about what do we want? Who do we want to be and how do we know? What is the road to get there? And it's going to be long. And I understand the frustration that we are dragging our feet and we haven't just cut the budget and whatever else we can cut the budget tomorrow . We have nowhere to put that money. We're not going to fire half the people who work for the city police department overnight. I don't think we're going to fire half the police department, but that might be right. It's on the table. Everything is. So anyway, tonight, I you know, I think we need to identify a process. We have to approve it. I hope it will be community led and not staff led. I appreciate that staff gave some thought to this. I do not want to put more on their plate right now. They will obviously be engaged and involved. Our law enforcement experts, who are the people who police in our city, will be able to participate as expert voices, providing their perspective. But we also need to be hearing from the people who don't get to generally sit at the table, and we need to put them front and center. So those are my comments for tonight. For now. Thank you. Thank you both. Mayor and now Councilor Odie wanted to have the floor again. So Councilmember Odie. Yeah. I mean, I also respected vice mayor a lot too. And, you know, I've enjoyed working with him, but, you know, recently passed a code of conduct that basically said that, you know, we're not really supposed to attack the integrity and impugn our colleagues. And, you know, I've tried to live up to that code of conduct. And, you know, I, I, I, I'm not sure that, you know, those, those remarks lived up to that. And I think a lot of what I said was, was the point was missed. And I, I also don't think you can be called a racist just because you want folks to see the human side of somebody behind a badge, because ultimately those are human beings. And I also think that we as leaders, when we say things, whether we think we're, you know, important or not, they mean they mean things. And people react to those. And we're leaders. And when we get up in public or go on Facebook and accuse people of things, whether they're true or not, it's going to incite hardening of feelings. And what I saw earlier was a hardening of feelings on one side, you know, one group that won't even utter the phrase Black Lives Matter. And another group that basically wants to abolish the police department. And neither one of those are feasible alternatives. And in trying to ask people to calm down the rhetoric, you know, I'm being criticized in violation of our code of conduct for asking for, you know, a rational approach to solving a major problem. And, you know, I agree with a lot of what everyone said, and I do think we can probably set goals today. And I think Councilman Vella talked about what those goals are. You know, if we center it around Black Lives Matter and everyone, regardless of age, race, gender, you know, we all have to feel secure and be secure. Then everything else can fall into place. And however we want to do the process, you know, I'm open to anything. I like the ideas you guys mentioned in your column. You're taking a community centered, um, and, you know, led by, by us, the council and not staff telling us what they can do or what we should do. But, you know, at some point, we as leaders have a responsibility to chill the rhetoric a little bit and, you know, act like leaders and not like insiders. And not that I think anyone is doing that. But, you know, that's what people are looking for us to do right now. And, you know, when you go against the code of conduct and, you know, attack another council member by name, I don't think it does that. As much as I respect you and have a high opinion of you, I don't think it's helpful to to to a solution. And, you know, like but John, you did say, you know, we need to envision where we want to be. And then we build. To that. So, I mean, that's what I want to do. And I hopefully we spend the rest of of today talking about where it is we want to be and then figure out how we get there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Odie and I. And Vice Mayor. If you want to say something else, I'll give you the floor. But I want to just say something first. Um, I want to acknowledge all the hard work that this council is doing, has done, will do in the future. We, um, we have had, I think, more tough issues in a short period of time or even a long period of time than any council that I can think of. And I mean, I you're chuckling. You know what I mean? It is 24 seven, and it started with the COVID 19 pandemic. And I have been so worried and, you know, waking up at three in the morning, I'm not doing that anymore. But but I was just worrying about this this pandemic. And then we have the the second crisis within a crisis. And it is not easy. And a number of you have said this, that we are all humans with feelings and we're caring people. We chose to get involved. Some people, you know, ask me, were you crazy when you wanted to run for mayor? And, uh, but no, we're not. We're just we're committed. We're passionate. We are also impacted by all that swirling around us and and the impact of hearing public speakers. And some of them are very one sided, which is absolutely their First Amendment right. But it is our responsibility to somehow rise above the fray and understand that we may realize that there is more to an issue than meets the eye, or it simply isn't possible to do some of the things that people are calling for us to do. And of course, we want to please people. We want to make everyone happy and say yes all the time. It's not possible. So what I'm what I'm just my my advice and ask of you is take a moment or several for yourselves. Take a few deep breaths. I hope you're engaging in some form of self-care, because these are tough times to be a leader, trust me, and and you know it as well as I do. And so what we don't want to do is be seeming to attack each other. And I'll just hasten to say, Vice Mayor, I was not chastising you at all, but I was sharing my feelings and my concerns about the way your proposal was put forward. And I was just, you know, trying to keep up with speakers and going, wait, did I miss something? But the staff report wasn't even that long, so I couldn't have missed something. And my fervent desire for us to do our best work collectively and you and I have discussed between ourselves the frustrations of dealing within the Brown Act. I get that. And so, but I, um, I also have a right to express and share my views. Um, but I didn't mean it to be a chastisement because you, of course have every right to do what you do. But going forward and tonight and I will speak well, there's a couple a couple of speakers that are going to get interjected now. But, um, again, let's, let's take it a little easier on ourselves. We've, we've been working really hard on really tough issues that are not just local. They are national, they're even world wide. But as I remind myself every day, this is not the White House. And we don't have to be divisive and we don't have to try to, you know, create as against them. And we're always going to stick to the truth. But, um, but anyway, Vice Mayor, if you'd like to say something, fine, if not fine to. Okay. I just I know I says I respect Mr. Oni. I think calling out certain behaviors is not an attack on a person's character, though I understand it can land that way. And as I said, I look forward to talking more about this offline. Good. Thank you. Okay. And now the police chief would like to just address some of the concerns that were raised about policy changes coming from the police department. So I can ask a point of order. You may. Sorry, are we going to start a back and forth between staff and. I was going to go for a clarification of some things that were raised. And actually, I believe I even noted that you would like some explanation. And I think that's a very fair point. And I often times like to do things so that the public that's listening at the time can get the answer rather than, you know , if we have the people here to do it. So and briefly because it is I don't know what time it is, but it's 920, 920. Thank you. Okay. So way past his bedtime. But look at him. He's one of the most alert with spring fever, Larry. So I hate to compete with babies, but key for Larry. Can you give us some clarifications of the the policy changes we heard referenced? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members, I, I appreciate everything that was said tonight. Um, I, uh, I agree with Councilmember Velez when she said that tension is good in conversation. I totally agree with that. And we don't really move forward without them. So I'm happy to be part of any of those tense, tension filled conversations. So it's kind of a regular part of what what I do in my office. I also appreciate the fact that we can call out behaviors without calling out people. But I'd like to point out this to the vice mayor, that some of the comments that I think you're hearing from members of the police department have to do with maybe not the toned down rhetoric that we're hearing tonight, but some of the things that were happening early on after the videos of the March 23rd incident or May 23rd incident came out. I think I think some of that dialog has been dialed back a little bit. But I think that the people have been feeling a little hurt and attacked personally. And then I would also add that even from members of the council, that, you know, that that has happened with me, which has caused some a lack of confidence, I think, in some members of the public who are listening to some of the things that were said on the news or, you know, theories that I somehow was looking the other way, as the caller mentioned tonight, or was engaged in some kind of a cover up, which is absolutely false. So as far as the policy things go. Back on April 3rd. And I think most of the council knows this city manager certainly knows this. We had dialed back a lot of our self-initiated enforcement because of coldness, not because of anything that happened. This was a good month and a half before the incident on Central Avenue occurred. That was based on me trying to protect the officers from COVID and doing our part to try to protect the public from COVID. We I dialed back a bunch of our self-initiated activity for that reason, and I reported that out to my boss . And I think all of you have since been made aware of that. So when I made my comments on June 10th in the interview, to me I was not making a drastic departure from what we'd already been doing. As I've also mentioned to some of you, the the statement about not going to a mental health course was I was edited. I went on to say that I had hoped that we would start a conversation at City Hall, which we now have, about how we approach mental health calls. And unfortunately, all of that was not included in the television report. And I regret that. And I apologize to the city manager. I think I could have been done in a better way. But to the public and to the council, just so that we're clear, the policy direction, which was more of a procedural thing in terms of what we respond to, was already in place on April 3rd and it was 100% COVID related. So again, did not mean to cause any consternation in community or with anybody in city hall. And I just want to be clear that that was the primary goal. And I was trying to also respond to the reporters questions about what could I say to the community to make them feel safer at Alameda and to let them know that, you know, I was being responsive. And that's that's how I answered. So I just thought that that would be important for everybody to hear that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Okay. With that, I'm going to make my comments and then let's talk about our next steps going forward. So. Great comments by all my colleagues. Thank you. And thank you to all the public speakers who talked as well. Couple of things that I think I just reiterate because they've been raised, but I think they bear repeating and this is where I like to say it's possible for more than one thing to be true at a time. So while I appreciate hearing from residents who who say I've never had a bad experience with the police, I, I also understand and I hope other people can, too. And that's where I mean, walking in someone's shoes or imagining what it must be like to walk in someone's shoes becomes a useful attribute because it, it is I , I don't need to be told yet another time of the horrendous experiences that people of color have had just being stopped by police, just having to factor more time into getting from point A to point B because they might get stopped by the police and received hours. If you're still listening, what you talked about as being this little kid who, you know, found this bike and brought it home and your mom, you know, told you to do the right thing and you did. And what an awful experience and one that has stuck with you from the time you were seven until I don't know how old you are, but older than seven. And and it's similar to what I heard when I met with the young people and in the vice mayor referenced that conversation that I put up and put together. I was wanting two groups to hear from each other. I wasn't, you know, soliciting people's responses. I was being informed just by listening to it. But I it was a very valuable conversation and listening to these kids, I there's no reason to believe them. And I will just say that there was one commenter who said, Oh, we've heard teen after teen quote from a Netflix series. I'm not going to go blank on which one it was, but that I, I believe the kids. I believe the kids. And and we can do better. And that's partly what this is all about. Um, yesterday I went over to the home of this African-American family who we've mentioned their cars were vandalized with spray paint and racist messages. And I was talking to the husband and he looked me in the eye and said, what is the city going to do about this? And I said, about about the racism that exists in our community. And he said, Yeah, what, what is the city doing? And I said, Well, you know, we've started a process beginning with the arrest of Mr. Watkins on May 23rd. We have had two meetings that that talks about these issues. And in fact, we're meeting tomorrow. And I said in my hope and I'm just one of five councilmembers, but what I would like to see is some community task forces with members of our communities of color who have had these these experiences. And I said, I would love you to be involved. And he said, I would love to be involved. And so I gave him my business card and and he posted on the city's Facebook page in response to the the post that I put out, we put up yesterday about the incident, and he's a marine who served his country for many years. And this time he talked about the oath that he took as a marine to serve and protect anyone. He said not to ask what their race was or what their creed was before I protected them, but just to serve them. And so he said, that's, you know, that's the way I expect things to work and we can do better and we will and we are starting to. And so I'm going through, um, I talked earlier about starting with the end in mind and Councilmember Vela and others have talked about that too with the issue of unbundling the services currently delivered by police. That is something that I think has some pretty exciting possibilities. I have reached out to cahoots the the program in Eugene, Oregon. It is community assistance helping out on the streets, I believe. Um, and um, if, um, if all the planets are aligned on Friday, the, um, the coordinator of the Cahoots Program, he works with an outfit called the White Bird Clinic in Eugene, Oregon, and works closely with Eugene Police Department. And he's hoping I'm hoping he'll be my guest this Friday at noon on my mayor's town hall. So what's the city's website? So we'll get more information up there. And he is even going to reach out and see if someone from the Eugene. Police Department who they work with could also be on the town hall because it would just be great to hear their experiences and people can ask them questions. And speaking about the Eugene Police Department, I happen to know that our police chief has reached out to the police department to get information about how that the cahoots program interfaces with the police department and how they set it up, the structure and the contract and all that. And there and as far as other ways to deliver police services, I know that our assistant city manager, Jerry Boden, reached out to the county. In fact, I think Councilmember O.D. actually raised the fact that there are county services that are available. And so I email introduced Mr. Boden to Dr. Karen Tribble, who is the director of the Alameda County Behavioral Health Services Health Department. And, um, and she was great. She was she was in earlier in April. She was one of my guests on my, my town hall. And I know, I know they've connected and they're going to talk about, you know, how the city might be able to work with the county to do some of these these kinds of services . So so things are happening. They're happening as we speak. I do believe that anything we do needs to be fact based and data driven. And I mean, the vice mayor said this, that that we could, you know, cut the budget of the police department tomorrow. But where is where is the money going? And what I would like to know more of and this is actually I'm not going to take credit, but the city of Oakland, by the way, the city of Oakland is also in talks with the folks at Cahoots and the Eugene Police Department because a good idea is a good idea. And I think it's kind of exciting that it may be trickling down to the Bay Area, but one of the things that their Department of Violence Prevention has a fairly new department or maybe it's like a a task force, but they it's a community council led effort. They have started to look at the collect and analyze data on the number and types of calls that come in to the dispatchers at APD. And I commend Councilmember Odie for sitting down with a dispatcher for 3 hours and just, you know, gaining that experience. Good for you. But but the point was made from Oakland, because I was reading the abstract of their effort that the way their data is collected isn't as useful as it might be. So they're looking to collect dispatch data a different way. I have no idea what that would look like for Alameda, but I do think it's important in deciding how we might reimagine the delivery of police services and how things like mental health cause and substance abuse and homelessness issues might be handled differently. Let's find out how many calls. I mean, I get that it's a large percentage, but let's let's look at a year's worth of data and let's, you know, based are some of what we're doing. Well, all of what we're doing should be based on reality. But I think we'll just be better informed about what kinds of services we need and where we might get them if we have those that information. The one thing I want to just throw in and Mr. Boden and I talked a little bit about this yesterday, is that the codes program is unique in its own right because they are connected to this white bird clinic that is a 30 year old institution in I think it started in Eugene, Oregon. And I think they were able to buy a house. And now there is also maybe in Springfield, which I think is a neighboring city, there is like a clinic, a dental and health care and substance abuse treatment clinic. So when they go out instead of the police or on the rare occasion when they find someone who is seems to be a danger to themselves or others, they can call for police assistance, but they're able to then and again it's a voluntary transport. But if someone is willing to avail themselves of their assistance, they can take them to the clinic. They can take them to these different treatment facilities. It's not to say we have nothing in the county. We we have some things I've done, George, but I just you know, that's something that that we're going to have to think about to counsel that when we, you know, we can have different means of response. But then what what's the next step? Where do those people go? So just, you know, keep that and keep that in mind. Then the something that Paul actually let Mr. Bowden tell us about, that is an implicit bias training. It was done. I think the city of Berkeley did this a couple of years ago for its police department, but also for its city council. And so we just might think of and then apparently there's a of renowned facilitator that we might consider for ourselves at some point. The, um, uh. Other things that I do think it's important is we need to have stakeholders at our tables, whatever tables these are as we discuss these different areas and in whatever form that takes. And sometimes we need to have police at that table, too. And this is where I don't want this to be an us against them because when we're talking about police policies and practices, I, I do think it's appropriate to have someone from the police department there and to be able to say, well, you know, don't you might want to consider this and here's how we would do that . And, and just to listen and to hear and. Then. I do want to come back to something that I raised at the previous meeting, which came out of the facilitated forum with the youth, and that is the Youth Advisory Commission. And I will tell you that some of the teens in that group are very interested in that idea. And so I told them, Well, why don't you do a little research and get some information? And man, did they. And so I've got a lot of information from them about what Oakland does, but I have no idea how we would go about doing that here. But I would hope that it's something that council would consider because I think it's and by the way, I do hope that we have some youth of color on some of these if we decide to do subcommittees or task forces or what have you. But I that what I like about the Youth Advisory Commission is it gives youth a voice in real time to talk about issues they're facing and to raise things that, you know, I hope it wouldn't take until they become adults to say, you know, this happened to me, but it's not just about policing their experiences, but there's a there's a lot of things that are part of our community. So I hope we can think of a way that we might we might be able to work there to incorporate their concerns. So the what I would like to just direct to the next part of the discussion to Ward is so I think it's a reasonable statement that we probably can't do everything that we've set forward at once, notwithstanding the public's desire that we move quickly. I think we will move with all deliberate speed, but we also need to do this right. I would suggest that the the one that could maybe be set aside or or referred to elsewhere might be the laws that criminalize survival for reasons that were already discussed. But I think that some of some of these might some of these topics might be the subjects of task forces. I think we do need to talk about the size of the task force, the mission. It's given the expectation objectives. And I also was mindful that not only did a number of speakers say that this should be a community led process, and I agree, they said the city council shouldn't be part of it either. And I think I also agree there. I think that I because and here's why. I think that to have a city member, council member or to sit in on task forces. Just. Takes it in a little different direction. It is not simply members of the community. I think that members of the community and I would say meeting with a staff person who is, you know, tasked with. Carry out whatever we've directed them to do might be the preferable way to do it. And I also had a talk with the city attorney this afternoon, and he and I'll let him speak for himself. But there is some concern about Brown Act issues that come into play when you have different sets of council members on different subcommittees that are all items that are kind of going to come back to the council . Um, I would be happy to work with another council member to, um, to take a look at how, how we should work with staff to move forward on this. I think I'd like to see if we can give staff some direction because what I'd also like to have come out of tonight is a work plan and a timeline. But I think that it would be useful to have a council subcommittee to advise on that. And I want to obviously hear from all of you. Um, my suggestion, just listening and, uh, television I am thinking about it is that I would be happy to work with Councilmember Vela if I haven't assigned you too many, too many to ask lately. Um, if you felt you had the time and the inclination and obviously subject to the approval of our colleagues, that I would I would put that out there as this as a possibility. Okay. That's all for me for now. That's me. I see your hand up. Yes. Yeah. I would absolutely support some kind of collaboration with you and vice mayor. With former Vice Mayor Vela. I still can't drop it. We're off. We're off. Former vice. President once. The vice mayor. I guess that's it. Yeah. Um, I wanted to call on a different time, so for me, I am less interested in task forces whereby you pick people and they make decisions. For me, I use the term steering committee because the steering committee wasn't actually making decisions, it was developing the process and figuring out how to bring the community in. And, you know, I would really encourage us not to in the you know, not to. Well, first off, I really hope we can just kind of move forward tonight, not just on the subcommittee, but with some actual, you know, when we're going to have things back. Because I my concern about the subcommittee is the subcommittee goes, it meets, but it's not a public. The public is not there. So no decisions are being made without the community and less subcommittee members are choosing who they want to listen to. So I think that there might be a model where the subcommittee really is just an ex-officio non-voting committee that comes back with a proposed process and goals and objectives by the end of the month, which I think is kind of you know, I mean, there's lots of ways to get there, but that we actually identify some people who who really help figure out what that looks like rather than deciding tonight, it's a task force. It's nine people, here are the voices, etc.. So that would be my one comment. Yeah. Um, and I agree with you. I didn't want to get into number or individuals. I wanted to, um. Send the that decision for a policy or for a proposal to bring back to the council, to the subcommittee, if it were to be Councilmember Val and I sitting down with staff looking at the proposal that you came up with and and other considerations from everything that has been and will be said tonight. But I agree with you that we we don't want to take an inordinate amount of time. I just want to take enough time to think it through. As far as other, you know, size and and and then the yes, the the issue of meetings and some meetings probably would be not in public, but others others would be would be opened up. This is just my thought. And again, these are meetings in the time of COVID. So I think we probably have to think that they're going to look somewhat like this is for Councilmember Otis had that person and council member Vela back to you. That a mayor I mean one thing I remember the council did I maybe it was nine years ago eight years ago was an ad hoc committee for the America's Cup and I think there was a council member on it. But it did meet it had public meetings and public agendas. So, I mean, I like the idea of you and Councilmember Vela working together. I think that to bring a bring a big picture view of what needs to be done and maybe we don't like, say, individual folks or people, but, you know, the the basic categories and goals, geographic diversity, gender diversity, members of the black community, community interest groups, business high impact, you know, centering black and youth voices. You know, I think those those could be your guiding principles as you as you go forward. I mean, the thing about must being from Alameda, there's a lot of great social justice groups, you know, just over the estuary, you know, that, you know, well, we're not as blessed as as Oakland is with the great social justice groups. So in some areas, it may be necessary to, you know, look elsewhere for, you know, some type of expertize. But, you know, I think the proposal, as long as it comes back quickly and it's open and the community can be a part of it, you know, I think it's going to be a good thing. I do think we can come up with at least what, like you said, the goals and objectives that the vice mayor said. You know, by the end of the month, we know what we're doing. But if we decide we want well, I guess that's phase two. So let me just I'll. Gosh. We'll talk about that later. But I like the idea, but I don't think we can waste time. The only other thing I would ask a question of, I mean, there was a lot of discussion today about accountability and a possible citizens board. I mean, I don't think we fleshed that out so much. But, you know, if I believe if that was something the community wanted to go in the direction of, we'd have to put that on the ballot. So I don't know if, you know, maybe having a different subcommittee that could work on, you know, what ballot language might be possible. That leaves us with enough leeway. I don't know, just because that has to be done by like the beginning of August, right? Um, so I would say, um, and maybe we'll call on the city attorney and I think to put people on the spot. But we actually had a little bit of a discussion about whether or not that actually does require a ballot measure. And the other thing about our city attorney even is besides that he's a talented attorney, is he came from the city of Santa monica, where they had done a number of citizens. I don't know whether they were called task forces or subcommittees, but around some media topics. And so that that just, you know, helped inform my understanding of how these things might look. But, um. City Attorney If you could just. Mr. Chan, if you could just talk a little bit about the accountability piece, Citizen Oversight Board, what, what might that look like? And as far as that, how it could be formed. So on that issue, I think the Council has wide ranging discretion on how you'd like to ultimately form a committee and what that function of that committee is. And depending upon the function that you assign that committee, there may or may not need to be ballot action. So, for example, the charter assigned the administrative function to the city manager and the policymaking duties to the council. So if you assign enough duties, a decision making authority is, let's say to this body, it is possible that that body begins to infringe upon the city manager's authority to administer the police department. At that point, we will need to ask the voters for their consent to organize. On the other hand, if you were establishing a committee that, for example, gives the council and the city manager recommendations about policy changes, that clearly does not need a ballot approval because you are establishing an advisory committee to advise the decision makers, which is the council, the city manager and the police chief on operations of the police department. So, you know, and there will certainly be some gray it depending upon where the council wants to go. You know, the more authority and decision making that you ratchet up to this body, the more likely and at some point infringe upon the city manager or the council's authority to run the city on a policy or administrative basis. I hope that answers that specific question. Yes, I think it gives council something to think about going forward and as it did for me. Okay. Did you want to. Councilman Brody, did you want to? I mean, I. Did. Not. Not yet. So I guess people need to understand then if if the ultimate outcome is that we have a civilian body with more authority, then less so that, you know, it's going to take going to the ballot. And, you know, we're almost up to the deadline for this year. So we have to wait for the next election or we have a special election, you know, and that's another, you know, 90 days plus before we can schedule that. So, you know, that's not something that's going to be able to be implemented as quickly as people want it to be. So I don't know where we're going to fall on that. But I, I guess in the process, one, we're going to identify, you know, some type of of path forward on how we're going to decide that . Sorry. Finishes Alpha. You get the sign. Okay. Councilmember Vela, you're next. The city attorney had his hand up. Oh, I'm sorry. I had to say something. Thank you, city attorney. Thank you very much. I just want to add one more point about process, which is that the council could not modify the charter by special meeting. So you would have to do that either at a general and primary election or a general election. So that's middle. If not this year, the middle of 2022 or end of 2022. I just want to share that one more fact. Thank you very much. Election that special Guinea. Special election is. What did I say? Special meeting? Yes. That's all I can utilize. The charter amendments. My apologies. My phone is beeping at me that says it's dying. So I'm going to turn off the works and. Plug it in. My, my, my apologies to turn around and flourish. But you also cannot modify the charter at a special meeting, so just remove that. Right. All in favor. Oh, no, just kidding. Okay. Um, so it can't remember. You said you were finished. And, Councilmember Vella, you are next. Yeah, so I just kind of. I want to kind of. Reiterate what I think I've heard from people in terms of where I hear consensus. So I think that we have consensus in that there will be a perhaps a steering committee of some kind to help lay out the process to move forward and that there will be a council subcommittee member. I'd be happy to serve with you. I think we've worked together well in the past and it would be you be happy to to work on it. I think what there's a couple of things. So one, I think what I would like to hear from my colleagues on is do we have agreement on what kind of the general scope of consideration is or the aim of where we're going? I think there's lots of great ideas and I think we can hear from the specifics about implementing and how we respond to it. But I think I guess what I'm looking for is are we looking towards just an effective safety and security for all our needs? Is there a different way we want to work that, but what's the kind of proposed overarching goal? I think we can all agree it's beyond just the term law enforcement. But but what is it we're looking to achieve? And I think that's that's one thing that I would like to hear hear from my colleagues on. The other thing that I would put out there is, well, I think that many of the laws that criminalize survival are state laws, where we prioritize our response and how we actually respond to enforcement of them. We get a lot of calls for people who are unhoused, and I think that that is going to be a larger part of our conversation about our policing policies and practices. And I want to get away from just talking about policies because of both of the practices and then the the outcomes that we continue to get. Are we getting disparate outcomes, what we're looking at all of those things. So this isn't just about policies. I think we're all aware of that, but I wanted to highlight that. So I think there is going to be a place for that conversation. I don't want it to necessarily go away. I think it just maybe gets brought under the umbrella of some of these other conversations. And it also, I think, will go part into the unbundling conversation as well as we look at how we can be proactive about providing services. I also want to just get a sense of kind of meeting dates from my colleagues. I think it's all well and good for a subcommittee to kind of say, okay, this is when we're going to start scheduling things. I think if we could get a sense of is there a mixture of weekends, dates, times that that people could be amenable to and what is the overall timeline? Are we I mean, I think the goal is to get this done by senior set this month till June. I'm hoping he means July. I think he means July. Yeah. So that's one day. Yeah. And then, you know, I, I hear the community and the calls for oversight and accountability. I think that there's this was brought up before the council before and I had questions is what's the process and does it go in the charter? I think it depends on how we define oversight and accountability, and I think that's going to be part of the community led process. I think it's all good and fine to be like, Look, let's get something on the ballot, but let's vote. I think if we did that right now, all I have that I could go off of is something general along the lines of the community authorizes council to create some sort of oversight committee. I don't I wouldn't know what the bounds of that are because I think people have different definitions of what oversight and accountability are. We have some people calling for literally a review of police officers in the civil service process. We have other individuals calling for oversight of policies, and then we have other groups that want data and a review of practices. I think part of this is, yes, I want to get change. I think we all do. But I think in order for it to be the transformative change that we all want, it might not mean rushing to get something on the ballot right now. As much as I'd like to be able to say, yes, I'm for oversight, accountability. I think those are big words that mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And I don't want to be disingenuous about, yes, we're doing something when it may not be the thing that people think that it is. So and I know I'm not accusing any of my colleagues of trying to do that. I certainly have gone back and forth on does this belong on this ballot or a later ballot? But I think that this is where I at least personally want to take a step back and say, let's listen to the community. That's why we're going to have these subcommittees. This is part of what I want. To work on, go through what are the best practices? What do they want? What has been effective in communities the size of Alameda, that sort of thing. Or charter cities. And I think that that's going to be a robust conversation that I'm really looking forward to listening to. And also, you know, I think part of leadership in this area is, like I said, going to be outlining the process and then empowering people to tell us what they want. And I think that's what I'm really excited about through this. And I think that we can all get by in and where we're going to be able to say this was community led and we can stand by this. And there were multiple opportunities for people to weigh in and that we went to people. The last thing I want to put out there is because I think a lot of these meetings are going to be via Zoom. The other thing is just recognizing that and I want to put this out there to people who would be. Potential. Steering committee members. I don't want the digital divide to be an issue. And so if that means that the city needs to come up with like a my or, you know, an iPad or something that we get to steering committee. Members for the purposes of. Digital meetings, that's also something I think we need to figure out and work into all of this. Good points. And I just want to touch on a couple of things. You mentioned Councilmember Vella. When we talk about out outcomes, I would like somewhere in this process to build in to what we're creating a way to measure outcomes . And we can you know, we can decide among ourselves the these groups of community members can help us with that. Um, another reason Councilmember Vella is a particularly good choice for this subcommittee. Is she in her day job which probably seeps in tonight is is a labor lawyer and does represent union employees, including public safety. I'm not in this city but in other places. And so it's just good to have that understanding also of policy. And so I think that she know as far as time, I just want to get your I mean, one minute Councilmember Day. So I had a timeline and next meetings I think we want to ask staff because we are going to be asking them to work with us to help pull some of these things together. And so and I do think that they understand that the urgency that and the community's desire. So it is both our availability when we then need to call a special meeting to um, to discuss things that have, you know, developments and to keep things moving on track. So, um. Assistant City Manager Bowden, could you talk to us a little bit? I know you've put some thought into how to get more than 24 hours in a day, I think to get all this done expeditiously, that the floor is yours. Please. Yeah. I just I appreciate the conversation tonight. I think I've. I've heard a lot more. Um, just to be able to develop the work plan, the way that the council has tonight helps. I think that we can take the month of July and, and work through what it's going to look like. And, and using the the subcommittee and steering committee concept works. Well, I just I need to sit down with you all and really look at a calendar and lay out a plan that helps us do this. I I'd love to be able to give you dates tonight, but I just don't think that, um, we're there right now . But we can be in during the month of July. I think that's realistic. Okay. But during, during the month of July. So, um, I don't go anywhere in the month of July. People just kidding. We'll get some specific dates, but I, I can commit and I'm sure Councilmember Villa, who might have just disappeared, that probably for good reason. Hi. Um, that, um. I think we can, as early as tomorrow, we can coordinate our schedules with Mr. Boden's to to sit down and start moving some of these, um, these ideas forward as soon as possible. Um. So thank you. Um. So I, um. So. Yeah. Councilmember Gates. I'm sorry. Sorry. Just just quickly. Is the idea of having a steering committee, a subcommittee or whatever community input process to look at one, two, three and four? Or are we going to look at one separately and kind of bundle together several others so that there would be a steering committee or whatever committee input process for the unbundling services and one separately for the other. And the reason why I'm kind of framing it that way is because it seems to me that the you know, the specifics of quote unquote, unbundling services currently delivered by the police, I think we have in mind a good example. It might not be the perfect example and there might be some specifics that are only true in the Eugene Springfield area. But nonetheless, there are some things out there that perhaps if there was a committee that was able to evaluate that and say this is why it works and this is why it could work even better in Alameda. And maybe that same task force might, you know, pick up some lessons learned from, I don't know, maybe something Hayward is doing something or maybe something that Oakland is doing. And the reason I'm kind of framing it that way is because it seems to me that if there's a task force that's going to be looking at issues regarding two, three and four, I think there are some deeper. Issues there that are about, you know, history and that I don't think are intractable. But I do think that that that they require kind of, in my opinion, a separate community input process. I'm just going to throw it out there like that, because at the end of the day, let me just end by saying this. At the end of the day, I think the reason why we're here. One of the big reasons why we're here is because persons that our community was concerned about the way in which Molly Watkins was treated on Central Avenue. And that out of that came a concern to kind of, you know, look at different ways of having our police doing things. And I think, one, your idea of the cahoots model is such a touch it feel, it's the kind of thing that people, you know, are attracted to with. Thank you. Thank you. And I. I think. Okay. Well, I'll. But I think I saw Vice Mayor then Councilman Brody. So in that order, please. Thank you. So I want to make sure. Well, from my standpoint, I'm not ready to move forward with any specifics tonight. I tell you, that's putting the cart before the community. As I said at the beginning, we are a month out. And we are. I am going. I am not going to be able to support a subcommittee to come up with a process tonight that doesn't have dates and does not commit to coming back with finalized recommended goals and objectives by the end of the month. And I'm not going to be able to support if we don't have milestones. I hear that you're proposing a subcommittee that's going to work with staff and that that is going to slow things down because that is the process. And that's fine. I just I just want to be clear. I we I want I think our community kind of expects it deserves some action so that we're not telling them to wait another month because that's how long it's going to take. If we have a subcommittee that's going, you know, we're bringing things back, trying to bring things back. We only have two meetings in July. So I would like to if we're going to move forward with some model, I'd like to know when they're when we're coming back with who's on the steering committee within the process so that we have the objectives and goals by the end of the month, because I don't want to wait another month. I mean, okay. So I agree that I heard Mr. Bowden say that this can be done in the month of July. And so we have two council meetings regularly scheduled in the month of July. I believe I indicated this may take a special meeting or two and what I am intending working with Councilmember Vela is to very quickly come up with proposals that we can bring back to Council for Finalization. But I, um. I want to see. For. Specified plans and timeline and measurables and how we're going to how we're going to decide outcomes and so and yeah and a better idea of who will who will inform us and in what shape that body takes. I do see this as being very community community driven. So month of July is a busy working month. Um, I think some of us have talked about there may be some things we need to do in August to if everyone's, you know, not leaving town or around some of the time. Councilmember Val's got her hand up. Oh, no, I'm sorry. You know, it counts. Everybody had his hand. Up next, you will be after that. Councilmember Vella. Sorry. Um. I mean, they were not going anywhere. So, I mean, I'm here in August. Then he went to dispose of. I mean, I agree with the vice mayor. I mean, there has to be a definitive date. And that was one of the beauties of this proposal, is that it had a fixed schedule that was fairly rapid. So to the extent it includes that, I would need that to support it as well. But it's interesting. I mean, the two comments about the unbundling, I think there's kind of unanimity about unbundling. Um, um, I heard Councilmember de some say, well, you know, we have to figure out what that looks like. And then I heard the vice mayor say, well, we don't want a preordained solution. So, I mean, what are we are we just expecting that in a month this is a come back and say unbundling is one of the things we need to focus on or I mean, are we giving them direction that, you know, um, we've decided we want to do some type of unbundling, you know, tell us how, how we do that. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't have an opinion one way or the other because they both made valid points. But I mean, if we've already decided that's what we want to do, do we just let them ratify that or do we start the work on it? So I don't know. So if my interpretation and we're going to you next, Councilmember Vella, is that I think there is agreement across the board that you all can start me or you chime in if if you're not there that we do need to and bender police services that currently sending police out on every call is not working not for police the community and there's better ways of delivering service now what those resources are out there to help divert those some of those calls. I have a general sense I have an aspirational goal of what I'd like it to look like. But as I said earlier, among other things, I think we need to analyze some data to to know, you know, we need this many social workers, you know, nurses, paramedics, what have you. I don't want to speculate, but I, I think the the unbundling is not do we do it or not? I think it's I think I'm hearing, yes, we do it model what's the right model. And, um, and then how do we get there in terms of, um, shifting funding and things. But so my question to the Vice Mayor, yes, if we give that direction is, is that qualify under his definition and I'm sorry, customer development does that part by definition of, you know, a predetermined outcome or because I want this to be successful? So. We look, I from from my standpoint, there are people who know this stuff. I am not that person. Right. So my proposal was that we take the police chiefs list of I think there were five different policies to include not doing traffic enforcement, not responding to five 5152, etc. And we give staff direction to have staff and the experts on our staff who know how to do these different things, to come up with a model and come back to us with a recommendation, they can look at cahoots and they can say, This is great, or we recommend doing something that's similar but in a different way. Again, whatever, whatever it is, what I'm saying is I don't want to pick. Cahoots is the thing. Let's go figure out how to do that. I want to figure out what is the you know what I would drive it again from the from the from that would be kind of the more outcome based which is the police saying here are some things that are not crime and violence reduction activities that we think we could find a different way to do this. But to have our staff go off and see how they can figure that out and come back and hopefully they can come back in August or September with a with a framework. That's what I meant by by choosing I don't want to choose like it's it's it's an X, Y and Z. It's more, you know, unbundling can be an ongoing conversation because it isn't a thing. It means looking and taking. And we might it it can be iterative even through the chair ways. So, I mean, what what do you envision and the steering committee deliverable on a monthly. I mean, if from my standpoint, they would come back by the end of the month with a community derived goals and objectives, definition and also a process for having a conversation with the community to identify what Lay looks like and what is the important things to unbundle and sets, you know. And then it comes to the council for decisions. So we're not right. This is that tension. I know some people want the community to actually decide and do it and we were elected to be that voice . Are we are actually the civil the civilian community voice in this process? It's okay. I mean, I'm good with that if everyone else is. I just want to be clear. Yep. What he said. I agree. Okay. Anything else, Councilor Brody? No, actually, I'm good with it, no matter what anyone else says already. Councilmember Vella, you've been waiting patiently. So I think the other the other kind of action items here that I just I think that we have agreement on is that that we would come back by the end of July. So that last week of July, there would be. Kind of. I think. We would we would. Schedule some sort of special council meeting to actually get concurrence with the with these proposals. And I think that we can we can agree on that. I think there will also be and I think I heard this there will also be a number of town hall opportunities at different times in different days. We are going to coordinate with staff on that, also recognizing that there's other committees and groups that are meeting outside of. Us that. That we have to coordinate all that with. And then, you know, finally, I think the only other thing is just talking about. You know, and making sure that we have agreement on whether or not we want a consistent membership within the subcommittees. I personally think that that's important for for these conversations. I think that there's going to be a lot of kind of items that are going to need a lot of discussion around what they entail and what people's intentions around it. So I would like to get some sort of guidance from from our colleagues, because I think we need that as the subcommittee to go when we're we're thinking about how to who's going to be on the steering committees, what sort of commitments we're asking from people. Are we asking them for a month? Are we asking them for to carve out time for a longer duration? And obviously, I'll come back to the full council for approval. But I think that we have to know that now before we go out and. Recruit people for this. Yeah, I would say good point and I would be interested to know what people envision as I think somebody raised that earlier. One of you did. But what what period of time are we looking at to to have this community engagement? Because, you know, people need to know that. And it is my hope as I lecture everyone about COVID safety measures that more parts of our economy will open up in the not too distant future so people can get back to earning their livelihood and all that. So in some some regards, we've we've got kind of a captive audience right now, but I'm hoping that it won't always be for that reason. But what what time frame? Give me some some thoughts, folks. Council member Vice Mayor Knox White Council member. Vice Mayor. Yes, um. Honorable doctor. I don't. Know. I'm going to start with I don't know the answer to your question. I struggled a lot with this. We have five subcommittees. I think we had some some members of our community say, you're going to disperse way too much. And I think that there's a lot of validity to that. I think anti-racism and unbundling are long term projects and probably need you know, I have a personal interest in engaging with the anti-racism work and how that looks even at a city level and a city government level is a whole nother issue. But those two conversations, I think we need to kind of think about it by the end of the month. I think that the steering committee should say, here's how those things should look. I think the other ones could probably be much more time like know policy review and and oversight, which are more, you know, kind of tightening up things, looking at policies. You know, you could at least start spinning off things that could be acted on pretty quickly and may have different people coming in with different viewpoints. Right. But might not anyway. I would leave it up to the steering committee, but I think that looking at maybe having two or three tracks that don't hold the other tracks up would help. So we don't have to solve racism and then we can talk about oversight. Right. We should we should do that because that's an ongoing, lifelong discussion. Yeah, right. That's my focus. But I'm not sure if that's helpful or not, but that that's kind of how I would look at it. I don't know what the timeline is, and I trust the steering committee to make some work. Think we can probably dig deeper into that and figure out more precisely timelines, but the good and good input and I agree with that, that some of those are definitely longer term and others are shorter term and I definitely sense this community interest in participating. Council voted. Did I see your hand go back up? Yeah, I saw it. Mr. DeSantis, too. But I'll be quick. I mean, I think I would trust that council. I mean, the the the subcommittee to kind of make that decision, because for some people, it may be a month and then they're done, but for some, just let them know. I mean, if you if you have an interest in something that we want to keep in the steering committee, you know, it could be longer. So just, you know, give people that expectation. And but I trust you. You will be able to communicate that and determine that. Thank you. Councilmember Daza, you had your hand up. Well, in terms of the my response to your question is what kind of time frame might be looking at? I'd be looking at at the end of July, if not early August. And I say that because two things. One is, you know, our neighbors like San Leandro, they've made some major decisions with regards to defunding police. Now you know how they defund police. It certainly isn't aligned with the way that defunding has been defined nationally. But but it was an important decision that they've made. And so they've made it fairly rapidly. I've got to believe that that we can make a decision, a good decision, on a similar timeframe. But the second reason why I think late July, if not early August, is because I still believe that the unbundling services idea is looking at cahoots as a model. It gives us a start. I'm not saying we have to automatically adopt cahoots, but it certainly is such a great idea and it gives us a touch to see it, touch it, feel it kind of vantage point from which that we can begin to make some, some, some, some good decisions. And it seems as though staff is looking into this. Parts of it might not work. I think you mentioned something that the mental health or social service provider as a key part. And then and is that kind of a thing available here in the East Bay? We don't know. Um, but I think because we've got such a model, that's something that, that we can then have art committee members or task force members, whatever you want to call them, you know, look into it in addition to the range of other issues that Vice Mayor White had raised, you know, with regard to. Okay, what other how how in what other ways do you want to look at unbundling services? But my point is just simply, I think, you know, we can do a piece, baby, by the end of the month, if not early August, because I think if San Leandro can make some quick decisions, important decisions about defunding police, because this is how I'm defining defunding police is is unbundling services. So when people say, well, what did you do but defunding police? Well, I didn't do 50%. But but we did look at something like this, whatever came out of the unbundling services. Thank you. I happen to think we're doing a lot. Um, but that's just me. Okay, we have heard great suggestions. We. I think we have two orders of business. One is we need to approve the subcommittee that I've proposed to move forward to bring you back these proposals as quickly as possible. And. Second, can we agree that we are just sending giving staff direction on the discussion and ask? I guess I should ask staff if they feel that they have. Has got sufficient direction from us. So why don't I start with, you know, we haven't heard from our city manager, Mr. Levitt, much, if at all, tonight. So. Mr. Levitt. No, I think we have some good direction. And if that subcommittee of Marisa Ashcroft and company Revelle get put together to set up the steering committee format, I'll be getting in contact with the office tomorrow morning and having them set that up for the end of the week so that hopefully by probably wouldn't be able to be July 7th, but by July 21st, we can at a minimum come back with a status report to the council. Okay. Um. Uh. Okay. And I might be looking for a little more than a status report, but. Well, yeah, I mean, but at a minimum, we'd be. I'll come back from the subcommittee with a status report, if not a final report by twice. Okay. And cancer O.D.. I'd like to at least make a motion on the first one to authorize the creation of a steering committee to develop discussions with the council member Vela and Mayor Ashcraft and subcommittee with the membership based on, and based on the document from, uh, Councilman Vela and Vice Mayor Knox White with a deadline to report back. Um, let's just say July 31st. And then you could. I'm open to a different date. That's either a day earlier or a day later. Okay. Okay. And I would just ask that we base our work on both the policy document that the vice mayor and councilman rebels have come up with in addition to this entire discussion that the full council has had. Yeah, we would modify. Okay. Okay. Vice Mayor, I see your handout. And I think I'll second I just want to be clear. Reporting back by the 31st means with it with the proposal and the definition. I just want to be clear that reporting back could just be like, we're not ready yet. No, no, I want to I would like to change if we can change that language. To really clarify, we'll bring back a final recommendation for goals, objectives and a work plan. I am 100% on the support to the status of the Special Counsel meeting by July 31st. Thank you. That that's my understanding. Okay. We have a motion. And Councilmember Vela, you're nodding. That was your understanding as well. And staff does that doesn't give you too much. Well, let's talk about that later. I probably all. Okay. We're gonna move with all deliberate speed, but we want to make sure we're okay. Okay. All right. So we had a motion by Councilmember Ody, was seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Madam, quick, may we please have a roll call vote? Councilmember Dysart. I. Councilmember Obie. Odie. I had a new member who killed herself. Councilmember Vela. I. Vice Mayor Knox White. Hi. Mayor. As he Ashcraft. I know. Just because you're sick. Thank you. Just because you're from Chicago. We only vote once. I'm still getting. That. Yes. So do you want to talk about stimulus payments to get people in that? We don't want to do that. So. Okay. We have established a steering committee and we will get going. As the city manager indicated, I'll be talking to folks in the morning. We'll get and we will get going. And so do we have a direction that has been given? Is the staff require anything further before we adjourn this meeting? Vice Mayor Not quite. Which button to mute. I want to just clarify with with Councilmember Odie that your recommendation included the request staff to review the the Chief of Police June 10th policies and bring forward ideas to help implement them. Um, if not, I will make that, make that a separate motion. Was that was that in your proposed process one month? Yes, it was. It was the fourth bullet under Monday action. And I just wanted to make sure it was clear it's actually incorporated. Okay. I don't know that I won't move it. Okay. All right. Um. Okay. This, um. You guys are amazing. This has been 5 hours. Um, and, um. And there's going to be more, but maybe not always. 5 hours. But, again, I. I just want to emphasize what I said before. You were doing really tough work. We don't have a lot of roadmap for doing this, but it's long overdue. And I'm I'm proud of us for tackling it. And so, um, let's just keep on doing what we're doing and get some rest because there's more work to be done. Um, and with that, if any note has anything else to add, I will send you say you um, yes, you may. I just want to say, regardless of tensions and whatever else which are going to happen, I appreciate working with all of you. Thank you. Thank you. I would I would second that. Everyone's nodding yes. Good. Good work, everyone. And thank you to staff. Thank you so much to the clerk's office for for making this happen. And we appreciate you and take care. Stay safe. Wear your masks. Be really careful out there on the 4th of July, please. No large crowds. All right. Take care. We'll see you all soon by everybody. Bye bye. Good work.

AS AMENDED a resolution approving a proposed Escrow Funding Agreement between the City and County of Denver and H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. to perform escrow services for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project. Approves a three-year nine-month $15 million contract with H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. for relocation reimbursement to owners and tenants impacted by the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems project including moving, storage, deposits, and other relocations costs in Council District 9 (FINAN-201733769-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-25-17. Amended 5-22-17 to correct the clerk filing number for the new Exhibit A that deletes an incorrect reference to the Colorado Department of Transportation and adds language to clarify that the activities are to be performed under the oversight of the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0473

For 22. For 23, for 24 for 25 and for 27 for postponement. Is that correct? Okay. I see everybody looking surprised. Okay. Under bills for introduction. Nothing has been called out. Under bills for final consideration. Final consideration. Nothing has been cut up and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please bring up the first item for 73? Councilwoman, can each please offer your amendment? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 473 be amended in the following particulars on page one. Line 13 strike the number 201733769-00 and replace it with the number 2017-0243. Councilman Kennedy, please forgive me. I did not put it on the floor first, so let me put it on the floor. Floor. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put 473 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution for 73 be adopted. All right. It has been moved in, seconded Councilwoman each for the good of the order. Can you react again? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 473 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 13 strike the number 201733769-00 and replace it with the number 2017-0243. Great. And that has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment corrects the clerk filing number for the new Exhibit A that deletes an incorrect reference to the Colorado Department of Transportation and adds language to clarify that the activities in this contract were to be performed under the oversight of the city county of Denver and not a court. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Flynn, do you want to ask your question real? Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, Councilwoman, this amendment takes care of my question. When I was reading through the the contract earlier, I noticed that it had put this work. It said, under the oversight of Colorado Department of Transportation. And I couldn't quite figure that out what that meant. So when I inquired about it, apparently we had the wrong contract filed with us or I don't know, Lisa maybe is can someone explain to us how this happened and does this require us, Mr. Broadwell, to hold it over a week or can we adopt? We can adopt it tonight. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Lisa Lemley, division of Real Estate. When Councilman Flynn called me, I don't know that I can explain other than it sounds like the wrong version that had been corrected did not save the correction and that's what was uploaded. Okay. So now I apologize for any error confusion that that caused. All right. Thank you. That was my guy. Looks like. He's good. Thank you, Lisa. Oh, Councilman Espinosa. Just because I can't help but get over the irony of of sort of being mixed in with something that has absolutely nothing to do with I-70. I'm sorry. I just had to make that comment. Okay. We have it's been moved and seconded or any other questions. Comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Can eat Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I assessment. I. Black clerk. All right. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting and ask for results. But there we go to advice. 12 Eyes. The resolution for 73 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to adopt as amended. That was what my question was, I think. Were we supposed to have a motion to adopt? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution, resolution 473, be adopted as amended. It has been moved in second at Madam Secretary, roll call. Can each. LOPEZ All right. New Ortega. Specimen black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Cashman Mr. President, i. Political voting announced results. 12 Eyes 12. Eyes resolution for 73 has been adopted as amended. Madam Secretary, will you go to the next item and bring up 501 resolution? 501509509 I'm sorry. 5094 Councilman Flynn. Councilman Flynn, go ahead.

A resolution approving a proposed Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and ITW GSE, Inc. concerning ground power units and air units for jet bridges and gates at Denver International Airport. Approves a purchase order with ITW GSE, Inc. for $1,762,410.16 for 16 ground power units and 11 preconditioned air units for jet bridges and gates at Denver International Airport (PO-00052525). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-17-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-21-18.

DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1337

The items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Is there anything that I missed? All right, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Resolution 1337 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution. So there's a council bill or resolution resolution. Okay. Council resolution. 1337. 1337 be approved. Thank you. It has been moved. Can get a second moved and seconded questions and comments by members of council. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Per the request of Denver International Airport, I am requesting my colleagues to vote no on the defeat of this resolution. Not quite ready for this bill just yet. So. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Jersey Councilman Sussman, you're still up from before. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Council members, this is just a reminder to please vote no. Council secretary call. Black Knight. Espinosa. No. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No. Herndon. No. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. No. New? No. Ortega. No. Sussman. No. Mr. President. No. No. Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 nays. 12 nays. Council Resolution 1337 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. And, Councilwoman, you go ahead with your question.

Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) in an Amount not to Exceed $184,000 for Caltrans to Review and Approve the Project Initiation Document (PID), which is Required by Caltrans, to Determine the Project’s Scope, Cost and Schedule for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project; and Execute a Contract with CDM Smith in the Amount of $372,928, Including Contingency, for Engineering, Planning, and Outreach Services to Prepare the PID. (Transportation 91815)

AlamedaCC_04172018_2018-5385

Recommendation to authorize the acting city manager to execute a cooperative agreement with the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, an amount not to exceed 284,000. For Caltrans to review and approve the project initiation document, which is required by Caltrans, determine the project scope, cost and schedule for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project and execute a contract with CDM Smith in the amount of 372,000, including contingency for engineering. All right, if you want to go first. Yes. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Gayle Payne, project manager for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project. You want me to make a staff report or. On this item. The item before you is to prepare the project. Initiation document. For this order to 1.7 mile corridor. This is a Caltrans required document because half of the 1.7 mile corridor is a state route, state route 61. That's between Webster and Sherman. And we have we're requesting a staff recommendation to execute a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to review this PID document, the project initiation document. That's the required document for state highway system projects. And then also to execute a contract with CDM Smith to prepare this pit. And keep in mind that this required document will take about a year to prepare. And what it will do is we will be able to understand what are the alternatives that we will consider for Central Avenue at Webster. So we'll have that nailed down as all the ones that will be analyzed in the next phase. And we also will do a preliminary environmental review and analysis, as well as a traffic analysis on the entire corridor, as well as the different scenarios for Webster and Central. We are looking at ways to in innovative ways to streamline this project, especially with it. Environmental Review. Since this is a really complicated project because it's partly on state run. I'm sorry, I need the record to reflect that Vice Mayor Vela has stepped out of the room and the time that I need that marked on the minutes. Thank you. She is recusing herself from this item because she lives near the property. Okay, so we need to say that so we all know what's happening. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, remember, Vice Mayor Vella is recusing herself from this item and that's why she stepped away from the dias. Or that. We know that. Thank you. You may continue. In parallel, as we complete the project initiation document. We will be working with. Caltrans and the funding agency to streamline the project, especially when it pertains to that environmental documentation. That's the Sequoia and the NEPA that's required since these are federal funds for construction. And so we will in parallel, while we're working on the PID, we will be working on ways to streamline. This is a really complicated project. And so we do want to use best practices on how to move forward and in the most streamlined way possible. And I'm available for questions or comments. Thank you. Member matter. Just a quick clarifying question. Maybe I missed it, but the Caltrans work, will they approve the plan for Central and Webster? Is that part of their approval or part of their review? They will review the various scenarios we come up with in this PID phase. And so they will conceptually approve all this, all the scenarios that we will come up with to consider, and that will be considered and further analyzed in the next phase and then project analysis. But when they say when you say that they will review everything that they. Does that mean that they could say no, that that particular plan, one, two, three, three is not going to we're not going to approve that they could they eliminate. I guess I'm asking, can they eliminate a scenario? They could. Okay. It's it's hard to say at this point. They have been very amenable and it's been a while. I'm not I'm just saying. What the process. Yes. Them to remove a scenario from our list of possible. I would think that would be a possibility. Okay, thanks. That's all I need. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. So I was the one who pulled this from the consent calendar, although my question is actually somewhat similar to councilmember matter. So I do understand that a part of this is State Highway 61 and that's where Caltrans comes in. My question, I know that they the city, we have to get a conceptual approval by Caltrans before proceeding to further design, environmental review and construction. And my question is, what what further Caltrans approvals will be required? I mean, this is just the initial phase, but do will they need to sign off on further design and construction documents before they can be finalized? Right. Okay. Yes. And so in the next phase, there's the project approval and environmental documentation phase. They need to sign off on that. Then there's the next phase. The plan specification estimates, they sign off on that. And the construction, it's it's federal money, so they sign off on everything. So then just for clarification, for their work, we need to come up with $184,000. That's just for this the project initiation document phase. Can we anticipate similar numbers for the other phase? Yes. Okay. And just for the public, that might be, you know, having heart palpitations like I did when I saw these numbers. There's a whole lot more grant money out there that we were able to get. So it's but I just I wondered what we would be looking at, more approvals and more fees. Yes. And we will be looking at additional. Those are my questions. Thank you. And we do have two speakers on this item that I'd like to call at this time, Brian McGuire and then Denise Trapani, a. Good evening. I was a little surprised to see the recusal. I didn't realize. I thought it was only if there was, like, a financial interest of some kind. But, I mean, a 1.7 mile corridor could be a lot of people that live close to such a project. But Bike Walk is looking forward to this project moving forward. We are excited to work with staff and excited that we've got funding and we're ready to take the next steps. We do think that a couple of things as regards to the description, this council gave direction to look at safer alternatives for the Webster and Central intersection . And we support that. We hope that we're not limited in when we consider our alternatives there. If the design for that intersection may lead us, especially towards the West, as we connect with different facilities towards the point to examine more than just the immediate vicinity, it might extend. And, you know, if we decide to do something like a protected bike lane on part of that section, it would make sense to reexamine from Webster to Payton School that maybe we could extend it and close that gap right wherever possible. So hopefully we we follow the follow the design where it goes and not just be focused at that corner. We do think it's a big enough project that maybe it would be worth exploring doing some of the other parts that are not Caltrans right of way sooner. We've waited a long time. We know this corridor's unsafe. There's a lot of schools that are on central west of Webster and a lot of students and families that use what we've identified as an unsafe configuration. So if there's any opportunity to start doing work on the segments west of Webster that we've got an approved design for , and we can move forward and start construction on those before 2021 so that we can start delivering some amenities and some safety improvements sooner without dramatically increasing. Obviously the staff, staff costs and efficiencies we might gain, but we think it would be worth exploring. So we hope you can consider that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? I'm sorry, Denise. Thank you. Thanks for giving me the time to speak tonight on this. I'm going to reiterate some of what Brian said. I first got involved with Bike Walk Alameda on the Central Project. Years ago when we. Were doing outreach for a community outreach. That's how I first heard about Bike Walk Alameda and I'm on the board, so it's been a long time coming. So we're very excited that this is finally happening and I may be mis misremembering some of this, but the whole project goes from internal all the way down around the corner to where it becomes main to Pacific. The Caltrans portion is really just Webster to Anthony all it's just the eastern portion of it. When I was looking through some of the documents for the scope of this project, what we're going to be doing with Caltrans or with the consultant, where it looks like we're doing like traffic counts again all the way back to. Pacific and fourth and eighth where we may not need to do them again. I don't know how much of that is. We're just treating it all like one project. But that's not really Caltrans jurisdiction. But that's not my my area of expertize. I just want to make sure that we're moving as fast as we can and we're not doing too much work. And if we did a bunch of traffic counts and we have approval. On designs for. Stuff. That's west of Webster. Yeah, let's move forward with that. Let's not do all the traffic. Counts and look at all the pedestrian crossings. If we've done all that, let's not do that. But that was included in the scope of work tonight for the consultant. So that's it. Thank you. Please move this forward so we can get some a safety corridor in Central. Thank you. Thank you. Linda Astbury. Hello. Linda Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. We really want to emphasize that West Alameda Business Association has to be at every point of this discussion, and it can't do anything that restricts any business on Webster and Central. And I think we've been terribly outspent, not terribly. We've been in a positive way, outspoken. And perhaps there's feelings that we haven't been heard and we can't repeat that we need to be at the table at all. Discussion and total transparency. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That completes our public comments on this item Council. Did you have any more questions or comments? I'm just going to I'm going to move approval of the item. Just quick clarifying question from whoever can tell me about the repeated traffic. And member matter as he seconded it. Sorry. Is it happening or is Ashcroft. And if you could repeat your question. I just asked Miss Payne to tell. Us about the traffic count. So as part of there are no new traffic counts. And what we'll be doing is we do know that since we've done the work on the concept, there have been more traffic counts down. So we will be compiling the latest and giving it to the consultant for this next phase. That's all. Thank you. And then could you speak to the intersection of central maps through that process? But. But what's going to happen? Yes. So just as a reminder, you all we came to you to ask for approval for the concept of the entire 1.7 mile corridor. And in February 2016, you will approve the corridor the entire quarter. Except you asked us to come back with some alternatives for that Webster Central Avenue intersection. And so what we're now going to be doing with this pit phase is we're going to be coming back with with some of those alternate with those alternatives for that intersection. And we will not be resolving that. We will be just bringing it in the pit phase and showing what the alternatives. We will be considering all the scenarios and doing a preliminary environmental report analysis on that, preliminary traffic analysis on that. And then the next phase will be seeking your approval and working in this phase with. All different, the key stakeholders. So we we have one reason why we have bike walk, Alameda and Barber here is that we alerted them that this was on the agenda. And so we are working with all groups and they're the. The. Primary ones with these stakeholder meetings. We will also we'll have focus groups really with these primary stakeholders and also a workshop with the broader community to make sure it's transparent what we're doing with this, with these key stakeholders, and then bringing it to Transportation Commission and the City Council. So even though we know we're not going to be resolving the issue, we are going to be working through the issue to make sure that we have some solid scenarios to analyze. Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Comments. Do we have a. Comment. About address? I'd love to see the scenario that comes to us out of this bid process. Yeah. Waba and bike walk alameda standing hand in hand saying, there we go. Let's go. Hey, so. Everyone here has a goal here. That would be great. All right. And all those in favor carries unanimously with one recusal. All right, so now we're and if someone could love vice mayor knows that she can come back in. Now we're on five K and I don't. Know, I did and. Never ask. Yeah. This one is, um, the recommendation to accept the Public Art Commission's cultural arts funding recommendations. And I just pull this because I think they're pretty spectacular. And I wondered if whoever's project whose this was about there. It would be Amanda Gursky, who is a management analyst with our department. She does have a short presentation. It's about 5 minutes. If you would like her to give that presentation. I'd like to waive the presentation. I it may be written consent. It's almost nine, so maybe I'm sure it's a lovely presentation. Maybe another time. Can you just quickly list for us the however many awardees are are included in there. But I have a question. Does the present the presentation has the pictures of them proposals, right? That's correct. If you could just go back to show the. Audience. Okay, I went to the public art meeting and there are hardly any people there. Right. It's okay. All right. I'm going to skip through the process and go straight to the awardees. Yeah. Wonderful. The Academy Awards. That I'll be using. Are very much. So. The first awardee at the $35,000 level is Island City Waterways. This is a biennial event, so it's every other year produced by rhythmic cultural works. And it really combines. Theater, dance and music. To celebrate Alameda history in the natural landscape. So this year's event will focus on Crab Cove and it will have. Ten performances over. Two days, including two performances that are particularly for Alameda Unified School District school groups. So the event is really meant to provide audiences with the opportunity to experience a free, interactive public art event about the history of the land that they live on and an understanding of how it was shaped by the water that surrounds it. So this is going to be held over May 18th, 19th and 20th. At the $25,000 level is the Animate Dance. Festival. Brought to us by the West End Arts and Entertainment District. So this is going to be held in October of 2018 at Alameda Point. And this is really intended to be a celebration of dance in all its forms. It'll include everything from performances by professional dance troupes down to performances by local youth groups. They'll have tribal dance classes so people can try out different forms of dance, and then a central festival hub with a play area and food truck. So it's very much a community oriented dance festival. And finally. The American landscape from sacred and profane. So this is a choral concert that is going to focus on a variety of American folk styles and traditions. It's going to include music from a number of American composers such as Paul Kihara, Sean. Kirchner, Stacy Gibbs and Moses. Hogan. And this is. One of a series of three concerts they're going to be doing in the Bay Area. I would say all of. The money that's coming through the Alameda Public Art Fund will be for the the event that will be here in Alameda. It's also going to be accompanied by a visual arts show that will celebrate the diverse traditions, landscapes and points of view of American culture. And two of the four artists included in that show will be Alameda Artists. So this concert is scheduled for March of 2019. Move approval of the item. Second, and I wanted to follow up. I know some of the money was not distributed. And if you could explain the next part of the process what's happening. I also do want to thank our public art commissioners. And are all of the artists participated in the process? So we are. So there was there were two categories that we didn't award, and that was the 15,000 and the. $5,000 award categories. And so that money remains in the Public Art Fund, and we're currently. In the process of developing a new RFP to rerelease that. Money. So we had a public art commission meeting on the fourth of this month, and the Public Art Commission asked. Us to. Take a survey of our arts. Community to find out the best way to rerelease. That money. Mainly questions about what increments should we release it. In, in. Terms of award levels. And then they. Also asked us to look a little bit about the at the process to see if there was a way. To refine our selection process so we could allow for a little more interactivity between the proposers and the selection panel. Thank you very much. All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. I am adopting a resolution supporting regional measure three. The Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan and a resolution supporting Proposition 69 and opposing Senate Bill one repeal to protect local transportation improvements.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4530 North Winona Court in Berkeley and 4345 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside. Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from U-SU-C1 to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4530 Winona Court and 4345 Bryant Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.

DenverCityCouncil_04262021_21-0258

Want to build that attached to you. So that's the reason why they can because they can build in the current state. They can build the bit that you. On these two zoning maps, you can see that we are on a court surrounded, but to the north, west and south, they probably also shown us, you see one end to the east. But you too, you see. Bryant Street is completely surrounded by U. S you see one. But you can see us. You be one district to the north of 44th Avenue. The current land use on both sites is single unit residential and they are both mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and with some two unit and multi unit uses in the case of wind on a court. This right here shows the existing building performance scale for going on record with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom left. And some images that show the residential character of the neighborhood in the top right image. You can see the two unit residential uses to the east of the property where they go up to 2.5 stories. These houses are just behind the subject property on the other side of the alley. Now this slide shows the existing area for brine stream with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and so on , even just to show us the very residential character of the neighborhood on the top of this slide. Speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 15, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 3rd, and to date, staff has received only one letter of support from an area No. Four 4345 Bryan Street and quality of opposition for the public hearing from the public four 4530 win on a court expressing concerns with traffic and parking congestion. No. I will go over the review criteria in the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is consistency with the class. There are three plans applicable to free zone comprehensive plan 2040 Loop in Denver and then the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan that is applicable for Bryant Street, but only two for the Bryant Street property. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Berkeley and Sunnyside neighborhoods, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at the maps in Denver, the subject properties are both mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject properties as low residential place that these places have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. We know that Court and Bryant Street are both designated as local streets, which are which are mostly characterized by residential uses. Lupe in Denver also provides guidance on when it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller minimum. So look so looks nice. It says it is appropriate when a pattern of smaller nodes with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The growth theory and blueprint Denver for both sites is all areas of the city serious anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Therefore, it's defined. So the requests are consistent with the applicable adopted plan. Now looking at the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1993 and simply applicable to a property located in Bryant Street. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with residential land use to maintain and sterilize the residential character of Sunnyside and housing goal. Stabilize and upgrade the housing stock by encouraging long term residency and increasing home ownership. If the property is restored to a smaller lot size, the property owner will be allowed to build the detached 80 new building . Forming the subject site and the residential character of Sunnyside will be maintained and the housing stock will be upgraded and will allow the property owners to age in place encouraging long term residents. Locals opines that they requested Sony meets the next debate due to the rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for the rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the adopt the approval of the existing U.S. you see one on district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning to be one meets the intent of those plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the new sub one zone district. Conclusions. Doctors recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, friend. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 258. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse. Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just a bizarre personal representative for Black Star music itself, the first positive commercial for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and front line black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We're in favor of this rezoning tonight for this accessory dwelling unit for remote locations. I'm glad to see that it was in the code somewhere that to maintain a cultural integrity of this neighborhood. As we know, Denver is the second most gentrified city in America right now. So I'm glad to see that that was written into the bylaws of. I just have a question again. I'm still trying to figure out why this brother, Brian Johnson, is not allowed one of these 80 for his. Keep your comments to the bill at hand. Jesse Owens could please answer that question. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilman Flynn. Hey, Madam President. Fran, could you speak. A little bit about how these. Two came to be combined into a single application? As far as I can tell, there is no relationship between the owners of the two properties, but it's rather unusual to see them bundled into a single application. In the staff report it said that and I don't know if this was their motivation, but it said it was less expensive and less time consuming because of the similarities between the two properties. Do you know how they came to come together and and why? Yeah, good question because it's my first one. So I was also surprised by. Two this ones. So they I think that they went together to talk to Councilwoman Sandoval's office. So they got advice that they could apply together if the if the applications were similar enough. So they came to me and at first I was like, I've never seen it. Let's do two different applications. But then we talked to a team and we talked to somebody and we realized that they we had the same recommendation for both and they were similar enough that they could go together and that would save them having to pay for two applications. And that would save us the time, 2%, two times the same presentation. So, I mean, they they knew that the the risk was that if one of them gets denied and the other one is denied. So that was their risk. And they were they were made aware of that. Right. And although being so similarly situated in their circumstances and in their request, it would be pretty hard for for the council in a quasi judicial setting to say one meets it and one does. It does. So basically, economy of scale and saving us the time of a third hearing tonight would be. Great if we could do it more often. Okay. And then the only thing that's different from the previous one is that they're looking to go to a to a different zone district designation because of the size of the lot. Under the current regulations, it would allow only an attached ADU and they were looking for detached in both cases. So, so. So they are currently they have the one. So in theory they should be allowed to have an EU, but they don't comply with the minimum. So not to do that. Right. So that's why they need to go down to be one. Okay. Thank you very much. Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval, for saving us one additional hearing tonight. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the presentation, Fran. You did great presenting them together. So just so we're clear for the public, we are going from CS Omar, which is a bega's so they're actually going to a smaller zone. Is that correct? Because sometimes in at city council we see where people go to bigger zone lots and then add the one behind it, which allows the accessory, the detached accessory dwelling unit. And then they usually split the zone, right, so they can get two out of the one parcel. But that's not what's happening in this situation, correct? They're going down because see the bigger zone at the end? B Yes. So they currently see one and that they should be they would be required to have 5500 square feet, but they only have 4700. So they're liking the. Don't make me do the math. Yeah, I know. 700 square feet. So because they don't have it, they need to go down to be one that the minimum zone lot is 4500. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President And thank you again, CPD. Councilmember Sandoval, I want to give you the softball list of softball questions. You were great in saving us one one hearing tonight. Have you considered going bigger? Like maybe allowing me to use in an entire neighborhood. So yes, I've done Cherokee Park neighborhoods that had three driving units. I have Sloan's Lake in the Q right now. Then I'm headed into West Colfax. So Berkeley is on the list, but not higher. I have like two more neighborhoods that are higher than that. But yes, I'm making my way slowly you up Council District one to make sure that you don't have these one offs too, that it's just all zoned with accessory dwelling units. And then I'll be back to standards and then we'll get into the nitty gritty of all the standards. And you'll see me a lot talking about the standards so that we can get more of the gentle density and attainable housing into the Denver as a whole. But I'll happily use District One as a pilot. Thank you, Councilman. Presentable for your word for general density or missing metal. But if you want to call it. Thank you, council president. Thank you. Councilmember Hines and Councilmember Sandoval for the responses seen their hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It meets other criteria, and I would ask my colleagues to support these two bills, these two parcels moving forward. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Madam SEC. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 258, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Clark. I. So when. I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce results. 12 hours. 12 eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 0 to 5 eight has passed. On Monday, May 24th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0357, changing the zoning classification for 235 West Evans Avenue in Overland and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0407 Changing the zoning classification for 99b North King Street

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of the disability equity action plan as called for by Ordinance 19210, Section 19, Proviso P1.

KingCountyCC_10062021_2021-0282

Thank you. By your vote, you've given a deep House recommendation to version 2021 318. The next item on today's agenda is proposed Motion 2021 to 82, which would acknowledge receipt of the Disability Equity Action Plan. It was required by a proviso on the 2021 2022 biennial budget. I'm sure Receipt is our newest council central staffer, and I understand this is her first presentation to the committee. Ms.. I want to assure you that I'm saving my hazing for new central staffers for the next new central staff presentation that we have shortly in council. And with that, I would welcome you to the committee of the whole and invite you to present. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sherrie Sue, Council Staff. The materials for this item begin on page 171 of your packet. The oppose motion 2020 1028 to acknowledge receipt of the Disability Equity Action Plan required by the 2021 2022 biennial budget and background. Council included a proviso in the 2021 2022 biannual budget ordinance with an associated expenditure restriction requiring that the executive provide a Disability Equity Action Plan with the following An assessment of county staffing needs for ADA coordination. A plan to coordinate ADA and disability equity functions with efforts to establish the King County Human and Civil Rights Commission. A proposal for ongoing engagement with the disability community. A prioritized list of recommendations for action with cost and timeline for each and any legislation necessary to implement the recommendations and the action plan. This plan indicates that it was developed by OSHA in partnership with disability community advocates. I will walk through the plan's responses to each provide the requirements jumping to the analysis section on page 175. There is additional background that I'm not going to cover, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Provides the requirement. A This is on page one. 75 is an assessment of county staffing needs for ADA coordination and disability equity functions, and recommendations for how those staffing needs will be met. The plan outlines area associated staffing across the executive branch, including eight existing FTE and two TLT positions. The plan recommends adding two additional FTE ADR coordinators and converting one grant funded TLT disability specialists to a county funded FTE. Currently, the TLT disability specialist position is funded by a grant from the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Provides a requirement. B is a plan to coordinate ED and disability equity functions with efforts to establish a King County Human and Civil Rights Commission as background in 2019, Council adopted Ordinance 19047, which would have created a new Human and Civil Rights Commission that would have assumed the current ADA related responsibilities of OSHA Civil Rights Program. The ordinance would have taken effect April 1st, 2021, only if by that date the executive transmitted a status report on the status of the feasibility study. If the executive transmitted a feasibility study and recommendations establishing a human and Civil Rights Commission and a motion approving the feasibility study. And if a move and if the motion approving the feasibility study was passed by a council. Opposed Motion 2020 10089 was introduced in council and referred to committee to approve a feasibility study and recommendations regarding the Human and Civil Rights Commission. This motion has not been adopted by Council and the timeframe for this ordinance to take effect expired on April four, 2021. Therefore, as the plan indicates, that coordination with the proposed Commission is not applicable and is not addressed in the plan to revise the requirements. E is a proposal for ongoing engagement with the disability community in carrying out ADR coordination and disability equity functions and provides a requirement be is a priority with a recommendation. The plan jointly addresses these two proviso requirements because it notes that the proposal for ongoing community engagement is also a recommendation, starting with community outreach. The plan outlines recent outreach activities to the disability community, which resulted in their recommendation that the county reactivate its Section 504 ADA Advisory Committee with an updated scope. Some background on the committee and the King County Code established the Section five or 488 Advisory Committee, which is intended to serve as the advisory body to the executive in developing strategies, systems and guidelines to implement the ADA Work Plan. According to executive staff, this committee has been inactive for approximately ten years. The plan indicates that committee members and disability advocates recommended that King County Code be amended to formalize the purpose of the Committee to Advance Justice and Equity and not just address legal compliance matters. Developing potential amendments to code would require further community engagement, and OSHA would continue to meet with advocates and leaders to address these needs. Moving on to recommendations, the plan includes seven recommendations and these are summarized in the table on page 178 of your packet. I can answer questions about any of these, but in the interest of time, I'm going to get to the ones that require further legislation in response to provide the requirement and list. Analysis starts at the bottom of page 178. The proviso requirement is any legislation necessary to implement recommendations in the plan, and the plan indicates that appropriation legislation is needed for recommendation three and six. Recommendation three calls for funding two positions. One of these positions was established but not funded in the 2021 2022 budget. The staff report notes that a request to fund two FTE is expected to be included in the 2021 mid biennial budget supplemental. And just as an update, since the time of this report, the Executive has transmitted the budget proposal with this request to fund a 32 FTE recommendation six calls for creating and funding one disability specialist, one active disability specialist when funding for the nature grant and in according to executive staff, this request may be included in the 2023 2024 proposed by annual budget. In addition to these two recommendations, five calls for reactivation of the Section five or four added advisory committee. The plan notes that developing potential code amendments would require further community engagement. The first motion 2020 1022 as transmitted appears to meet the requirements of the proviso. Thank you. I'm happy to answer questions. And we also have a saying pair and Farley and Anita Whitfield from executive staff here to answer any questions. Thank you, Michel. Are there are questions? We have a strong through breaking. I've entertained a motion to accept the report. The plan of approval, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belden, she has moved adoption of Motion 2020 122 seating. No discussion. Mr. Chair, House Member Dombrowski. Thank you. And I'm supportive of the motion, but Sherry mentioned kind of the nexus, if you will, on the outline in this report to our work to strengthen and renew our Human and Civil Rights Commission, which resulted from an extensive process with community and the Korematsu of Seattle University School of Law. And you it was a while back, you may recall, but there was a request for some additional public process on that, which we did put in the legislation and COVID hit, which delayed the reporting back of the assess and the process and the and the council's opportunity to approve that we have worked with. And that's why we don't have today, at least, I believe, the kind of new enhanced, strengthened human and Civil Rights Commission that members supported. We've worked with for years from my colleagues and the public's understanding, we worked with legal counsel on the executive branch and others to see what could be done. And it appears that our only recourse is to introduce a fresh ordinance to bring that work into effect. And Christina Logsdon on my staff has been working with the executive branch to make that happen. So if that's of interest to folks and you want to work with us on that, let me know. But it is my hope that we can achieve the vision that was set forth in that legislation and work out the amount I would call relatively minor. Couple of things that the executive had requested be done a little differently and bring that to life. Because today, I mean, we're in Martin Luther King County. We've got incredibly pressing issues around civil and human rights, whether it be communities of color or immigrant refugee populations. We need a strong voice that's consistent with our history in the space, and I think there's an opportunity to do a little better there through that legislation, and I hope we can bring it to life. And I wanted you to know, since it was mentioned today, that we haven't forgotten about it, it's my hope that it doesn't just get put away and left out and left behind because it's too important. And I do hope to be bringing it back very soon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So the discussion. I'm sorry about the orange shirt. I didn't mean to blind you. I thought you were just early for gun safety awareness. Right. I'm off by a week. See? No further discussion. Would you please call the roll. And Mr. Chair, Council member, Baluchi High Council member Ambassador. High. Council member Gunn. High. Council Member Cole's High Council Member Lambert. High. Council Member of the branch. I. Council Member one right there. I. Council members on the line. I am. Mr. Chair. Are. Mr. Chair, the Buddhist No. Nine ceremonies. Thank you by your vote. And you have given a do pass recommendation to version 2021 to 82, and it must there's objection. We will place that on the consent agenda. And it will be on the consent agenda. That concludes the items we have on today's agenda. Madam Burke, was there any are there any votes missed during the meeting? Mr. Chair. There were no votes missed then. I thank everyone for participating in today's Committee of the Hall and look forward to our next meeting. We are adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE related to City finances; creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts, and grants related to The City of Seattle’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; creating a Budget Summary Level; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_03302020_CB 119763

Agenda Item one Capital 119 763 Relating to city finances, creating a fund for depositing donations, gifts and grants related to the city. Seattle's Response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Creating a budget summary level. Amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget. Changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget. Declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three fourths of the City Council. Thank you. This is a bill that I'm sponsoring, so I will move to pass council bill 119763 again. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of this bill. I'll first address the bill and I know that there are three amendments, two amendments to the underlying bill and one amendment to the amendment . So I apologize that this seems a little clunky, but bear with me as we work through the parliamentary procedure. So really quickly, I'll describe the Council bill and then I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Mesquita to put to put amendment number one on the table before we then put it over to Councilmember Herbold, who will discuss an amendment to Amendment One. So in response to this COVID 19 outbreak and its economic effects, many philanthropic and business partners have expressed an interest in donating resources to assist people and businesses in Seattle that may be in need as a result of the economic crisis that we are currently experiencing. Article one Section one of the City Charter provides that the City of Seattle may accept gifts and donations of all kinds and do all acts necessary to carry out the purposes of the gifts and donations. However, our Seattle Municipal Code requires that even though in a proclaimed civil emergency, the mayor may accept gifts, grants or loans, the council must act legislatively to allow for the acceptance of those gifts, grants or loan. So that is what this legislation is designed and intended to do. The legislation would create a new fund in the city treasury for the receipt of gifts, donations and grants to the city to assist in the management of and recovery from crises created by the COVID 19 global pandemic. The uses for these funds could include food assistance for persons in need. Financial assistance to small businesses. Assistance with childcare costs. Loan guarantees for small businesses or individuals. Rent assistance for small businesses or individuals. And operating assistance to cultural and nonprofit organizations. We will be considering some amendments this afternoon to expand that list of allowable uses, which I consider to be from the amendments. This legislation would also create a new budget summary level line to allow city departments to spend from the new fund for the purpose of assisting in the recovery from the COVID 19 pandemic. It also gives the exact the executive authority to accept gifts, donations and grants consistent with the purposes of the fund without additional approval by the City Council so as to move the assistance forward in a timely manner. There'll also be an amendment that we will consider this afternoon that requires reporting back to the city council so that we can make sure that that the executive is still staying accountable to the intent and design of this legislation. This legislation would also gives appropriation to finance general contingent on the receipt of those donations so that they can quickly deploy these resources. And lastly, the legislation is necessary to go excuse me, this legislation is considered to be emergency legislation to allow it to go into immediate effect in order to protect public health, safety and welfare. So that is a summary of the of the legislation and what it is intended to to address. And I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who has an amendment Amendment one to this council bill. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you. Council President. I'd like to move to amend council bill 119763 by including amendment number one. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilman Muscat, I'm going to ask you to address the amendment first and then I'm going to have Councilmember Herbold make an amendment to your amendment, and then we can have a discussion about the whole package. And then we'll vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Amendment One. And then, if that passes, will vote on your amendment, Amendment One as amended. All right. So, Councilmember Mosqueda, why don't you address your amendment before we hand it over to Councilmember Herbold? Thank you, Madam President. I put forward this amendment because I support the goal of being able to act quickly to deploy resources from private donations or grants as soon as possible, to provide relief to those in our community who are experiencing the impacts of COVID. At the same time, I think it's important that we have transparency and oversight in how we're allocating those dollars. As a council, I think it's important that we understand the full picture of dollars going to support various needs, such as small business support, food assistance, homeless support and housing, so that we are able to make informed decisions about other expenditures. The amendment that is included here in Amendment One would require weekly reporting on how these funds are being spent so that we're able to maintain proper oversight and also enabling expedient direction of these funds to where they need to go in the community as fast as possible. Thank you so much to Councilmember Herbold for her amendment to this amendment, which I see as friendly as well. Thank you. Councilman Mosquito, we will not handed over to Councilmember Herbold to discuss her friendly amendment. Thank you so much. I move to amend Amendment One as presented on version two of Amendment three on the agenda. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment One. Councilmember Herbold. Please speak to your amendments. Thank you so much. I really appreciate Council President Gonzalez for bringing forward this legislation as well as councilmember up for her Amendment one and the Amendment two that we'll be hearing in a little bit. Amendment three is intended to build off of Amendment one to specify that reporting requirements are are needed to be according to the categories of spending listed in Section three of the resolution in the category of emergency housing and homelessness supports added by Councilmember Mosquito in a subsequent amendment that we'll discuss in a minute. As we know, this legislation allows for quick action on donations in line with this being an emergency. However, authorizing up to $30 million in appropriations, the Council is forgoing its normal budget carry authority. So reporting as proposed by Councilmember Muskat and her Amendment One makes a whole lot of sense. This amendment simply ensures that the reporting includes the categories that we have identified as allowed categories so that we have a clear sense of which needs are being addressed and funded. And that's what this amendment would do. Thank you. Council Member Herbold, are there any comments or questions on Amendment three, which is Councilmember Herbold Amendment? Okay. Hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the adoption of Amendment three? Councilmember Juarez. I. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales. I. Councilmember Macheda. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Council members a lot like. Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Strauss. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. I. President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor and on the post. The motion carries and amendment three is no, I'm sorry, the motion carries an amendment three passes. So now we will consider the amendment one as amended. Are there any further comments on Amendment one as amended? A hearing nun. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One as amended? Councilmember suarez. I. Councilmember lewis. I. Councilmember Morales. I. Councilmember Mesquita. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Councilmember Swan, I. Councilmember Strauss. I. Councilmember Herbal. Hi. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor, none opposed. Thank you. The motion carries an amendment. One is adopted as amended. I believe there is a Second Amendment to Council Bill 119763, which is sponsored by Councilmember Mesquita. So I'm going to hand it over to her to make the motion to amend the Council bill accordingly for discussion. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 119763 with the text included an amendment to. Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Maceda, please feel free to speak to your amendment. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment expands the list of authorized users of this fund to include emergency support for housing and homelessness services. As this crisis unfolds, the existing housing and homelessness crises are also well beyond the emergency level capacity. We need to make sure that new funds can also go to those on our front line providers who are working to get folks out of dangerous close quarters off the streets and into dwellings where they can safely practice social distancing and make sure that they get the care that they need during this crisis. This is critical for those who are also in permanent supportive housing, as we've heard from many of our human service provider organizations who are providing assistance, both in terms of counseling and food delivery. They are in dire need of additional support for those who are in permanent supportive housing as well. Appreciate the generosity that's been already shown by the support for this fund. And I'm hoping that with this amendment to include emergency housing and homelessness supports as an authorized use, we can see more funding being available for things like affordable hotel rooms, food delivery, PPE for frontline workers and staff who provide services in our housing and homelessness shelters. This enables the funds from the donation to the city to go to those who I think are really on the front line, helping our most vulnerable residents in need of secure housing. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda for that amendment. Are there any comments or questions about amendment to. K hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the adoption of amendment to. Councilmember suarez. All right. Councilmember lewis. I am. Councilmember morales. I. Councilmember Mesquita. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Council members. So on. I. Councilmember Strauss. I. Councilmember Herbold, i. President Gonzales. I. Nine in favor. None opposed. Thank you. The bill passed. I'm sorry. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Are there any other comments on the bill as amended? I'm not seeing any. So sorry. Oh, yes, I do have comments. Okay. Please. Councilmember Salon. Thank you, President Gonzalez. I will be voting yes on this bill to create a structure of a fund to allowing the city to accept philanthropy, to support people whose lives have been devastated and are going to be in the coming months by the coronavirus crisis. However, we do need to be clear that in general, when big business gives what they call philanthropy, they often get back far more in profits and through favorable political legislation or absence of legislation, much more than they donate because they are donations by political power. Guzman, Morales and I have advocated for a big business tax of 500 million per year. I have no doubt that big business will attempt to use their donations into this much smaller, $3 million fund to attempt to argue that they should continue to avoid paying anything in terms of significant taxation. Furthermore, we also need changes statewide and federally, and I think statistics that are being compiled through economic studies in the past decades have shown that actually corporate philanthropy does very little do nothing to address the massive inequality that has just grown nationwide, and now it has become even more emergent in the face of this pandemic. So we need changes at every level. My office has launched a petition to Governor Inslee to make a number of those changes, and we will need a movement to fight for this. If members of the public are watching this, then please get involved in this fight. We're calling on Governor Inslee to close all corporate tax loopholes to immediately tax big business and wealthy households. And then, of course, federally, we need massive changes. And that's why I'm strongly supporting Senator Bernie Sanders's $2 trillion proposal for a bailout of working families, which also includes $2,000 per month income for working families through this crisis. It's also been noted, Sadistically, that on average workers give a higher percentage of their income to charity and the middle class give higher percentage of the income to charity than does big business or the wealthy. And nobody argues, ever, that taxes on workers should be eliminated because they are already giving charity. So I would urge everybody who's watching this for us to build a movement that is vigilant about not accepting that argument from big business. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. So on. And I agree with your remarks. You know, it seems like every time we talk about progressive taxation or taxation in general, we oftentimes get the philanthropic efforts of big business thrown back at us as an argument to prevent or minimize taxation or revenue creation tools. So I appreciate your reminder on that front. Are there any other comments or questions about the underlying bill before we vote on it? You have not seen any one come forward. So we'll go ahead and vote on the bill. So will the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended? Councilmember Suarez. I. Councilmember Lewis, I. Councilmember Morales, I. Councilmember Mesquita. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Council members who want a. Councilmember Strauss. I Council member Herbal. All right. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. We're going to go ahead and move to item two with the clerk. Please read item two into the record. Agenda Item two Capital 119 760 4126000, which adopts the 2020 budget changing appropriations to the Executive Department's Office of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Neighborhoods, the Department of Education and Early Learning, Parks and Recreation and Budget Control levels, and from various funds in the Budget for the purpose of providing support to individuals.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to designate a new historic district for 19 properties located on the 6000 block of Walnut Avenue, bounded by 61st Street to the north and 60th Street to the south, specifically addressed as 6001, 6002, 6012, 6017, 6018, 6023, 6024, 6029, 6030, 6037, 6038, 6043, 6044, 6049, 6050, 6055, 6056, 6067 and 6068 Walnut Avenue, as a Historical Landmark District. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_03052019_19-0191

Motion carries. Next, we'll move to item 31 with the clerk. Please read the item. Report from Development Services Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to designate a new historic district for 19 properties located on the 6000 block of Walnut Avenue as a historical landmark. District. District nine. Yes. Is there any public comment in this item? Some council comment? Yes, Mr. Richardson. Thank you. I want to I want to acknowledge this this moment and share some context with the council. So this is you know, it's an important moment. This is an opportunity for us to expand the geographic diversity of our landmark districts around the city. It's the first landmark district in North Palm Beach, which makes up about 20% or a fifth of the city. Currently, there are historic districts. There are large historic districts in districts one, two, three and seven. There are some smaller districts in four, six and eight. There are no historic districts in districts five and nine. And so this action tonight actually does two things. It's a great step in working to address both postwar post-World War two history in our city and secondly, working class history. And and so this neighborhood tonight, within the Grant neighborhood, it's a part of a larger movement, really led by the residents, one here in the audience, Jeff Rowe. And I want to recognize the president of the Grant Neighborhood Association. And he's in he lives on Walton on Walnut Avenue. Really, this is a part of an effort for that to preserve the character of their independent, independent block. And I really applaud the work that they've done to really equitably explain and expand the city's historic preservation program, to include a broader range of geography, demographics and cultural history . So the cohesive collection of properties on this block really represent a certain period, you know, around the 20th, when the automobile allowed us to leave from the city center and really expand to other areas of town. And so the houses have a certain character, their two bedroom, one bath. And those things are changing now that the demands of the neighborhood are changing. We still want to preserve some of that unique history of that block. And so that conversation has already begun, and that's the appropriate use for this designation process. And then there's a there are benefits that a lot of people don't really recognize with. There are obviously challenges, but there are benefits as well. And so, one, it creates a deeper sense of pride of ownership in communities where properties invest their time and energy into the community as a whole and create a positive ripple effect. Secondly, you know, hopefully this this this helps us to acknowledge that an entire area of town, largely districts 95, which all were built around the same time, this is this is the first of a whole effort to begin recognizing those histories, which were largely made up of not not affluent or wealthier neighborhoods, but really working class communities and their their history. And then the financial benefit is that being a historic district offers these homeowners the opportunity to apply for the Mills Act and receive a reduction in their property taxes, which they can use. They can use that retained income and invest in necessary improvements to their property that highlight that historic character and contribute to neighborhood beautification. So I know that we these things typically come and go on our council agenda, but I wanted to sort of lift this up that this is the beginning of a new wave of a major sector of our of our our city, getting into the process of recognizing historically landmarked districts. So so thank you. And I move to support it. Yes. Councilwoman Mongo. Okay. Fine. Could you please cast your vote? Yes. Have. I. I call pan coming in when like I speak on this item. Yes. Please come down to. Closer next time. Thanks for considering this. We actually started this about three years ago and we thought, well, we got a lot of old homes and Grant, they're all coming up 100 years old. Let's do all of Grant neighborhood. I wish Chris was here because. In money, many little nuggets of wisdom. He said, no, that's going to be a little bit too big to get your arms around. Why don't you focus on a smaller area? So that's what we did, which turned out to be a pretty wise decision. Because our neighbors didn't really know. What it meant to have an historic district. One of them, for example, thought, well, if it's historic. Does that mean that we have to maintain the interior of the house, sort of a museum quality? We said, no, no, no, you don't have to do that. You can leave all the laundry on the on the couch. But anyway, there was a benefit to this that we never saw coming. And that's that shortly after we started this. And in the process of doing it, we all got to know each other pretty well. But we also launched the disaster preparedness effort, and because we knew each other pretty well. We were able to get that all done in about four weeks. And I think we became then. The second street in Long Beach to finish that disaster preparedness. So anyway, thank you again, Rex and Chris isn't here, but thanks to him and to Gina, Casi removed. Thanks again for considering this. Thank you. Next week, you. Thank you. Thank you and thank you. I'm very supportive. I'm Jacqueline Case. I'm a realtor. I support the historical districts. I'm also a board member of Long Beach Heritage. And I've been working with Christopher Koontz and a lot of other folks from the city to educate my industry about historical districts and how important it is for them to have an understanding of why it is important that we know what we can do and not do in these districts to support them. Because you're right, they actually do bring so much more value to our community, and even my industry doesn't really understand that completely. So I'm grateful that I happen to be here. And you happened to be talking about this. And I support and I thank you for thinking of and continuing to open your ideas for more historical districts and also landmarks. Thank you. Now. Could we please catch the votes?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3700 Marion St. Rezones 3700 Marion Street from U-SU-A1 to U-MX-2x (Urban single unit zoning to urban mixed-use two story) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.

DenverCityCouncil_10172016_16-0622

Minute 30. We're going to take a minute break to let the stations identify this evening. Speaker should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they felt comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name, and let the council know that you are available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes. On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see the time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from any profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments at City Council as a whole and no refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 622 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 620 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second, it fell here for 622 is open. May I have the staff report? Cortland, Heiser, welcome. All right. Thank you very much, colonizer. With community planning and development here to present the proposed rezoning for 3700 Marion. So moving on to slide two, you can see that this proposed rezoning is in Council District nine. Fine. Slide three shows its location in the Cole neighborhood. And Slide four shows the specific location at 3700 Merrion Street. This is located at the northeast corner of Marion and 37th Avenue. It's in the vicinity of the 30th and Blake Station, which is just a few blocks away to the west. And just want to point out that the site is not in the 38th and Blake Hyde Amendments area that council voted on a few weeks ago. It is just outside of that. It's not in that area, though. Slide five shows some of the details of the request. It's a small property, a little less than 5000 square feet in size. The applicant is requesting rezoning to redevelop the site following loss of the original structure to fire a couple of years ago. And the specific request is to rezone from you someone to you annex to X. Slide six shows specific details about the requested zone district. So you an x2x is urban neighborhood context mixed use two stories maximum. This zone district applies primarily to small lots that are embedded within residential neighborhoods and allows only low skill building forms. Has a two storey height limit as opposed to most mixed districts, which would allow three or more stories. And it has lower intensity uses than other mixed use districts. The use list itself is limited to help ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Slide seven shows the existing zoning context. So the site itself has USA A1 zoning as do properties to the north and east. But all of the other corners at 37th and Marion have some form of mixed use or commercial zoning. So to the south there's x three to the west, Cemex three and catty corner across Marion and 37th from the site is old code zoning B4 which is a commercial district. Slide eight shows some details of the existing zoning the you a one. So this is an urban neighborhood context single unit district that allows accessory dwelling units. It has a 3000 square foot minimum lot size. And so given the size of the property, the redevelopment potential under the zoning would be one house and one accessory dwelling unit. Slide nine shows the existing land use maps. The site itself is vacant following demolition of the structure that burned down a couple of years ago. To the north and east are single family residential homes to the south, an industrial property and to the west. Our land use map shows it is undeveloped, but it's being used for outdoor storage. So Slide ten provides some images to go along with the map. The subject property is shown in the upper left hand corner of the slide. It's the vacant lot there and then moving clockwise around the slide. So over to the upper right corner, you see the sort of salmon colored residential single family home to the north, then the property to the east. Another single family home to the south across 37th Avenue is an industrial building shown in the lower right corner of the slide catty corner across Marin. And 37th is another single family residential structure. But that's a large lot and most of the property is used being used for outdoor vehicle storage. And then across Marion Street to the west is the vacant lot that's also being used for storage. Slide 11 shows some of the historic context here. So formally, the property held an eight unit apartment building that was lost to fire in 2014. This slide shows the structure post-fire obviously, but also mid demolition. Moving on to slide 12, you can see what the structure used to look like. So this is what formerly stood on the site. This is a google street view image from 2011. And as you can see in this image, the property had a structure that was originally a shopfront mixed use commercial building with the corner entrance. Slide 13 provides a little bit of background on the historic zoning that was in place prior to adoption of the new code in 2010. Informally, this particular property and surrounding blocks are two A and then most of the cool neighborhood was zoned R two. And that's the yellowish color that kind of dominates the image there. When this area was re zoned, an effort was made to identify embedded mixed use and commercial buildings within the neighborhood and give them um. To zoning and in slide 14. You can see that pattern in place in Cole and 37th Avenue in particular, where those embedded commercial buildings that were similarly situated to this subject property received you are max two zoning. Now at some point in its history, this particular property was converted from the former commercial use to being only a residential building. And if that had been identified in 2010 when the rezoning occurred, it's likely that this property would have received your max two zoning similar to all of the similarly situated mixed use commercial buildings within the neighborhood. Slide 15 summarizes the process which followed standard notification procedures throughout. Planning board hearing was held on August 17th and Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 11 to 0. In terms of public outreach to Arnaud's, the organizations listed here at the bottom of the slide received notification throughout the process, and at the bottom it states that no public comment was received. Actually, earlier today there was an email that was sent to the city council email list that expressed support for the rezoning and that was sent by the property owner adjacent to and north of the subject property. So one of the single family residential homes. Slide 16 lists our five standard criteria which apply to this case. Slide 17, we'll start with consistency with adopted plans, and there are three that apply to this property. Slide 18. In terms of comprehensive plan 2000 consistency, the staff report identifies the three strategies listed here as being consistent with the request. And for more details on that, you can refer to the staff report. Slide 19 summarizes blueprint Denver's guidance. So in terms of street classifications, it identifies Marion Street as a residential arterial, and 37th Avenue is an undesignated local street. The property is an area of stability and the recommended land use by blueprint. Denver is single family residential. Now the definition for single family residential does provide for some allowances for limited commercial uses, as shown in the quotes there. At the bottom of the slide states that single family homes are the predominant residential types, though not the only residential type. And the max to ex district would allow some other forms of residential beyond single family. And it's further states that the employment base is significantly smaller than the housing base. So again, providing for some allowances for there being some limited employment base within single family areas. Slide 20 shows a couple of images from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. So like Blueprint Denver, it identifies the land use as being single family for this subject property and it furthermore identifies a building height of 2.5 stories maximum. Slide 21 provide some additional details of guidance from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. So starting with the single family land use classification. It states that that applies to older residential neighborhoods that do not have a significant mix of housing types, and that commercial uses are limited to small buildings that provide neighborhood services. So again, similar to Blueprint Denver, there is some allowance within the definition of single family to provide for limited commercial uses. Recommendation A-3 in that plan, which applies to the neighborhood edge east of Downing Street. So the call in with your neighborhood edge states that of in that area, we should strive to maintain the current mix of low skill building forms to allow new development to replicate existing development patterns, and finally to allow a mix of land uses consisting primarily of residential but with limited neighborhood serving commercial. So on Slide 22, just to summarize the small area plan guidance, both Blueprint and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommend single family as a land use. Both plans have allowances for some compatible commercial development in single family areas, and neither plan provides detailed or specific guidance as to where commercial uses should be located within those single family areas. And so the argument that is advanced in the staff report is that the subject site is a rational location for you or max to ex because the former structure that occupied the site prior to the fire was designed as a commercial mixed use building similarly situated buildings in the core neighborhood. Have you max two zoning and the you a max to ex district is the least intensive mixed use district that is intended for this type of situation where you do have an adjacent C two residential. So Slide 23 summarizes the remaining review criteria, but the staff finding was that the request is consistent with our adopted plans regarding criteria to uniformity of district regulations. The proposal observes the established pattern of your max to ex zone districts for embedded embedded commercial buildings in Cole and 37th Avenue. In particular. It advances the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans. The justifying circumstances a changed or changing condition. The most relevant being the loss of the original structure to fire, but also the ongoing revitalization of the neighborhood and the opening of the 38th and Blake Station a few blocks away. The proposal is also consistent with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent statements. So the staff recommendation on Slide 24 is approval based on finding that all of the review criteria have been met. Thank you, Courtland. Always good job presenting. We now have one speaker this evening. Noah. Manos, you have three minute. Six. One, three, three. Okay. You have 3 minutes. Hi. Good evening. My name is Noel Mannose. I'm the applicant and property owner at 3700 Marion Street and I'm just here this evening to answer questions and provide any further information that hasn't been detailed in the report. Great. You can have a seat and we'll let you know if anybody has questions. Okay. Questions by members of Council. You know. No, you come up. I have I have a question for you. Can you tell me how you're doing the development there? How many units are you going to have? We're proposing three or four units. Okay. The development plan is is yet to be determined, mostly in part because we don't really know what our zoning conditions are. So but we feel like, based off of the orientation of the lot, the lack of alley frontage and, you know, it being a corner property that, you know, the very generalized development plan would be for either live work spaces that had apartments on the second floor and small commercial spaces on the ground floor that would support small but hopefully creative businesses that, you know, kind of were. Kind of the nucleus of the Rhino neighborhood. And I've lived in that area for a long time and kind of want to perpetuate kind of the origins of what that neighborhood was. I think the other scenario would be a more common commercial ground floor that might be subdivided into two commercial suites with apartments, 3 to 4 apartments above it, but pretty, pretty small scale and , you know, pretty diminutive in terms of other development. You know, price point of housing. Is this going to be it looks like you're not looking for any old money so won't be affordable housing, but potentially attainable housing price points? We're not sure at this point. We haven't really developed our proforma. You know, we think obviously affordable housing is a concern and and, you know, sort of an important issue in in the whole neighborhood. But we don't really have any sort of definitive numbers as far as that's concerned. And obviously, the scale of the development is such that it doesn't fall within, you know, predetermined, affordable housing as dictated by the the FHA. Okay, great. Any other questions for members of council? Seeing none. You can never see the public hearing for council bill 62 is close. Comments by members of Council. I call myself very familiar with this site and I'm sure you all are as well. This was in the news in 2014 as a site that was burned down. It was actually an affordable housing project, and it was a really sad deal. All of the folks who were in the fire, luckily, I don't believe we lost any folks, but they were all displaced. And, you know, our office, along with folks and OED, were able to provide some assistance to to some of these individuals. And for a while, the community really wanted to see this this site develop. I'll tell you right now that while you mentioned Reno, this is right on the edge of the call neighborhood where a lot of folks are seeing displacement. And so I would love for you to consider in that workers live, work space, some affordable components and love to have a conversation with you all. How we could accomplish that through the obvious economic development. Catty corner to your site is a site owned by the XTO Management Group and they are looking at a grocery store and affordable 60% of Army units above that. So this is going to be an incredible area and it would be sweet to allow some of the workforce to stay in the neighborhood. So I will be supporting this based upon the rationale of of the plan support. But also we had a long conversation at 30th and Blake and I can't believe this. You know, we didn't touch this area because this is less than 200. I mean, you could throw a rock and hit the 30th and Blake Station from here. You're going to have a pretty good arm to do it. But we looked at this corridor being higher intensity. So we this is something that we completely support and encourage my colleagues to support as well. All right. Seeing no other comments. It's been moving. Saying it. Madam Secretary, Raquel Clarke. I flynn. I gilmore. Herndon, i. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Susman. I black eye. Mr. President. I was close voting. And now the results. Lebanese.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. concerning program management for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport. Amends a contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. by adding $49,000,000 for a new total of $52,000,000 and two years and 8 months for a new end date of 12-31-24 for program management, including design quality assurance and construction oversight for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport (201630091). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-9-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1207

11 I one abstention. Resolution 1206 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Cashman, go ahead with your questions. Thank you, Mr. President. So no secret to anybody, unless you've been living under a rock or in a cave, that a year or so ago, the airport, with the approval of this council and the administration, entered into a very complex, important project renovating the great hall that went sideways, creating problems for the city, team travelers, etc. It's in everybody's best interests that we move forward as quickly as. Possible. In completing the project as close to envisioned as possible, as quickly as possible. But the question that I get most often from constituents is what about the New Deal. That's being crafted? Gives promise that this will be managed more efficiently and more successfully than the original contract called for. So I wanted to ask anybody on the airport team to give us that. Give us their best view of that. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Krystal Torres de Herrera. I am the executive vice president, chief of staff for Denver International Airport. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for asking that important question. We often get that question as well, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer that fully. So first, I would just like to say, you know, everyone's asking how is tomorrow going to be different than today? And I would tell you right here, right now, today is already different. In the past 90 days, we've accomplished more on this project than what has happened in the last year. To stand before you today with five contracts that we have done through a competitive selection process in just a short period of time, less than 90 days is a true testament to how quickly and how decisively we are moving. But to also get to your question, we have also brought on additional resources such as Jacobs to assist on the program management side, to assist with us in keeping the projects moving and holding ourselves accountable, because at the end of the day, the buck stops with us. We acknowledge that and we own that. And we have looked very hard at ensuring that that happens as we move forward. We've also committed, as we talked with you in basic committee, about fuller transparency and what that means for the public and having a public facing dashboard where people can go on fly Denver dot com and see the status of the project. We think that level of accountability and openness with the public and transparency will assist with all of this as well. We're also incredibly customer focused. That was something that we want to make sure we continue to carry through. We do know to your point that it is burdensome on the passengers and the public who travel through our airport. We want to make sure that they can get to their flights, go to see their families for the holidays in the best possible way possible. Earlier this week, we started installing directional decals on the floor to show people how to get to ticketing, how to get to security. We're constantly looking for ways to make it easier for the public. So those are some of the things that we are doing currently to ensure that tomorrow is different from what has happened prior to this. And we take it very seriously. I've also got Michael Sheehan up here who can answer any other specific questions on the contract side. Thank you. Thank you for that. That answers my question. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I think the the public should be aware that the principal reason for undertaking this in the first place is in the post-9-11 world to reconfigure the terminal that was never designed for the kind of environment that we're in today that we need to provide a much more safe, effective and efficient and secure way to process passengers through security. A lot of us remember when the airport opened and the the fifth level of the gypsum terminal was a public gathering place, a very pleasant place. And that all changed after September 11th. And we have to adjust to that. And that's the principal reason this is being done. And to Echo Councilman Cashman is the principal reason that we need to get it under way as quickly as possible. Having said that, I share with a lot of the public the same sort of anxiety about whether this. Will be. The path forward that gets it done on budget and in less time. I have a lot of confidence in the companies that have been selected. And I would point out all those this will undermine what I just said. I'll point out that this is a similar project management structure as that which was used to build the airport in the first place. So as long as we don't try to add an automated baggage system, we should be fine, perhaps. But I think that going forward with this structure, it and still not knowing exactly what it's going to look like at the end of the day. I look forward to very soon when the next contract comes forward in early next year. Is that correct? That's correct. So we anticipate having the next contract and hopefully as soon as January and. That will be the the actual. Contract to correct. Exactly that, then we will be able to tell our constituents, here's what this will look like. But in the meantime, I believe it's essential, Mr. President, that we move forward with these contracts now so that we can fashion those details and get them before us sometime in January. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Hi. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm all right. I saw his dog earlier. I saw his dog right here. Yeah. So a question for you. We talked I mentioned this in in Biz Committee, I. You as as an airport and as a as a management team have set the bar high for accountability and transparency. And you had a statement that you made about accountability and transparency that. Frankly. Made me not ask a whole bunch more questions. So do you recall that statement? And if you recall that statement, would you like me to repeat that? Yes, please. Okay. Absolutely. At this committee and it was a very great conversation, very thorough conversation by the members on that. I made the comment that we are committed to a level of transparency that the city has never seen before on a project of this magnitude. And we take that incredibly seriously, and that is exactly what we're looking for. So thank you for that statement. Thank you for setting the bar high. I think that I want to empower you to do all you can and certainly on one tember to succeed. I want Dan to succeed and we'll be holding you to that. I hope you do, because we'll be holding ourselves to that as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Crystal. Hi, Councilwoman Ortega. I think we are all very anxious to get the project improvements done. It's going to certainly improve the experience for the traveling public and the employees. The question I want to ask is when? What is the timing? When do you all anticipate resolution of how much has to be paid out to the Great Hall Partners? Because that is key to the scope of work moving forward, because that then determines how much we have to scale the project back and we don't know what that figure is yet. So do you have a ballpark idea? So I so appreciate you asking this because we are working on that as quickly as possible. To your point, it's a very important piece of information that as we move forward, we want to know. So we are really trying to resolve that as quickly as possible. We would love to have it wrapped up by the end of the year. But to be safe, we've told people that we were trying to get it done by Q1, but certainly as soon as possible. To we anticipate that that will be resolved before we do the contract with the general contractor that you will be bringing forward to us next year. We would hope to have that be the case, but we're not the only people in that environment to make that happen. And so there's a lot of, you know, it's complicated and so we're trying our best to get that done. Okay. The last thing I want to say is. I'm pleased that we have all these local contractors and local minority contractors that are now part of the project moving forward. Some of us wish this is how we would have done it from the very beginning. But, you know, it's it we are where we are. And I think you all are trying to be as diligent and efficient in trying to move the project forward. I know you couldn't do anything once the decision was made until the building was actually handed back to us. Which was last week, right? Correct. So now that we've got control of the space, it allows us to step in and do the that work that needs to happen. So I know these contracts tonight are key to moving the project forward, so thank you for having done the tour for many of us week before last to help us really see some of the challenges that were that were posed to the airport during that whole phase of trying to work with an outside company. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, your backup. Thing, Mr. President, just stated. I should have added that as a member of this council who supported going forward with a three with the P3 back in 2017 and now being in a position of regretting that given the circumstances of what happened, I think it's very essential that before this Council is asked to support another P3 project , even outside of the airport, that the airport produce a robust, not just a lessons learned, but about an autopsy, if you will, on what went wrong. And and I would hope that it would examine our faults as well and what we did and how we how we're improving that in this next round. And we'd really at least I think most members up here, probably all of us, need to have a very clear understanding of what happened. Before we will undertake this kind of venture again. I think that's important for many other projects in the city that that be produced. And I would ask that that be undertaken. And again, not just the lessons learned, not just a you know, not a not just a 12 page report, but give us you know, let's let's air our laundry and let's find out what did we do wrong and how have we fix that? Thank you. I appreciate that. If I can just respond to that for a second. And we had this conversation in Biz Committee, and we are certainly committed to making sure that the lessons that we learned are shared throughout the city family. We think that's incredibly important as we all move forward, not just for us, but for the entire city. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the questions or comments on this item. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens, which should be 1177, which is the bill creating the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Your Voice, Your Choice program; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of The City of Seattle, an easement for street purposes from Seattle School District No. 1, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, situated in a portion of the Tract described as “Reserve” in the Plat of S.P. Dixon’s Green Lake Acre Tracts; designating the easement for street purposes; placing the real property rights under the jurisdiction of SDOT; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_02082021_CB 119989

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Item two Will the clerk please read the short title of item to Into the Record report part the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119988 relating to the Your Voice Your Choice program authorizes the director of the Seattle Department Transportation to acquire accept your record on behalf of the City of Seattle and easement for street purposes from Seattle School District Number one. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Customer piercing and handed over to you to walk us through this committee report. Thank you, Counsel. President, colleagues. The goal of this legislation is to improve safety for cars, pedestrians and bikes on the east side of Hazelwood School. Specifically, this is a small easement from the Seattle school district to our Seattle Department of Transportation to enable street safety improvements at Pinehurst Way, Northeast and Northeast 117th Street in District five. Community members applied for street safety improvements at this intersection through the Your Voice, Your Choice program. The bill passed unanimously through our committee last Wednesday. Thank you. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Oh, shit. Hi. Peterson. Hi. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Council member, Herbold. Yes. Suarez I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please a fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three Will the clerk please read item three into the record? Chen died in three appointments 1788 appointment desk authorities member Lovie Tim of Seattle Oversight Committee for Term two December 31st, 2023.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Chapter 16.16 of the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.16.140 relating to Prohibiting Adults Not Accompanying Children Under The Age of 12 From Park Playgrounds, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05032022_22-0482

Motion is carried. Item 24. Report from City Attorney Recommendation of Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to prohibiting adults not accompanying children under the age of 12 from park playgrounds. Read the first time and later over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City Wide. Mr. City Attorney, do you need to give any updates on this before I turn it over to Councilman Allen? We can give an update, if you like, but this is an ordinance that was requested by the council to come back for I think Councilmember Allen brought this forward and we're just bringing it back. I just wasn't sure if there was an update to Councilman Allen. Any comments? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank you. And the city attorney's office and the Parks Recreation and Marine Department and over there for their work on this ordinance at one of my first neighborhood community meetings after being sworn in. There was a resident and her name was Sandy Nair, who reached out with an idea about kids zones. And she talked about the issues like adults misusing the playgrounds or engaging in activities that discourages children from using playgrounds. And this issue was not just at her park near her house on the promenade, but citywide. And she shared the idea of marrying San Francisco's No Adult with a child in the playground program. In the following months, more residents shared similar ideas. I spoke with the Parks Recreation, Marine Department and Animal Care Services Department about checking out what other cities are doing and how we can model and look at that. And I know this has taken a little while since March of 2021, but, you know, good policy takes a little time. And I know that we've had a chance to work with other neighborhoods, parent groups, other council offices to make sure that this ordinance is balanced and representative of our entire city. Throughout the city, we've seen that these spaces designed for children have been misused, vandalized, and even just outright destroyed. And I think we've listened to our residents who use these spaces, and we're taking the steps to protect them so that our young people can enjoy the outdoors and enjoy the parks. And by establishing kid zones, we can ensure that the city playground equipment in these play areas, specifically designed for children, remain safe, open and accessible spaces for their use. Parks in my district, like Miracle on Fourth and then the Promenade Square Park, which is now as my colleague wonderful Mary's and de has this district are you know are still impacted by ongoing loitering issues which discourage park usage by shot by children and by their their guardians. So this ordinance today establishes protections and guidelines for public spaces. And I hope this policy makes our parks safer for our residents and our families. The one element that I have some concerns about is the is the enforcement. And I did get this question. So if there's someone that can answer this, I know a resident ask specifically the language about 12 year olds prohibited youth older than 12 for from enjoying these amenities. So if you can clarify, because one of the things and I thought this was a good question, I have a nephew who's Pacific Islander and he's, you know, 12 years old, but he looks like he's 20, a linebacker getting ready to are the NFL draft or something. So. So I just just want to I just want you to address that constituent, whoever is here on those concerns. If someone can do that, that would be great. Yes. Thank you, Councilwoman. This is Brant Dennis, the director for Parks Recreation Marine. That's a very good question. I know. Typically, when we are designing our playgrounds and working closely with public works, we have, you know, the youth, the top lots that are, I guess, zero through age five and then the older children, which is traditionally five through 12. And that's kind of how we define youth in a lot of our programing. Also, I think the intent of this is really just to have a watchful eye over the type of use or abuse of our playground spaces. And I don't think it's going to be the custom that we're checking IDs. Actually, a lot of youth probably don't have forms of identification on them, but I think the intent of it really is to, as best we can, just keep a watchful eye on our playground spaces that are designed for for younger people. But we have had some examples where. Adults have. Actually caused a lot of damage by aggressively using or abusing our playground equipment. So I think it's all for the good of the child, of the children, of our community and young families in particular, that we want our play areas to be safe, welcoming and respected. I just want to say thank you so much for all your hard work. And also thank you to my colleague, Councilmember Yaw Ranga, who's also been a champion of this. I really appreciate all your support. Thank you, country, Renko. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Allen, for also bringing this forward. Very happy to sign on to this. As you probably remember, about a year ago, our playground at Admiral Kidd Park was totally destroyed, probably because someone just abused the playground. I would also another playground in my district at Silverado Park also went through a lot of damage. And fortunately, through funding and fundraising, we're able to replace those two big playgrounds again and make them state of the art. So I think in order to ensure that these playgrounds remain safe for kids and last a long time and have a nice, long shelf life, I think that this ordinance would be would go a long way in helping protect that. So I'm very happy to support this, and I hope that I can get the support of my colleagues as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I do have a question for the city attorney because I received several emails today. I know there's other cities that have similar ordinances and Councilman Allen touched upon them. Has this type of ordinance been through any sort of litigation to determine whether there's any access or constitutional violations? I'm going to ask Anita to respond. Good evening. There has not been any constitutional challenge or litigation on these particular ordinances. Specifically the city of Santa monica, which this is modeled after. Great. Thank you. And then the other question that I had is, what's our enforcement mechanism? I imagine it's going to be a calls for service type of reactive response. And then is our approach going to be outreach or or citation? I thank you, Councilwoman. In speaking to my colleagues in both Santa monica and also the city of Las Vegas has had a very similar ordinance in place. They both pursued a very broad community awareness campaign. And I know with our army of community recreation services team members, it'll be out and about all of our community centers and our parks that happen . To have the playgrounds that's going to be on their task list is to engage with the park users and in particular, I think more watchful eyes with our young families so that they're aware of that and also will be posting kids zone ordinances with the municipal code clearly stated. At each of our I think we have. 82 playground sites that they'll have the kids own signage posted. So it will be an awareness campaign and I think it's going to be a kinder, gentler approach. I don't think we're going to be hard, fast and and keep people from enjoying all of our play spaces again are intended for kids. Thank you. Okay. And then I just want to clarify one of the things I think there was some misinformation and some of the correspondence I got. This is definitely not prohibiting people from going to the park. It's just literally the playground space, which a lot of times is delineated by sand or some sort of a safe landing floor space or ground cover. Yes, Councilman, that's correct. Most of our place spaces by design have have curbs and accessible walkways surrounding them. So I guess the optics are to be fairly easy to see once there's a kids on signposted what would be perceived as the play area. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I think a couple of my questions were answered already, but I want to get back to the the issue of equipment and and its design. Can you explain go a little bit deeper in terms of the playground equipment that we have throughout the city? And who specifically is it designed for? Because I did receive some comments from adults stating that they like to utilize playground equipment or that their their special needs adult children may need to utilize playground equipment. What sort of provisions have we made or are we taken for that? And to your. Councilman, that's a good question. So essentially, when we develop playground concepts and I think our signature playgrounds are kind of the flagship of quality. But we work closely with our colleagues at Public Works. They actually will bring on board a consultant. A lot of times it's a landscape architect to look at. The. Design of the play space. And most of the manufacturer products have tried and proven specifications for durability and longevity and ease of maintenance. But I think going back to the premise of the the ordinance proposal, it really is not. Prohibiting an. Individual to engage in the play as long as they're supervised, supervised from someone. It's really just that individual who wants to just hang out and maybe interfere with the play actions of kids. And that's really the intent. So I think we'll be very, I think, empathetic towards certain cases. And again, we just really want to create an environment in and around our play areas that are welcoming, safe and respected. So and today, if, if, if we go out and we see an adult creepy person hanging out at the park or at play at a playground and, you know, we asked that individual to leave. Is are we out of line? Well, once the ordinance is passed. And signage is. Posted with the municipal code listed, there's a stronger basis to inform them. And usually the awareness they'll find another. Place to hide. So this ordinance gives us a tool to. It's a tool in the toolbox. Yes. I just want to be clear on that, because there's, I think, a lot of confusion as to too the intent and what we are trying to accomplish. I know, you know, there was a measure, a playground that we worked really hard to get put in place in one park in my district in Jackson Park. And I received a number of complaints over, you know, a couple of weeks period of time from residents who said that there is somebody here who's kind of taken over the the equipment. And, you know, I'm afraid to take my my children there. Other complaints that we've received at other parks are paraphernalia used, condoms, things of that nature on playground equipment, which is really appalling. And so my my take on this is I think that playground equipment should be almost a sanctuary space for our children and for our kids. And for that, I'm going to happily support this item. Thank you. And thank you. Again, Councilman Zendejas. Thank you, Mayor. As a person who's has had fire in her district at one of the playgrounds, I am very, very supportive of this. And thank you, Councilwoman Allen, for all the work that you've done along with Councilmember Muranga and the team. I think that this is very, very important. Our little ones deserve to have a safe space for them to enjoy safe playgrounds. And the parents also deserve to have a place where they can take their children to the playground and feel safe. I'm very supportive of this new ordinance that places the safety of our kids at the forefront of our park policy. So for that, thank you. I also wanted to clarify, this policy will be applied to all parks in our city, correct? That is correct. To all parks that have a playground. Thank you. I think end and the signage that will be going on, you know, what will that see? Yes, councilwoman. That's a good question for details. So there will be graphics run by the P-I or Kevin Lees, because we do have graphics standards for tape, font and colors and all that. But essentially it'll be a 24 by 24 inch metal sign orange field in the background with black lettering that will say kid zone. And that beneath it will be the municipal code that cites this ordinance once its chips are passed. And will it be posted in different languages as well? You know, that's a good question. The term kid zone, I don't know if that's a universal term. It may not be. Well, we always do go through. Our language access step, but that's a very good question. We'll make sure that that's addressed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very supportive of this item. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just just a few things. So as a dad of little ones, we go to the playground all the time. So I completely understand the need to keep your playgrounds safe and kid friendly. And so for that reason, I'm happy to support it tonight. I think also, you know, there are playgrounds that we like to frequent and sometimes there's a lot of broken equipment. And it's because, you know, sometimes people mistreat the equipment. And I know how hard it is to identify resources to replace that equipment, you know. So I think we definitely need to need to think about that. I am empathetic about the circumstance around someone with my son. Someone has special needs and they're above that age. Or sometimes, you know, a 16 year old, a 19 year old may not be, as you know, they may be maybe smaller or have mental health issues . I figure out we're going to need to be empathetic in how we deal with how we make this policy developmentally appropriate and sensitive. I also think I think about real examples of high school kids from Jordan High School that go next door to out in part and sometimes hang out on the equipment. I don't want to see those kids getting tickets or caught up in the criminal justice system. But I think we need to just work with our park staff because it doesn't happen often. But kids do from Jordan High, go over, hang out when no one's using the playground. I think once the playground is invested in, more little kids will use it, more parents will be there. And that will kind of sort of self-police itself. So I would say, you know, when we have some funding for design, the sooner we get that program, that playground designed and built, I think the better it is. But I just want to say, I understand the sentiment of what we're trying to do here. Let's make sure that we are developmentally sensitive in how we implement and that we're looking out for the circumstances of teenagers, high school students who just are being high school students. And so those are things that I just want to be mindful of. Thank you. Thank you for your public comment on this. Then we have a motion and a second was cast our votes. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP TI17-095 and award a contract to Utility Solutions Partners, LLC, of Rancho Cordova, CA, for the purchase of managed services to provide maintenance and integration support related to the City’s Utility Systems, in a total amount not to exceed $4,044,595 for the first year, and thereafter, in an amount not to exceed $2,286,100 annually, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods for ongoing maintenance, 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 amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09052017_17-0765

KING Next item, please, is item number 23. 26. I'm sorry, 26. My bad. Report from Technology and Innovation and Financial Management Recommendation to Award a contract to Utility Solutions Partners LLC to provide maintenance and integration support related to the city's utility systems in a total amount not to exceed 4,044,595 and authorize the city manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract citywide. Kitties in and a second attorney public comment on this item. Circling. This is a 20. 20. So, you know, if you didn't do 23 years, right. A long time ago, you spoke on it. You slip. You spoke on it. Oh, we are okay. Okay. Okay. There's a motion and a second. No other public comment. Please cast your votes. Tony.

Rezones properties located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-2-16.

DenverCityCouncil_04112016_16-0130

And we are fully in support of this reason for this site. I think it's important for city council to prove this reason to continue the growth and activation of the neighborhood. Increased height means increased density near a light rail station, which then means increased street activation. And usually when you get this, you get better architecture and better materials and design when you have the increased height and density. One thing that was mentioned earlier that I think everyone should note is that this developer, Camden, is typically a long term holder, which means they put a lot more money into their products and a lot more care into how it's designed, how it's operated, and how it fits into the neighborhood. I don't think that is something. That should be taken lightly. Density within walking distance to a light rail station, as you all know, is very important. And I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice not to take advantage of that at this location with a great site and a great developer. Thank you. Thank you. Jamie Lee, go. Good evening, City Council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm Jamilah. I serve as the executive director of the Rhino Art District, the Rhino Business Improvement District and the Rhino General Improvement District. And we are also the registered neighborhood organization for the neighborhood rhino has been very involved in working with developers and as has already been mentioned tonight, we're seeing a tremendous influx. We're talking to developers on a daily basis about what's going on. And when we come across a developer like Camden who wants to sit down at the table with us and find out what's most important to the neighborhood, we are very responsive to having a conversation about how we make a development fit into the neighborhood that meets the needs of everybody involved. And that's exactly what's happened with Camden since last fall. They've been at the table. They've listened. They've responded every single time to our our requests of what's important to us. And I think every time we look at a development of a parcel, particularly in a neighborhood like Rhino, where it is literally being built out of the ground right now, at this moment, every single development, every single conversation requires thoughtful consideration. We've heard the word precedent. There was a lot of conversation about that in the zoning meeting. I think we as a neighborhood are taking each development on its merit, looking how it knits into the overall fabric of rhino. That's what's most important to the neighborhood. We've heard the neighborhood tell us that ground floor activation space for artists, affordable live work space, affordable places for for people to to build a life, having green space, having art space, having transparency on the storefronts are all very important, especially on our main arteries of Larimer and Walnut Street and Camden, as we've gone through the process of conversation over the last several months, has brought that to the table. Live work units that are affordable price for artists to keep them in the neighborhood, small space for for restaurants, for galleries and a design that really knits into the overall fabric. And as rhino as a whole as a neighborhood densify. And you know, we are having conversations led by Councilman Brooks right now about up zoning around the station. We are not seeing pushback on height. What we're seeing is a demand from the neighborhood that that transparency and activation and the ability to create a walkable neighborhood that's about people, that's about bikes, that doesn't require people to get in cars and go places is most important. And that's why we pushed Camden to really be thoughtful about that. And they've responded on every level. So from a neighborhood perspective and representing all the different voices, we are here to say we support what Camden is doing and we're we look forward to working with them for the long term as long term players and the rhino. Thank you. Thank you. Laura Phelps Rogers. Hi, welcome. Thank you for having me. Speaker at city council, I agree with everything that everybody said, but I did come here to protest a portion of this proposal, which is the 55 steps, that 55 foot setback for the view, the sightline. I also presented you with a small packet. At the bottom of that packet are two photographs that were taken from 29th Street into a development. They show you what a five story would look look like from the center of the street, from a three story to a five story transition, and then Photoshopped in at approximately 55 to 60 feet is what you would see. So I own the property immediately across the street from this parcel on Larimer, there is a lovely historic building right across from me that's included in those images in the packet of you looking north and looking south, which shows that there really are no five storey buildings yet in this area . So not for a long ways to the south and not for a long ways to the north. So it will be an entire city block will be five stories right there. So as it is currently said, I do support this change from the different types of zoning. But what it does include is three stories literally on Larimer and five stories literally on Walnut. There is a dividing line of the alley for most properties. In this case, it's unusual because the back alley was vacated. So again, on my presentation, it sure sort of gives you the story of what I would see if I was standing in the middle of the street. And it's quite extreme. I mean, I lose all of the blue sky. So what really is at issue, though, is I had a conversation with this gentleman here, and I don't think that this is the time and the place to hear about it. But literally when the first sign was put up, I called this gentleman and asked him, Does this zone change comply with the existing zoning in terms of height? Three stories on Larimer, five stories on Walnut. He replied to me, Yes. And in part he was telling the truth. But there was. Information in that the intent of this group was to take come forward 75 feet, nearly 75 feet from the alley, changing what you see when you were either standing in the middle of the street, across the street or from anywhere else. So the only thing I object to is that the zoning be changed to allow that five storeys to come up to 55 feet on the Larimer side, that it be required to meet what the zoning requires at 125 feet. And one of the reasons I would like you to either consider that or postpone this decision is because of the misinformation that was received. So I haven't really had the time to prepare a grand presentation about why I think this is important. And it's, it's it's it's a difficult situation. I'm not the best editor, as you can probably tell, even from the stuff I send them. My eyes are not exactly 100% perfect, but I've tried so. Mr. Rogers, your 3 minutes is up now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now, time questions from members of Council Councilman Espinosa. And so you guys and I'm sorry to my colleagues, but I've been waiting a long time for this one to come before council. And so bear with me. I've got questions for a lot of people. Let's start with CPD. So can you go to the Slide seven? Actually, you go to the planning board slide. And this sort of dovetails into my comments earlier. This was a split vote planning board. And planning board is far less political than this body up here. A lot more. Technical there's criteria that set their voting restrictions. The same criteria applies here. But our only obligation as council is to hear this request not to not necessarily to approve it. We're not mandated in that way. So. That said this was a split vote, five three. And when this was presented at plan, the slide set was considerably different, was it not? No, it was. Go to the slide review criteria. So. So there's one slight difference. And it's. It's that one. Slide so that there's one slide. So this slide was basically written based on the comments that I am going to be illustrating here tonight. It's really to circumvent the case that I am going to be making for a line in a plan having meaning. And so a lot was spoken here about the the advisory nature of these plans. But you do have a slide here. And bear with me again. You showed the 2009 plan that clearly marks. It is Slide 16 that clearly shows that in 2009, this property was bisected by a line in a small area plan and that the higher the defined area was 1 to 3 stories. Two slides later, slide 18, we get to this site and now two years later, this site is still bisected by that line. But we've now changed and through a public process, three stories define half of that site in five stories the other side of that site in. And so there is a split vote on planning board because of this. And you spoke to it in his comments, in his briefing about this line and the meaning of this line. So going back to the slide that was added, it was all about the the the the language days basically taking priority. But we as a people don't necessarily we know what we're drawing and these have meanings. So now to an actual question. Where is that? You mentioned that on when you were doing that slide that was added that there was actually was the next one after you mentioned that there was language about the average height of a pedestrian in the neighborhood plan. Is that correct? This the slide? No, it was the one after the review criteria slide that was added. It wasn't you mentioned it, but it's not stated in the language that's on the slide. So I just wanted to confirm that that language, in fact, exists in the applicable plan. So do you want the language from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan? Does it say that it references the view from an average height person in the right away? Are you referencing this slide? The northeast, downtown neighborhoods swing. I don't know. Just say it there. Okay. So I see. I see. It. Is this slide? Yes. So you're asking me if an average high pedestrian use and specifically. Stated that in the plan, it said that you're basing it on a you had a reference height of the average height person. Right. So that gets to the interpretation of the plan. The interpretation. So that language does not exist in the plan? I don't think it does. I mean, I could do a word search on average height pedestrian, but that again, it gets to the the fact that a plan is providing guidance and advisory. And we have to say. You just added criteria, did you not, about the average height person. Like, why is that the average wise person and not the person on the second floor of a adjacent property or the third floor adjacent mx3. Right. Because there is a lot of language in the plan that talks about street level activation and the pedestrian experience and urban design from the from the street level. All right. There's a whole lot of language about that. And so as a pedestrian walking down the street, we found that the the plan thought that that was very important. Okay. We look to the average height pedestrian to see what, you know, where five storeys would be perceived. Okay. And then maybe the architect would answer this better. Yeah. So could we get Bobby from Capehart? And I am asking you because you specifically mentioned the concern about the pedestrian on the street. So if that was the concern, why doesn't the 55 foot step back, turn the corner on 32nd and third? Because the high transmission is specifically limited to Larimer and not necessarily the pedestrian connections on 32nd and third. As far as the three story limitation. So we're only concerned about because you drew some some renderings here that show to show the egregious ness of a ten foot setback, which is which is pretty substantial. Correct. But what you're saying is that's only a concern on Larimer, even though the better part mean a significant chunk of this is well beyond this this this dividing line that we were just discussing. Does not that does that line not speak to the intent of where three story was appropriate or not? And couldn't you have turned the corner so that at least that larger 55 foot setback basically applied visually from the street, as CPD talked about. Only in the sense that all the conversations revolved around and all the language, as I understand it, from the neighborhood code or the neighborhood comp plan. Talk about the transition at one. Not necessarily on any of the connecting streets going backwards. So it's really about the pedestrian experience along Larimer. And necessarily. 32nd, 33rd. CPD. Could you bring up slide seven? So yes, this property had its alley vacated. And my concern will be later on as far as precedent and what sort of precedent this set. And I think there's some assurance that, no, this won't set a precedent because of the difference between this site and the adjacent properties. So this slide right here shows that both adjacent properties to the north and to the south actually still have their existing alley intact. So the defined characteristic if we if we. Is that those. I'm pretty sure but maybe I'm wrong CPD or I don't see those adjacent parcels getting the same dividing line and that the character of the those properties to the north and to the south along Walnut or along Larimer would maintain a three storey around that, you know. And so is our concern truly just Larimer Street or is it a three story built environment versus our five story built environment perimeter? I guess I don't understand the question. I mean, we looked at the plan. The plan says three stories on Larimer Street. So then this would, in fact, be acceptable on either on in either area, north or south, for the same reason, because the concern is only Larimer. So are you are you talking about other properties? Well, if our concern is only Larimer Street in the appearance of three stories, so either property to the South don't have they only have frontage on Larimer. I mean, they also have the frontage on 32nd and third as well. So is it acceptable on those two properties to define this, their their subsequent rezoning on either of those two parcels with the same 55 foot setback? Because the concern is only Larimer. So, you know, I'm not in a position to opine on a rezoning. Well, how would this criteria be different for those two adjacent properties? Well, it's a different property to start with. Is Larimer not? Do they not front Larimer. It would, yeah. Fronts Larimer. But again, it's a different property owner. It's a. So how does that affect the zoning and the physical things that you look at at CPD? So so let me let me answer your first question. Let me just try to get the. K I just trying to figure out how Larimer differs between 33rd and 34th and how it differs from 32nd to 31st than it does from 33rd to 32nd. So Larimer Street itself, the street isn't different. It's the land on the street, right? It's the ownership, it's the block configuration, it's the alley configuration, it's the existing zoning. It is a whole host of other things that have to be considered when when looking at a rezoning application. So again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Should that property come forward with a rezoning application, I would likely be in front of you giving a presentation. But again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Okay. So now my next questions are pretty brief. Todd Triggs with Camden. How many units would be lost if the line were moved from third to Mid-Block? Essentially the center line of the alley. You'd probably lose about 30 units. 30 units. How many of these did the community inquire about? Affordable. I heard mention of affordable live work. What percent army will those units hit? It is not anything to do with a percent of gross, am I? It's that when we develop live work units, they are typically larger in size. So if you rent a unit for 600 to 600 square feet, it would be priced about, say, $2.30 a square foot. Once you get a unit that is a live work unit that's 1400 to 800 square feet, all you really gain is additional space. You're not getting additional bedroom, bathroom, other things. So the price for that unit gets priced a lot lower than what a typical apartment would be. Okay, so it wouldn't be at 230 a square foot for that unit. How many of those units. In the dollar 75 range or something like that? So it's it's a significant. Difference in how many of those units do you plan at this point? We are still in the process of trying to figure that out. Once we get our zoning squared away, we'll be able to determine how much retail, where it lays out the live work units where they're at. You know, we'd like to do probably ten, 9 to 10 units, something like that. But. And then how many how many affordable units that region am I? 100 or 60 or 80%. Ami, will you have in this project? No, everything's. It's a market rate project. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Josh Katz from the owners. Were you approached by any non-profits or land trusts for this land? Because it's it was a bid process and we got around 20 offers. No nonprofits? No. Nothing of the sort. So how just a sampling of how egregious were those other proposals that this one stood out? There was about six that were in the same dollar range. Mm hmm. More or less. Then below that, they dropped off significantly. Another 14 numbers might not be exact, but it's on that magnitude. And then we had. One offer that was higher than Camden. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Ryan Seeley. Just a quick question. You forgot to provide your address. I'm also based out of Houston, Texas, at 11 Greenway, Suite 2400. So you're part of the development team, is that right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Ryan Legato or Jamie. Like, sorry. Like, oh, sorry. So you mentioned affordable. What is affordable mean to you? So in talking with candidates that Todd mentioned, they noted that it's about a dollar 75, a square foot for some of these units. And the way that they were looking to design them is two stories potentially with their garage door on the main floor, live above, work below, be able to open your garage door and sort of be open for a first Friday type environment. Obviously, as we look at Artspace throughout Reno, you know, we just had the binder on Blake, just put in 13 artist studios there at $2 a square foot. And, you know, they all they all sold out. That's sort of kind of the threshold, I think, of paying for kind of artists. This is a work live space. So that was just for actual workspace, that $2 a square foot those people have to pay to live someplace else. So when you can combine your work live space at somewhere around a dollar 75, a square foot, you're in the affordable range for kind of the creative sector to be able to actually make a living out of those spaces. When you put in things like the garage doors where they can actually have people come in to their space on a first Friday or something like that, you're kind of opening up a new realm of possibility for how we keep artists in the neighborhood as. They discussed lease provisions. Because I have lived work in a development that I pushed for the same thing. But the leases don't. They don't. They don't. They don't support that. Do you have actual guarantees that these will only be leased to people that will operate a business out of them? Very good question is the question I asked Camden when they came forward with those opportunities, because I said, what types of users are what is the process by which you select users for this? And they said generally it's a first come, first serve basis. And so what I put out there was would you be willing to enter into a partnership with the Bid Park District, so forth, where we could help fill those spaces for you? Because we are right now in the process of collecting information about artists who need space, what their requirements are, you know, what they're looking for. And we're beginning to pair those artists already with developers who are building space. So we'd like to do the same for Camden and basically come to them with here's a list of 20 artists that are interested or ready to pay or looking for the space. Will you give them preference? And Camden said they would be thrilled to work with us on that. We've seen other bids do it really well so we can take a model from someplace else. And that's something we're not just working on with Camden while we're working on with all of our property owners. Okay. And then last one. You mentioned design. So what assurances do you have that they'll memorialize these requests? You know, we the letters. So there was a letter after our series of meetings that we've gone through with them. And we have seen the conceptual change over time. And I think the last conceptual we saw was probably in January or February at our last meeting where they incorporated a lot of our requests. At that time we said, okay, great. We, you know, we've sort of gotten to a place where we're comfortable with this. They put that in writing to us. We in turn, and our letter that is in your packet wrote saying we support this on kind of these conditions. So we can't, you know, obviously we can't tie them to do anything, but we're hopeful. And given the fact they've put quite a bit of energy into working with the neighborhood thus far and responding to us, we're obviously very hopeful that, you know, they're good on their word and they carry through and we'll be there, you know , vocally supporting them if they do and causing a ruckus if if they they don't do. You do know that once this happens, this is a use by right development and no ruckus in the world really changes that if they don't follow through with their plan. Sure. Absolutely. We get that. But you know what we're seeing? We've seen we have some incredible developers doing tremendous things on their own. And right now and we have some developers doing really not great stuff who are who have done really not great stuff. And even on some of those developments where the neighborhood was, you know, didn't have an opportunity to participate in a discussion about some of that, we are now going back and it's pretty incredible. I think the tide has turned in right now where people see if you're not kind of in on the partnership thing with the neighborhood and kind of supporting the neighborhood character they are trying to work back in. So we're seeing developers that maybe didn't put in ground floor activation that are trying to see how they can turn a unit or two into a gallery space or a flex space or how we can mural that first floor to tie it into the fabric of the neighborhood better, you know, and working in every angle we can. So we can only do as much as we can do. We are working on efforts to do design guidelines and design overlay and exploring all that, and we are hopeful we can get that done. And we use some of the things that were important to us from those discussions in talking to Camden. So we're hopeful that in time we will have more of a lever to be able. To, you know, persuade or, you know, have developers sort of conform to the character. But in the short term, where we're doing the best we can to create a partnership with people as development happens so intensely fast. All right. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Councilman, I know that Councilman Brooks. Hey. All right. Since we had a whole 17 minutes of questions on the line, I just want to get our legal opinion around that. So, Mr. Lucero. So this is an interesting issue that has come up a couple of times. And I think it's important for, I think council to know I think it's important for the public to know when we draw lines within our planning documents, what kind of legal requirement are does the city have does the city council have to stay within those lines? Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And good evening. Members of Council Nathan Lucero, assistant city attorney and. Again, when. You're reviewing a rezoning application. The criteria is whether or. Not. The request is consistent. With city adopted plans. And so consistency is is something less. Than conformance or compliance. So. The lines that are that you see sort of drawn on a piece of paper are really just there as guidance. And again, as. Mr. Daley explained. The real crux is in the intent of that. Plan and what that means to city. Council and whether or not the application, again. Is consistent with the intent of the of the city adopted plan. Okay. So legally in making in our criteria, it's it's we are not held to that a legal standard that if we're not on the line in this particular rezoning, we are out of terms and in the legal requirement. So just to be clear, the line that's drawn in the plan is, is, again, just just guidance. And it's not regulatory and it's not prescriptive. Okay. On that line of questioning, Stephen, Ali. For neighbors who are listening. Because, you know, I think it's important that it be clear for folks and that that's the thing I want to be transmitted tonight, that it's clear. Is there an opportunity for or have you seen an opportunity? I feel like I'm doing five plans right now. And we do talk about a lot of lines. Very rarely do we put those lines into the words of the plan. Right. The the the content of the plan. And so is there an opportunity to maybe back up those lines or how can there be some assurance for neighbors? Right. So as you know, we are going through CPD is leading an effort to amend the plans around the 38th Blake Station area. And that could I could look like a change to a map. It could look like more clarity in the text as to the goals to the intent of that language itself. There are different ways to present building heights in a plan. For example, the Cherry Creek Area plan shows a gradient and it really leaves the interpretation open and does really rely on the intent and the language. And so there are a couple of ways to change the map through a conversation with the community. Leave the map alone, provide more clarity in the text to provide that guidance. The gradient is is where you think CPD is moving towards? Well, I mean, CPD likes to get guidance from the community. And so I think, you know, the gradient has worked, but there was a lot of discussion. Yeah. Into Krieg about what the gradient really means. Think so? You know, we have a toolbox. Great. Couple of quick questions from the developer owner's rep. Did you guys get a chance to talk to I know we have Rhino, which is you know, it's it's part of five points, but it's the new brand of five points and very little residents in the specific area of Rhino right now. Did you guys get a chance to talk to Curtis Park? Yes, we did meet with Curtis Part. His name was Su Glassmaker. Yes. And and we all know SU because SU is the lead, what I would call architect for us when we're looking at design on Welton. So did she give you a thumbs up or down or just kind of stay neutral? Because I didn't see a letter from her? No. When we met with her, we met her on site. We walked the site with her and, you know, talked about our development and what we proposed to do and the zoning that we were going after. And she said that she recommended that we get with the Rhino Group, meet with them, and depending on whichever way they were leaning to go, they would probably follow their, you know. Okay, that's great. Yeah. Jimi? Yeah, please. Sorry. I just wanted to jump in at Curtis Park did reach out to us, and they did express to us that they would follow our lead on this one and that they would not oppose that they would remain either, you know, just neutral or, you know, they opted not not to write a letter of support, but they said they would follow us. Great. Thank you. One more question around this topic. So we did talk about affordable housing and our typical definition of affordable is some sort of subsidized housing that hits different army levels. Rhino definitely needs affordable housing and that's a part of the 30th and Blake revisioning a station area plan so we're looking at wondering if you'd be open to meeting with the Office of Economic Development and looking at some of those units to make sure they hit those affordable levels. You know something we'd have we need more time to consider that. I mean, right now, it's hard for me to say because I don't know what those rents are based on our pricing, but the seller of what. We're buying the land at. That wasn't taken into consideration at that time. So, I mean, that's not a whole new, you know, line of negotiations with everybody. I think so. But you we will talk about it and have a meeting to discuss them. I think if it fell within our what we're in our pro forma numbers that we've already kind of, you know, considered we would I don't know. Do you know what those numbers are, what the rents are or. Yeah, I mean, we can get down into the details of what the performer is. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking would you be willing to to meet to talk about me? I'm always willing to meet. All right. I just I can't commit. Thank you. And then the last quick question is I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Yeah, Laura. I just wanted one. Who's. Who's Councilman Garcia. You know, when. He's Mr. Right? Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. I need to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry, Councilman Brooks. I haven't had the opportunity to meet you. And I was very active in the Upper Larimer Neighborhood Association, and I did sort of part ways in terms of my interest in the organization, because initially when it was founded, the primary focus appeared to me to be more on the Brighton corridor. Yeah. And even still that's where the offices are. And there's a great deal of change as everyone has seen on the bright corridor. So historically, if you sort of look at some of the architecture I presented in my portfolio that I presented to you my packet, there's a drastic difference between the bright corridor and Blake Walnut and Larimer, which are an industrial neighborhood that was mixed with existing. Excuse me, ma'am. Architecture. I was just asking. I mean, I hear that and I appreciate that. I was just asking, do you know who Councilman Garcia is? I do not. Okay at this time. When I looked up District one, that's who actually says. And so I didn't have the opportunity to direct. Got it. And I know that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that you knew who your councilperson was and that Councilman Garcia served the time back. I do appreciate it. And thank you for the extra moment. Just. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. All right. All right. There we go. 30 minutes of questions. Any other questions on 139? Public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a this is an interesting, you know, zoning proposal. Obviously, there are some some issues. I got a chance to talk to Joel Noble, who actually lives in Curtis Park neighborhood and is on planning board and voted against this because of his interpretation that potentially the plan might be misleading. And I certainly appreciate that and certainly appreciate the other conversations that I've had with other council folks and folks in the community about what kind of precedent that this will begin to set for others in the community. Again, I will be supporting this, and one of the reasons that I will be supporting this is because I don't believe in overprescribing our plan documents for several reasons. But it does require more conversation when stable neighborhoods are looking for, they're looking for assurance. And so what does that mean and how do we provide that from community planning and development? I don't think assurance is being overprescribed and requiring that our plans be a letter of law. Couple of things that this group did that that I really appreciate. Number one, there's no neighborhood group tougher, more rigorous than Curtis Park. And they went to them first, which is great. Curtis Park is a neighborhood that is not. They do. I wouldn't say that they're not pro-development. They have $300 million of redevelopment coming on Welton in a joint effort. And so for them to be supportive and take on two rhinos is one thing. Rhino Design Group met with this group and it is a let's just say I wouldn't say a snobbish group. I'd say that in the best way possible. But they care about Rhino because they want to live there for the next hundred years. And they met with this group and they scrutinize this group. And I really appreciate that because I think what greater rigor comes a great project. So I will be supporting this. Here's the the kicker in all of this. Plans are constantly changing, especially when they're in the urban core. We just finished our plan and global area Swansea and around this station of 3838 area station area plan we're amending it and it's only been a year. And so the environment is changing so quickly that we're trying to catch up with the very fluid nature of this area. So I'll be supporting this and I appreciate all the work from all parties and even folks who are coming to speak in opposition. And I think we'll get a good project. I hope that we can continue talking about affordable spaces for artists, because if we don't do that, we will lose the spirit of this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Several things there. Councilman Brooks is right. Curtis Park is is among the toughest. So I think I don't I'm not comfortable putting words in their mouth and saying that they support it because there's no representative of Curtis Park. That said, so one thing they are very good about is communicating that in writing and particularly their support and the fact that that's not here. I read something into that, actually bonuses. So we have bonuses, density bonuses and other things that sort of are trying to spur certain needs of the city written into our zoning code. But the problem is, is they're not adopted or utilized. And the reason is, is because our base zoning is not restrictive enough. There's no incentive to take those incentives. And so that's where. The rest of my comments go because I understand completely that we are not bound by the lines drawn in the code. But the intent of the plan supports the line as it as it was drawn and it was shown. But I do understand that it can be moved. But when we arbitrarily move a line that has been vetted not just by the community, but supported by pass council, we should have more assurances in place to in place to support the increase in development potential that we're granting. You heard it here tonight. 30 additional market rate units are going to be captured by that line, moving just from the alley to this new point. And, you know, there is no shortage of 100% market rate rental projects in this city. What there is a shortage of is affordable housing. And so when we're moving lines, we shouldn't be doing it arbitrarily. There should be an ask there should be an ask of this city to say, look, we have needs. We're granting you additional considerable development rates because building these two floors and I'm a licensed architect, Vint here done that development is not new to me. The going those extra two floors is some of the cheapest development that you can do because you've already put the ground, the work in the foundation. You've already built that ground floor retail and and so now just repeating the same thing that you've done layer after layer cheap. So that's not a hard ask, but we don't ask it and we should. So, you know, the so that is the extent we have a line. It's been drawn twice. I think the intent of the code, the code as written supports that demarcation. I also think that it matters what third, the experience of 33rd and 32nd are like. If we're going to do this and we're going to honor that intent, that step back should actually wrap so that any place that side of the alley towards Larimer would have the same experience as if it were three storey mean zone district. So I will not be supporting this arbitrary move of this line. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman there. Thank you, Mr. President. I have great high regard for my colleagues and their comments. I also have the highest regard for Jayme Loco and what she's doing in Rayna Jaymes helping nursing Golden Triangle as redevelopment, an incredible urban environment there and develop lives. And. And when I hear her say she's going to be after these guys to build a quality development, they better watch out. I know what she's doing and go to trial cracking the whip. And so I feel very confident that Rhino's going to be the one of the premier places. It's going to be a really cool place to live and work and play, and so I feel real good about what's going to happen. I surely respect Rafael's comments. We've had this common conversation about lines and and architectural viewpoints on plans, and so we've got some good points to discuss further about support this project. And I really appreciate what's going to happen and a. Thank you, Councilman there, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. Very quickly, I didn't know who the developer was till I got here tonight, but there is a Camden development in my district at the Bellevue Light rail station. It's really great. The architecture is very attractive. The scale is just right for the area. The landscaping is great. They take really good care of it. So I just wanted to say a few nice words about them. Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. You for reminding me. Yeah, there aren't any assurances. As hard as you're going to work to make sure that this project follows through. There aren't. Once we grant this use by. Right. That said, the development teams here, the ownership group is here. What I heard in testimony here is that you've made commitments. My expectation is that you follow through that these are going to be rented to artists, that that street is going to be activated and that you're going to make good on making affordable opportunities. That because that is crucial to that area right now. And so, Jamie, is it. If you're not getting the traction, call me. I'm going to I'll be in there. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman. Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I was having a site conversation over here. I wanted to express my support for this application a number of years ago. This was part of my council district. And this has been a neighborhood in transition for quite some time. As you all know, where we have our light rail stations, and this one is very close by. We're seeing a lot of a lot of changes in these neighborhoods. And as you drive up and down Blake Street, you drive up and down Market Street, you are seeing many, many different new projects. This is on the other side of the tracks from the Blake, the Brighton Boulevard corridor, where we're seeing drastic changes to the neighborhood with very high density development, which under blueprint, Denver was proposed as a new growth area. And so this is in line with that. I appreciate the work that the developer has done with the neighborhood. Knowing the Curtis Park neighborhood as as I do and have worked with them for many years. If they did not support this, they would be out here in force tonight and they are not. And that speaks volumes because they they are not shy in expressing how they feel about anything that's happening within their neighborhood. So I think this will be a good project for the area. And I just wanted to lend my support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments? 130. Scene one. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Oh, Flynn. Hi. Cashman. I can eat. I Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. My black. Eye. Mr. President. Hi. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because we've only announced the results. 11 eyes, one knee, 11 eyes. One day. 130 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. Moving on to our last public hearing of the night, 264. Councilwoman Black, will you please move to have comfortable 264 on the floor for publication? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 264 be ordered published. It has been moved. And second, walk up the one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 264 is now open. Audience and Council Members, please be aware that we do have an interpreter who is interpreting simultaneously from English or Spanish. During tonight's hearings, audience members may be able to faintly hear the interpretation, and we ask for your indulgence to process. Any testimony in Spanish will also be said in English to ensure that those present and watching at home will be able to understand the comments. Thank you. All right. We are first going to start with an overview, but just a reminder, as people are coming in and transitioning out, I will ask that we keep the comments in the chambers quiet so that we can hear the speakers, as well as our reminder that we are not allowed to have people standing on the back. So if you are here to watch and you are not going to speak, we do have 391 open and available for you to watch as well. So for those standing in the back, I'm going to ask that you would please find a seat if there is one not available. I need you to go to 391 and this front pew right here, sir, we're going to have the speakers come up there. So we're I need you to leave that open. Thank you, sir. So, once again, for those the back, please find a seat if you are able Councilwoman Kenny or David Broadway. We need the overview. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to all of you for your patience getting to this hearing. I want to thank and speak on behalf of my co-sponsors tonight, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. And to all of my colleagues, my name may be one of the sponsors on this bill, but every person that I've talked to, frankly , has helped to shape this bill. I also want to thank David Broadwell, who has not had a weekend off in more weeks than any of us want to admit, as he has been working with this council. So we are here today just to make sure that everyone's on the same page, because we had a regulatory environment that expired. We had a list of people who could apply for licenses and a list of people who could not apply for licenses. And that expired on December 31st. So that was an intentional move by the prior council to make sure we had this conversation. Right. That's what a sunset is. It says we need to check back and talk about this. And so that is what we are doing is we are fulfilling that responsibility. I want to summarize the features of the bill before you tonight to 64 NS new medical centers and new medical cultivation licenses. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega. Those provisions were inspired by her desire to say no to some classes of new licenses. This bill caps the existing number of locations for all growers and stores. Whether they are med, whether they are recreational. There is a set cap. It includes a numerical cap, actual numbers in the ordinance. And I thank Councilman Espinosa for that recommendation. But should the number of actual licenses in effect, the day this bill passes be lower than that? Then the caps will be lowered accordingly. So the bill includes caps that are a maximum third. This bill includes a very aggressive buffer zone for growth, and that buffer zone is around residential zoned areas, whether there is a home or not. If the area is zoned residential, the thousand foot buffer applies and it also includes a 1000 foot buffer from schools. Councilman Herndon, thank you for your inspiration for the residential buffer and councilman knew was very important to him to have the school piece number four because we have an incentive to move away from medical marijuana towards recreational or retail because we have greater controls as a city over retail, because you can buy smaller amounts because it does not serve minors. We are allowing in this bill new licenses for retail at existing locations. So that is an important way to allow that migration to occur. Without that provision, the world would be stuck in the medical realm with all of the concerns that exist on that side. And so this bill allows existing locations to add recreational or retail. Five. If and when the number of stores or cultivation drops below the caps for each of those categories once a year, the department is directed to hold a lottery to issue any potential new locations. There are very high prequalification standards to enter that lottery higher than are required to apply for a license. Right now you have to have a very clean record if you're a prior operator. And so those those lotteries only occur if the number of locations drop below the cap and then you are pre-qualified and you meet all of the licensing requirements, then you may enter the lottery. Six. The bill between committee and today added a new incentive for that lottery so that there would be more entries for those who were from non concentrated areas, areas with fewer stores or areas with fewer cultivation centers. That language is likely to be stricken by an amendment that I intend to support tonight from Councilwoman Gilmore. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I flag it because it is new. It was not in the committee version. It was it came from feedback that we got at committee and after committee. But it may it may go away through an amendment number seven. The bill allows pending applications to proceed following the longstanding practice that this city has had of applying rules going forward and not changing the rules going backwards. So it allows pending applications to go through for council members. I do have a new handout that I just got this afternoon. I'm going to pass it around or if the secretary might assist me. It covers all of the pending applications in the thousand foot buffer zones and where they are at with their building permits so that you can see what types of building permits have already been issued. So, Madam Secretary, if you would, please pass those out. Number eight, this bill does not make any changes to manufacturing facilities or to testing facilities, so they are not addressed specifically in this bill. Now, I think it's critical to understand that this bill does not exist in a vacuum. There are other pieces of the statute that remain in effect and that apply, and there are other powers the city has. So really quickly, I just want to summarize things that are not in this bill but are important to understand it. First, there are existing limitations on stores, and there are also needs and desires hearings that have been used by neighborhoods very successfully to either kill liquor applications in the past or to get them to agree to community standards such as hours of operation and how to be a good neighbor. So that tool needs and desires and those distance requirements already exist in existing law. That's why they are not in this bill. They already exist too. Tomorrow, the City Council Committee on Safety and Health, chaired by Councilman New, will be hearing an odor ordinance that requires significant improvements for those stores or I'm sorry, for those facilities that have not invested in carbon scrubbers and other proven technology. That odor ordinance will be considered in committee tomorrow and then will work its way, hopefully through this council. But it is an important piece to consider about a request folks have had that's not in this bill but is moving forward on a separate track. Third, the city of Denver has budgetary powers. Many folks have asked whether this bill could include a special tax to tax marijuana businesses to improve communities. It can't without a vote of the people. They've asked about impact fees. It can't unless those impacts are directly related to marijuana. It can't be used an impact fee, can't be used to fix sidewalks or lighting or things that are not the problem caused by marijuana. But we as a city do have very powerful budgetary authority. And that is why on Friday, April 29th, when this Council convenes in our budget hearings to help to shape the mayor's proposed budget, I will be suggesting that we create a new marijuana community improvement fund that is existing to take tax dollars already flowing into the city through either the base tax on marijuana or through the special tax that's just on the retail side. Both are taxed at the base level. Retail has an extra tax to take those some dollars and set them aside for the top most concentrated neighborhoods and to allow those neighborhoods to participate directly in the allocation of that budget dollars through a participatory budgeting process. Denver has never before used to participatory budgeting where the citizens directly engage in how to spend dollars. This is our opportunity, and I believe it is an effective way to get at the concerns that folks have raised about whether or not this bill or whether or not marijuana dollars can be used to improve their communities. So with this overall package of an odor ordinance, a community improvement fund that uses existing dollars through council ordinance authority, write a separate ordinance. And then this bill, we are taking significant steps towards protecting communities, balancing some basic fairness for businesses and really maintaining a high standard that if you are going to do marijuana business in the city, you will come to the city for a license and we will set the standards rather than fueling a secondary market where businesses alone get to choose who enters and who doesn't. With those introductory comments summarizing the bill. I will now thank everyone for coming and I look forward to hearing your feedback in the hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Committee. So for those that are unfamiliar with our one hour courtesy of public hearings, let me give you a brief overview. The. The clock starts from the first speaker and it goes continuously for 60 minutes. We have 52 speakers. So just by math, you understand that not everyone is going to get the opportunity to speak. And I do apologize for that. The way that we choose the speakers are when you filled out a speaker card, you noted you were there for against their neutral. Once you noted how you are the staff, not council members, then that the staff goes in order shooting cards randomly by support, oppose and neutral. So council members will have the opportunity to hear from everyone who has varying opinions and each person has the right to take up the entire 3 minutes. If you had the opportunity to get your minutes in your comments in 2 minutes, I'm sure the 21st speaker or the 22nd speaker would greatly appreciate that. So as my role as Council President to continuing to move people through so that we can hear as many people as possible, I do ask when I call your names, you come up to this front pew. So we have the opportunity to hear as many people as possible. So that is the procedure when it comes to the public comments. If any speaker is speaking in Spanish and requires translation, I will add an additional 3 minutes at the end for the translation. So that is one opportunity. Should we have to require any translation for that? It is implicit and it is anticipated tonight that council members will be offering amendments. It's my understanding three council members will be offering amendments. What we will do now is I will call on each of those individual council members, if they could briefly in council members, I will say briefly talk about their amendments so that all the speakers that have the opportunity to come up and speak can speak to the bill as well as any amendment that a council member maybe bring forward afterwards. So I will first start with Councilman Clarke. It is my understanding that you have an amendment, and I would ask Councilman Clarke if you could just briefly talk about what your amendment will be. We will have a more robust conversation later on. But just so for the speakers can speak to yours or any other amendments that are coming forward. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm actually presenting amendment on behalf of Councilwoman Gilmore, who is not here tonight. So I'll read her statement from again, Councilwoman Gilmore colleagues, I'm currently out of town at an airport conference. I send you my regards and thank Councilman Clark for reading my amendment tonight on with this statement. I'm proud of the robust dialog that we have engaged in over the past months. I've come to understand that there are very complex issues around marijuana from our neighborhood schools, regulations, the industry, law enforcement, the state. The list goes on. The one issue that has become very clear to me is that there are neighborhoods in Denver that for many different reasons have an undue concentration of cultivation sites and stores. This includes my own neighborhood of Montebello. I'm sharing with you an amendment to S.B. 16 to 64 that will remove the top five neighborhoods with. Undue concentration in cultivation sites and stores from the 2017 lottery per David Broadwell and I agree that the terms saturation or oversaturation that have been used are subjective and difficult to define. The term undue concentration is used in this amendment, which makes it completely objective by having the director simply calculate the top five statistical neighborhoods where the most licenses exist for cultivation sites and stores. As of last week, the top five statistical neighborhoods for cultivation sites were Elyria, Swansea, Northeast Park, Hill, Overland, Montebello and Valverde. The top five statistical neighborhoods for stores are Overland, Elyria, Swansea, a five points Northeast Park, Hill and Valverde. The above listed statistical neighborhoods will be excluded from the 2017 lottery. I hope that you will consider this amendment to address the issue of undue concentration in our neighborhoods. She also shares that she'll be available via phone or email if you have questions and that she'll be watching council proceedings tonight. Hi, Councilwoman. And she looks forward to public comment and the discussion. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Perfect. All right. My understanding is, Councilwoman Ortega, you also have amendments to offer. So I would ask if you could briefly discuss your amendments for the for the viewing pleasure and for the speakers. Great. And I will do them in the order that I would propose to introduce them. So the first one is would basically be addressing pending licenses that have not yet been approved by May 1st for both marijuana sales as well as cultivation licenses. This amendment would prohibit approval of such such licenses in certain statistical neighborhoods. And we've got 12 of them that have been identified. And I can read through those that already have a high number of marijuana businesses. Furthermore, the pending applications for the cultivation licenses. This amendment will require denial of the applications for locations that do not meet the new requirements for setbacks. And this is clear. These are for setbacks from schools and residential zones, and that the distinction between this one and the one that you just heard is these would be for any application that's pending as of May 1st, 2016 . This does not include the testing labs or the medically infused product locations. So that's the first one? No. The second one. Essentially would cap the license by license category and over time, it would essentially ratchet down the overall cap. So if you look at the numbers of applications that we have pending as of today and the total number of applications that we have seen, we are if the pending go through, we are at over 1300 licenses. Now, Councilwoman, a contentious bill focuses on locations. But I think to have the conversation without looking at the number of licenses that we have in the city is I think it's a misstep to not look at the number of licenses at the same time that we are addressing the amount of locations, because in some cases, there may be one location that has a number of licenses. So that's what the second one would do. It would essentially ratchet down the number by license category over time. And then the third one. And these wouldn't necessarily all be introduced. For example, if the first one passed, we would not need this third one. And this one essentially would propose a similar cap on sales locations and cultivation locations looking at the same statistical neighborhood as the first one. The distinct difference is this one would apply after the pending have been approved, and then the very last one would be an amendment that would require notification of neighborhoods that are in the I.A. and I.B. Zone districts for all license types. Currently, the IEEE and I.B. are the only zone districts where the neighborhoods are not notified, and this would ensure that neighbors in those communities have an opportunity to know about the applications. So in a nutshell, that's what they do. I can go into greater detail after we get into comments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for your comments on those four possible amendments, I believe, Councilman Lopez, did you have amendments to offer? Yes, I do. I have two amendments. Thank you, Mr. President. And this is just on on the on the reasoning that, although are. Although we have a very robust regulation, we have a very robust environment. We are regulating the industry and we're doing it very well here in Denver. There are two amendments that I'm as we look at this bill, there are two amendments I would make. The first is in speaks to the concentration of marijuana centers in both medical and retail in our city that are concentrated in certain neighborhoods. And, you know, when we go into comments and later, we'll talk a little bit about and we all know in the room what neighborhoods those are. You've heard from them. There are a lot of them. So it would basically prevent the further issuance of any new licenses, both for medical marijuana and retail, as well as the changeover in these in these communities. It's Oberlin. Hilarious. Swansea of Five Points. Northeast Park Hill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello. Cap Hill College View Platte Park Civic Center Cole Hampden. Lincoln Park Park Lama, Rosedale, Ruby Hill and Speer. These are the the top 13 and those are going to cherry pick. At first we looked at it looking at areas where we know there was some, but we decided to go with what is legally defendable. The second speaks to cultivation, and that's the second opinion I'm bringing forward to, and it prevents the further issuance of any new licenses for marijuana cultivation in these certain named statistical neighborhoods. That's hilarious. Swansea. Oberlin. Northeast Park. Yale. Montebello. Valverde. College View. Lincoln Park. La Ma. Sunnyside Baker. Ashmore Park. Five Points. Globeville and Sun Valley. Essentially that's what those two amendments are. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and thank you to my colleagues for briefly announcing their amendments. Let me first ask, are there any council members that had other amendments they wanted to bring forward? Seven is enough. All right. Thank you. So we're going to start to list our speakers. And just to remind people, the reasoning for these random drawings is based off support, opposition or neutrality. Based on how you noted on your cards, please come to the front pew one hour time once the first speaker begins and I apologize in advance for any names I mispronounced. So first five speakers we have up and the first one is Hard Reader, Catholic, Miki Zeppelin, Gregory Wright, Lyndsey Gillis and Brendan Moyers. So those five, please make your way up to the front pew. I wanted to delay all five of them here. If we don't have some, then we'll get to some more. So, Rita, you can begin your remarks. Dear Members of the Council, thank you for opportunity to speak. As you hear from my accent, I'm an immigrant, an immigrant from Ukraine. I came to this country 25 years ago and I started from McDonald's. Done some learning, done some studies, done some hard work, and feeling like I was succeeding in this country pretty good. Up to the last minute. So I to you know, when they start hearing those things so help me out, please. I also you know, I feel that the reason for my success that this country is based on integrity and this country based on honesty and this country based on the handshake, believe, if you go back to Russia and Ukraine, they wouldn't even believe our banking system. They wouldn't understand why people just not go and steal the money. They have the ability to do that, but they're not doing that. I had this handshake. The city of Denver in November opening OPEC in AMC. I followed all the rules. I'm an A student. If they say do something, I'm doing that. I had my card signed. ABC emcee called Signed already and I'm ready for licenses. I just found out that I cannot get the licenses because they put hearing on that. There wasn't supposed to be. They're just found out today. So that delays the process, which is already killing me. I have people working, getting everything ready. I have employees who is getting store ready to open and just spent so much money on that you can't believe. And I have a lease that binds me for for at least five years and I have to pay out of this lease. I recently had to stop my computer programing career to do this. So I just can't go back home and tell my family this is what's happening. And the implication sounds very, very innocent when you think in the application and it's pending. But no, in order to put that application, you have to sign you have to sign the lease with the landlord. And then, you know, from where you want the business, that lease is usually huge. And then you have to spend lots of money to invest for the grow. I build it, we build it all the past, those inspections. I just got my seasonal card signed and city went all the way helping me out to get things signed so quickly so we can open quickly. And I just can't go home and tell my family that this is what's happening. I have a partner. He has three kids. He has to put them to college and not to be for the rest of his life. Now, on the lease and bills on you know, this is just I understand that city may be deciding to change the rules and not to take any more applications. I wouldn't. Please, greta. Ma'am. Your 3 minutes is up. Appreciate your. Help. Thank you. And could you say your cities have resident? Do you live at your Denver resident? What city do you live in? I live in Greenwood Village in. I have properties in that property. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Mickey Zeppelin. Good evening. Members of Council. I live at 350, which is in Globeville. And the history of Globeville is one from the city standpoint of really shame. I think for the last hundred years Globeville has been really abused. The original highway came through, Globeville through when President Eisenhower did it. We've had smelters. We've had the sewer plant. Any undesirable use seems to end up in Globeville, and the benefits don't manage to get there. We have the worst air that we're schools, the worst health. And we also got marijuana and we got an abundance of it. And I think people felt really powerless in terms of protesting. I think New Hope came when we adopted the neighborhood plan. People felt somewhat empowered and there was a sense of hope. And people really gathered together. And when it appeared that there was going to even be more marijuana in there in the area which had disastrous effects , the roads are terrible. The whole environment is bad. And from my standpoint as a developer, there's really not much incentive to go along with what is in the plan to create community, to make things happen. From the community standpoint, I think they're looking at this not just as are we going to have more marijuana, but it's in essence the hope of that community of saying we're finally being listened to. The number of people here who came out who would. Never have come before to a. Hearing like this is amazing. And it's gratifying to see after 15 years that finally people have risen up and said, enough is enough, we want some benefits and not all the burdens. So I. Ask you. To provide that there be no more marijuana in the Globeville area. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Kaplan. Gregory Wright. I thank you for letting me speak. I'm a business owner. I have a manufacturers of refuse product licensing and located on 3936 West Colfax on January the 26 of 2015. A Denver zoning representative came in with a fireman to present me with a new law and to say a state that I had six days to cease and desist operations that I was no longer allowed to operate in a Nomex three zone. And I had to relocate. There was nothing I could do. Speaking to attorneys around the city and all, they said, you know, in any other business, in any other industry, we would be able to go and. Bring our case before the city as business takings. But with marijuana. Seems like no judge is going to be able to listen to any lawsuits and basically says, you know, take it outside and box it out on the grass. Gentlemen, we're not going to listen to you. So I've been hurt very badly by the city over the last year. I've had no income and I have licenses that I have paid for. As you know, these licenses are very costly. I have probably lost over $100,000 in the last 14 months supporting this business and trying to find a new location that suitable and approved by Denver zoning. I understand the plight of everybody that is is in the rears right now and waiting to get licensed. I went through the pain and still am going through it. I support Representative Canisius amendment and feel that this industry is overregulated. I've followed the rules from day one. Did everything right. Never fudged from it. We have a system called metric which tracks everything we do. My system was clean from beginning to end. Yet the city chose to come in. Knocked me off the plate and say. Try again. A lot of money lost. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Lindsay. Lindsay Gillis. Lindsey and Lee. Okay. Next, we have Brennan Moyers. Some of these folks may be downstairs that need to come up. Okay. We are going to I'm going to say the next five, Brant Beckman, Brooke Gehring, Holliday Aguilar, Lisa Salmon, CORERA and Brian Keegan. So if you five are in the room or in 391, I ask that you will please come up. Brant Beckman You can go ahead and begin your remarks. Hello there, city council. My name is Brant Beckman. I'm a resident. In Golden, Colorado, but also a property owner at Logan Street in the Globeville area. I guess we have a MIPS license, a medical MIPS license. And I guess I want to thank you, because it looks like at this point we will be able to get our recreational license. So I appreciate the fact that it does look that way from the deeper part of my heart, though, I do feel sad about what's happening to the medical community pushing things in that direction. And I also feel that we are a little bit on the overregulated side, and I think that the system, the way it is, can regulate it as is. I do hear the hearts of the community and some of the things that have been done in the communities. I think there's great things that you guys are doing at this point to make that better for the communities. And I guess just want to say thank you for hearing us all and I'll give time to the next speaker. So thanks. Thank you, Mr. Beckman. Next, Brooke. Gary. Thank you, counsel. My name is Brooke Garing and I am a resident of District Six. I am a business owner for six and a half years in districts three, seven, eight. And I'm also a property owner in District eight. Some of my comments have already been made this evening. So I'd like Kristy Kelly, Vice Chair of the Marijuana Industry Group, to be able to speak for me tonight. Thank you, counsel, and thank you, Brooke. Christie Kelly, I reside in district one. I own multiple. Businesses. I'm sorry. I apologize. I was talking to the council secretary. You can't defer your time. So that was your time. That that is your time. You can't another person can't come up and take the remainder of your time. I apologize for that. Okay. I just didn't want to be. Okay. So apologize now. You can't have you speak for another person. We're we need to go to the next to the next speaker unless you want to continue your time. We're good. We get. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Holly Aguilar. And Madam Secretary, this will require translation. So could you do a total of 6 minutes for the speaker? Yes. Thank you. You see, when I said this and you're discussing numbers, Holliday. Aguilar, good afternoon. Good evening. Councilmembers. My name is Holliday. Aguilar. See you then. Go deal with scenario. This one's here. I come from the Swanson neighborhood. Babies are important to animals. I've lived there for 15 years. You're a member of the communities who needs the help of your Ilaria swans here. And I am a member of a community that is Sunni. That's from Globeville area in Swansea. I mean, I know some of the limit. And Imean, that gay pride, they must defend us in Bernardo Delas Villas areas stands out to us. And we are in favor in favor of the amendment that would prohibit more stores and cultivation centers in the areas that are already been that are already saturated, not good mosques acting licentious because dumping the enters in our community, we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our community. Okay. But is it mutual? As you said, isn't the cornerstone, even though I'm glad of this, that they maintain important a mutual basis Pedro but is it cannot not and is Cucolo? I believe many of you know me. I have come to speak on this subject many, many times, but it seems like you might not have listened. Can I moschino's? Is Guccione in action? We want you to hear us and to take action in journalism. But these are mutual. There is a lot impact to this industry in our community that we have repeated many times what the impacts of this industry have on our community. Listen. But these are the mutual models loss impact those peripatetic you say this boom in tourism we have repeated these impacts to you, but it seems like maybe you're not interested in them. No, not anti portal status since they must represent them. And as personas can be hurting, we do not feel represented represented by you. We feel like you represent those that invest best. So I can represent an anecdote. Rose Caramels giving on ABC. Tara, whose Comunidad is Nuestra Comunidad. We asked you, we ask you to start representing us. We want you to come and visit your communities, our community. Get em all to a boil as he considers Buscaglia nosotros. But I started on the stand. We're asking you, asking for your support. Just like you ask for our support to be where you're at at this moment. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Lisa Samoa's career. Good evening. I'm Lisa Simos. Korea and I live on Capitol Hill and I do have an MBA degree. And and that will explain my short statement. Anti-competitive practices. Are government. Practices. That prevent or reduce competition in the market. And since I have 3 minutes, I'm going to repeat that. Anti-competitive practices. Our government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. And I do mean this with all due respect. I ask each of you to be careful what you wish for by throwing up entries entry barriers. I am concerned that the ensuing protectionism will give companies insulation from competitive forces that would ultimately benefit the consumers that you are trying to protect. And I made a little note, a quote from Councilman Brooks Brooks a little earlier that he doesn't believe in overprescribing. And I hope the rest of you will consider that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Brian Keegan. And as Brian. And before Brian Keegan begins his remarks, I'm gonna call the next five speakers Nicola Voulu and Elizabeth. Kristy Kelly. Martha Flores. And Flown Beth Beckman. Gareth DAVIES Good evening, President and members of Council. My name is Brian Keegan. I am here today as a marijuana industry professional. But more importantly, I'm here as a concerned citizen of District eight and the state of Colorado moratorium is coming to an end, as we all know. And we must decide how to move forward. I believe Councilwoman Kinesis proposal, is that correct? Way forward. Some of the proposed amendments, however, do go too far. And as we have chosen to speak with you today. My fear is that there are some anti-marijuana groups and influential people, some of them in this room that are using this topic and this time in history as another referendum on marijuana. The voters have spoken. As we all know. It is time for a sensible regulation like Councilwoman Kansas proposed that provides jobs and tax revenue for the city. I ask you to vote for a councilman, finish his proposal this this fine evening and urge you to vote against the proposals for one reason. I just don't believe that you guys have had enough time to hash it out, no pun intended. And and I don't think a lot of people in this room have really had time to digest those amendments as well. I think we've all had time to digest the the the bill at hand. But the amendments, they they definitely need some work. And I think we all need to sit down and go over them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Nick Lovullo. Let me go below. Although I'm a resident of five points, just a neighbor. We wouldn't be here today if you all did what you should have done and just let the moratorium fizzle out. Should it just that have been it at two years booming industry marijuana crime down to next to nothing 0.03% of all crime in Denver . Millions of dollars in tax revenue. Well regulated. We win. The reward is that we get a ban on businesses. Weight of the 11th hour to reinstate the moratorium. Deliberate for five months on an issue that's several standard deviations away from what people care about. Now, you know, the priorities are just backwards. No new medical dispensaries. Zero. This is the first piece of legislation that I've ever read, ever in Denver, Colorado, that prioritizes casual consumerism over people who use marijuana as medicine. Zero. His Campaign for Patients Rights First. Until now. You guys have got to put your names all over this, Bill. Fewer people are getting red cards. So are you going to shut off the valve? There's zero forever. There's no sunset on this bill. There's no sunset. We don't get to talk about this again in two years and have the same conversation all over again. There's some gold medal, mental gymnastics going on that would lead you to believe that that's something that Coloradans would support. I don't know. You said something that this is does not capture test licenses. I wasn't sure. But, yeah, like banning, you know, restricting all these licenses. It's really reefer madness. It's a leap from common sense ability. Some of your council reps want to eliminate the pending applications in certain neighborhoods, my old councilman included. I understand that there is an undue concentration which is just as subjective as saturation. That word undue. Anyway, another 11th hour decision to pull people's licenses away from them. You know, even though the city processed all those applications, now, you know, where were you when those came in? Where were you when those licenses came in? Did you ever go to an excise and licenses, hearing, protest, something with your community? I don't think you did. That's the process that was supposed to go through, not tear the rug out from everybody and open the city up to potentially millions of dollars in civil liability claims. That's reckless. That's reckless. You're lucky you have elected office because you work anywhere else. You open that company, your organization, up to that level of liability. You're gone yesterday. So don't punish our entrepreneurs who follow the process because you failed to organize your communities earlier on, many months ago at a license hearing. Don't let businesses you know, businesses, investors have no recourse but to sue the city for their losses. You'll be the ones stamping those settlement checks and we'll be the ones paying for them. So you spent five months on this proposal. Sad to say, it's terrible. It's antithetical to Denver's normal dealing with local businesses, especially if you take away the licenses. It's anti-coal. Colorado's priority of treatment of the boulder. This is a little loose. Your 3 minutes are up, sir. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Next we have. Next we have an Elizabeth and that is and you are certainly have a right to clap. But all that does is possibly prevent future people from speaking. So I would ask if we could keep the clapping down so we can get through all the speakers. Miss Elizabeth, you're up. Thank you. And Elizabeth Global resident and I have a little studio there now. Thank you to the repurposing of a building. I'm here to support this bill, if amended by the combined amendments proposed by council members Ortega, Lopez. And Gilmore such. That no new marijuana business licenses of any type will be granted in the areas determined to be neighborhoods of undue concentration by the council and consensus, and that that the threshold be the top ten neighborhoods. We have 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver that the marijuana licenses that as marijuana licenses may. Leave Globeville Leery. And Swansea in particular through attrition over time that reduced concentrations be enforced through licensing application freezes in these neighborhoods until Globeville, Larry, Swansea in particular move out of the top 18 concentration ranking that the total investment to the marijuana license applications pending firms be assessed in the global Elyria Swansea neighborhoods, and that the city offer recovery and incentives for the relocation of these pending applications from global area Swansea to other neighborhoods in Denver with new sites and that that no more that I'm going to derivate from my notes to respond. A couple of things here real quick. Number one, I'm a strong supporter of medical marijuana. I voted against Proposition 64 because I didn't think Denver was ready to administer this based on its experiences with excise, licensing and other matters matters. I did participate fully in the beginning from within the neighborhoods, in attending licensing hearings, in the facilities coming into the neighborhoods, trying to help the commercial firms recognize the impacts on the neighborhoods that were happening. I think that even though many marijuana business and I'm very glad that in the state legislature, the conversation around administering, giving parents the right to bring medical marijuana treatment to the school is available, still being. Considered possibly available. For children. I'm I support that strongly. But the hedonistic recreational use of marijuana, even though it is being used, even though the firms do. Often do. Adhere to the to the letter of the law and follow regulations. I don't think that courtesies have been in place throughout this. Are people such as myself that have wanted regulation. This is a different type. Of of of change socially and environmentally. And these it's not anecdotal or subjective. When you walk down the street and you smell the marijuana and you experience it in the daily lives, it's a it's a critical thing. We need the right regulation. If we have a lottery, I want the the concentrated areas to be removed. It is not unfriendly to business to ask for these these. Neighborhoods like Loveland, Larry Swanson, that want to support a diversification of business, a vital economy in emergence into a whole new. Culture along the corridor of opportunity. Be relieved of the pressure of this flood. Talk about storm water. We need to work with this this. Elizabeth. And we need. To this Elizabeth, maybe 3 minutes is very much. Thank you. Next we have Christie Kelly. Good evening again. Thank you. Council, President and Council. I'm Christy Kelly. I reside in District one and I own multiple businesses in District three. I am also vice chair of Marijuana Industry Group. I am co-founder of Accountability, which is a nonprofit for families dealing with very sick children who require cannabis medicine to help with their serious conditions . I am founding board member of the Fourth Corner Credit Union and co-owner of a business that employs over 50 Denver residents and has been in operation since oh nine and I believe in the efficacy of medical cannabis. Last week I heard hear from residents that they're upset about cannabis businesses in their communities. And this was shocking to me because conversely, my own experience has been different. 40 to 50 of my own neighborhood neighbors and District three thanked us for moving in, installing security and essentially eradicating the illicit drug dealing in the shared alley behind our cultivation facility. Which was in Councilman Lopez's district. My business has a directive to prioritize diversity economic, racial, sexual, religious and academic. Every one of my employees loves the city of Denver and believe that responsible businesses should thrive and coexist within the communities that we operate. And that's why it's really critical to allow pending applicants for business, for businesses that have gone through or are going through the rigorous application process right now. You have to acquire a zone, construct permit and then install security into these facilities. Often vacant buildings. This is an investment that requires millions of dollars. Then in the last couple of years, the evolving landscape added on to that rigor by with with an evolving fire, public safety, environmental, health regulation and regulatory framework. And that just adds to the investment pool. My sense is, wouldn't this be exactly the kinds of businesses that you would want to co-exist inside of your communities? The ones who are happily, willingly finding additional resources to happily comply with the evolving regulatory landscape. Don't you want well-resourced businesses who feel a sense of responsibility to the cities that they live in and the regulatory environments that we're putting forth? This should be exactly what we want in our communities, people who are willing to do whatever it takes to be compliant. Why punish them for following the rules on the 1000 square foot residential buffer issue? It's my understanding that the goal is to avoid saturation inside of communities and support the diversification of businesses. The challenge in this is that in the event of eminent domain and. Misskelley, I apologize to you, 3 minutes are. Up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, counsel. Next, we have Martha Flores. Excuse me. And this will require translation. So, Madam Secretary, we could do 6 minutes and before my floor. As you start, I'm going to call the next five names from that Beckman, Mike Wolfe, Carl Cheney, Little John, Jennifer Schuman and John Menzies. So if you five can make your way up my floors, you mean you can even begin your remarks. When I start? This may number as much as he possessed. Okay, come on. My already familiar Berlusconi, that is. Good evening. My name is Marta Flores, and I am here as a mother supporting our communities as farmers. Support and the estamos. I have all I mean. The private amnesty industry in bear Madero Salazar described as counsel to riders. We are in favor of the amendment that prohibits more stores in more cultivation centers in the already saturated areas. No caramels as a concept and a license. Yes. Because stamping the interest in a company that is we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our communities. So my story preoccupied Upper Mexico's Justo. Lucha, the Nelson Plateau, Salvador Comida and in La mesa. I am a mother. And right now my concern is to make sure that my children have healthy food at the table, in my own pocket at recess. And they will come on as a community that says that in London, the contents of the marijuana eat and the smaller salad is a planter's. And I'm saddened to see the way our community is saturated by these marijuana stores in these cultivation areas. Your main work at this at this if you had an appropriate and familiar for measure that comes to me high school and then marijuana this to say better less quail and also odors. And I'm here speaking on a personally speaking because my son was involved in marijuana and he wasn't able to attend school reporting for medical marijuana and allowed us to prevail. He was. And because of marijuana and unfamiliar person for a person because of marijuana, he does not have his freedom. And I would hate for other families to go through what I go through. When it's done. Yes, that is it. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Flores. Next, we have fun with Beckman. Good evening. My name's Flaubert Beckmann. My address is 5060 Logan. Zip 81 six Globeville Neighborhood. Thank you for listening. The voice of the community. We all know this important. We know we all know that that is what form society. And we all like to be part of society. And thank you again for listening in the concert. So the cannabis business owners and your web page from the Office of the Economic and Development say you start your business, say let's stock this, come from your website about businesses. So that's what we're doing. We're talking and we're really appreciate that as a community that you're listening or concerns that you're questioning, that you're questioning signs that you're questioning the public services, but that then we has a obligation to educate your community, to educate your families. And I am asking for your help because as a community in the cannabis businesses, I think everybody we want people to be really well educated. We don't want children. We don't want families to be destroyed. So let's back. And because you are here making history by changing the lesson, Colorado, I want to thank you for the opportunity or for the privilege to hopefully acquire a recreational license for my medical infuse business. And as a company, we continuously aim to be part of a community where can all lead sustainable. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about how Denver can provide to businesses like the cannabis businesses and sustainable farm, a sustainable base that we can thrive. We can be all party and we can all be happy. So again, thank you. And let's talk about that, the sustainability of businesses. What is the carbon carbon footprint of each business? You know, they talk about some businesses. They has five licenses in that business. Let's talk about sustainability. Do you rather has five different buildings or you rather has businesses? They are small businesses in one location. So let's talk about that. And again, thank you for everything. And I just want a better Denver. It was something that I didn't ask to be, but all the businesses, somehow we ended up being in Denver and now we need to deal with. So let's be smart. Let's try to take good choices. Thank you again. Thank you, Miss Beckman. Next, we have Mike Wolfe and we are just over 30 minutes. All right. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Mike Wolfe. I work at ten, five, five five East 45th Avenue, Denver 8239. I'm testifying in support of councilwoman clinches marijuana bill and against any of the amendments. I'm 30 years older. I graduated with honors from Illinois State University with a degree in horticulture shortly after I moved to Colorado in 2010. I recently left my job as a production grower at one of the largest wholesale bedding plant growers in Colorado. At this greenhouse, I was exposed to extremely harmful chemicals on a daily basis. As of this past year, I was required to spray organophosphates. For those of you who are not aware, gain of phosphates accumulate in your body over time, they never leave. So if you are exposed to these at all, there is a good chance that you will have complications later in life. Organophosphate poisoning can greatly affect the nervous system. I also had very little excuse me, practically no room for advancement in my previous position. I was incredibly excited to accept a position as a lead grower with an extremely well-known cannabis company with a pending application. This company is about a month away from receiving its certificate of occupancy for a beautiful state of the art facility. The facility is located more than 1000 feet away from any residential area or school. I am I am so excited to work in cannabis because it allows me to use my degree and do the work that I love without putting my body and health at risk from harmful chemicals. This is also a much better paying job for me, which is great because I have student loans and I have a mortgage that I need to pay. Started training a few weeks ago. I was of initially I was a little hesitant to jump into the cannabis industry. But after careful consideration and research, I know that this is a company that is committed to doing things the right way and they are already training me in compliance. If the pending applications are denied, I will definitely lose my job. I honestly do not know what I will do. My bills are pretty high. I cannot afford to go without work. Please do the right thing and allow the pending applications to proceed. It is not just the owners who will be devastated. If these are denied, I'll lose the best job I've ever had. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Next we. Have Caro Cheney little John. And I would just remind our speakers if you could say your name and cities of residence and your home address if you are comfortable. Thank you. Carl Cheney, Little John and I am here representing the community of Mandela. I truly believe that on behalf of the children and my community of 24 years, that business owners understand. Can you lift your microphone up just a little bit? Feelings and of our community, the investments and the business plans that they have for my fellow, you know, everybody took a risk doing that. The. There could have been a consideration to these owners that you could look within a 30 mile radius of Denver to invest, and it would have been cheaper with the ordinances as far as Denver is concerned. After attending the. Agendas that you had here for city council. The assistant attorney advised the counsel of their right to support the marijuana industry. Council took into consideration children in the children and the communities. But they did not take the advice. The best advice of the assistant attorney, which was to. Stop. Let the business owners know that a stake has occurred. The city chooses to put forth a frivolous mask on pending applications to sacrifice our children and our communities to pass this ordinance. Is truly not fair to the communities and to the children. Coming to a meeting. I listened to Commish say that she has a six year old daughter. Our six year old. Something. But. In our community. I've been there for 24 years and I've been coaching. I volunteer for the community in everything. I have no I have no qualms with. The businesses that are there. But we have five schools within. A thousand foot of saturated community already, which you're going to install more. Businesses and it's not fair to our community. A lot of people aren't here to protect their sales, but I just want counsel to know that there will be consequences to pay for this. Thank you. Thanks a little, John. Next, we have Jennifer Schumann. Hi. I'm Jennifer SHUKMAN. I live in District one. Councilman Espinosa is my representative. I'm a stay at home mom to two small boys. They're six and. Seven. And I don't personally use marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, what have you. But I see the value that these businesses bring to our city right in tax dollars. In renovating buildings and in employment. So bear with me here. I have close friends who own three restaurants in Denver. And I can't imagine that they would. Work in good faith to build out their restaurant and hire people, only to be told at the last minute that we just have too many places to eat right. Now and that location doesn't work anymore. And so maybe you're just not going to be. Allowed to open. At all through really no fault of. Their own. This is their money that they have invested. These are people who. Are citizens of this county, who have families who are following the rules. So that really wouldn't be acting in good faith to pull these pending licenses and to not allow them to progress. I assume it would open up the city to legal action. I wouldn't be. Dying to pay for it, given that I do. Have small children in school here. So these. Are people who have invested. Heavily and followed the rules. I respectfully ask that you act in good faith toward these people who are. Holding up their end of the. Deal. And I was a little bit unaware that there was an attempt to maybe legislate some morality on this issue or treat these businesses different than any other. I hope that's not the direction the city and council, the city and county of Denver is headed in. And I also strongly agree. With the woman who said earlier something along the lines of it is not the role of government to kill. Competition. So thank you for your time. I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Michigan. Next. Next, we have John Mincy. And as Mr. Menzies come forward, I'll call the next five names Tyler Henson, Scott Peck, Michael Liebowitz and Nadav Asner and Nathan Mendell. So Mr. Menzies, you can begin remarks. First off, my name is John Mekas and I'm a 30 for 54. Laughs and I'd like to thank the Council for the opportunity to. Speak to them. First off, I want. To let you guys know I'm the owner of a small mom and pop shop. I don't own a chain of retail stores, I don't own multiple stores. I own a 1000 square foot store. That is fortunate enough to see the demand outpaces supply, which is the reason why I went to the city months ago. I filled out my city. Application, paid my money, and in good faith began the very expensive and detailed long process of building out this facility. The warehouse that I took over at that time. Was completely gutted. There was a stop. Work order on it and it had been abandoned for the last three years. There was no electricity, no water, no walls. We completely went in there, fixed up the whole place. Were a few weeks. Away from getting our lights are getting our application code and it just seems really unfair at this point. Well, first off, I want to start by saying that I'm in support of Councilwoman Nash's bill, and it just seems really unfair to me to pull the pull the carpet out from under legitimate businesses who have been spending so much money and time trying to better themselves. Obviously, I'm the. Ultimate loser in this situation, but I'm not the only one. I have electrical contractors who are going to lose money. I have a lot of contractors who are going to lose money. Security people are going to lose money. We've already hired employees to work both the shop and the warehouse. As you know, this is one of the most regulated environments you could possibly imagine. You don't just hire employees and put them in a work environment overnight. That takes months of planning and anticipation. On a personal note, I mean, truthfully, I don't know if I will still be in business if you guys don't allow pending applications to move forward. I have sunk my wife and my full savings into this new business, and my wife is getting ready to have our first baby here in the next couple of weeks, and I really hope that doesn't coincide with the death of my business. So I appreciate your time. Tyler Henson. Thank you very much. My name is Tyler Henson. I am the president of the Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce. We are located at 225 16th Avenue here in Denver, Colorado. A mirror testifies for that Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce does not support this legislation or the amendments provided. One thing I'd like to state is this current bill that's being proposed. I look at this as a view of regulatory capture, which is a regulatory scheme that is to transform into a competition stifling tool that encourages rent seeking behavior. Which aims to use government regulations to impose regulations on competitors. In order to increase market share. I view these caps as an assault on businesses here in the state of Colorado, as well as the city and. County of Denver. Having a cap on licenses. Artificially increases the costs of licenses. In the state. They impede individuals from entering this market. And Denver should be embracing this new economy instead of prohibiting it. I will ask you to take a vote of no. On this bill. And I'm going to see the rest of my time. So individuals within this community who have licenses in this businesses or a pending licenses can. You can hear their voice so you can hear directly how this issue affects their businesses, their families and the communities they serve. And again, I asked you to. Not support this. Legislation or any of the. Amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Scott Pack. Scott Peck. Thank you very much. I'll keep this brief. I don't want to repeat a lot of the great things that have been said here tonight. One thing I want to point out is. We're on a threshold. Denver is actually cool again. Like it is a big phenomenon that is. Happening in Denver. Why is that important? It's important because companies from the best school, you know, from the best cities, some of their schools are moving to Denver. It has been some some of the most amazing things are happening in the city. What we're all afraid of is it's a very difficult process to manage growth of a new industry that nobody knows anything about. Everybody wants a crystal ball, right. I applaud the tough decisions that you guys are making. Really. It's really it's it's admirable. However, like. What you guys fear seemingly is going to naturally correct itself. It happens in every industry to the woman's point. You open up too many restaurants and you don't do a good job. You go out of business. Those licenses will be surrendered by business owners that don't do good in business. They don't have good products. They don't grow well. They don't produce safe safety and efficacy. The two drivers of Big Pharma, right? Safety and efficacy, that's all we care about. We're not increasing the number of drugs in our streets. We're not making it easier for kids to get drugs. I've kids I've it's it creates more of a safer community environment for everybody. So. I'm Scott Park. I represent. Ten licenses in two facilities in two impacted zip codes and over $15 million of investment that have. I've been under the care of now. Based in. Relying. Upon the laws that have been in place. It would be a catastrophic failure. If these bills were to pass and the amendments. Everybody's moving to this city. Second fastest growing city. It's amazing. Applaud you guys all. Don't put roadblocks. The best and the brightest of this country are coming here because it's affordable, more affordable housing and still a very, very high standard of living. The market will correct itself. So thank you. Next we have Michael. Michael Liebowitz. Thank you. My name is Mike Liebowitz. I live at a 3267 Newton Street. I have lived in Denver about 11 years before that. I lived in Boulder. Originally from the East Coast. I got in the marijuana industry back. When it started. Before this was ever imaginable. We met in meetings, in houses, in Longmont and debated, is this really going to happen? Is this really an industry that's really happened? But long story short, I have worked very hard personally to climb up in the industry, and I. I'm sorry. I'm kind of forgetting what I was gonna say. I'm a little emotional. I'm a little angry. I went through anger, I went through sadness. And now I'm here to prevent it from happening again. Basically, I went into the city of Denver in July knowing that a property I owned on 38th was eligible because 30th Avenue on West 38th, a little west of federal, was was. Eligible for a dispensary because another dispensary moved. We all know the rigorous application and process of becoming a dispensary. I filled out all the necessary paperwork. The woman at. The desk hit the button and lo and behold, they would take my $5,000 for an application. And I was elated. I was qualified in this impossible world of qualifying to become a dispensary. I went ahead. And remodel, kicked my tenants out of a great. Rental property, remodeled a house. And. Went ahead and even. Purchased a convertible recreational license. So I could have both businesses at my my property. Finally got all my signatures completed and last Friday walked. An exercise in license as I thought a formality to get my business license. And I was told that that wasn't going to happen anymore, that I was. Under review basically. For a change of measurement. That wasn't made clear to me when I applied. Back in in October. So I'm obviously going to go through a hearing and. Debate my own issue. But just to speak on why we're all here tonight, it's incredibly. Unfair to take a. Taxpayer. I've been used to an apartment. Buildings and I got really crushed and. You know, 28 and 29, like a lot of people and built myself back up through the apartment, through the marijuana industry. It's just you guys aren't here to ruin people's lives. You're here to, you know, set regulations. But, you know, to allow. Somebody like myself to go to go forward and put all of his money into into a project and then for rules to change, you know, at the last minute and be. Denied that. It's just is just not fair. So I, I just want to say. That I support any measure that allows people that have already invested their money because they've been given approval to do something. You guys can't take that away. It's just not fair. Thank you. Thank you both. Next, we have Nadav Aster. My name is Nadav Asher. I live in Denver. I'm an attorney here in Denver. And my firm represents a number of marijuana businesses, lenders, investors, landlords. You name it. I can't speak on behalf of all my clients today, but I speak on my own behalf when I say that I support a proposal, but I don't support this proposal. I'm going to talk a little bit about. The specific language, but I do want to say that I hope that if this proposal does pass, there's an opportunity to comment on the seven amendments because they are vastly different than the language of the proposal itself. And I'd like everyone here to be not to be disenfranchized and have their voice heard. I want to respond. There have been a lot of comments about the impact on the community in certain neighborhoods, in certain oversaturated areas. Certainly that's the case. There are oversaturated, saturated areas. You can drive around town. You know exactly where they are. The problem is that the people who are in those areas, the. Businesses in those areas, didn't necessarily choose to be in those areas. That's a product of Denver, Denver's zoning regulations, Denver's code, municipal code that has pushed people into these neighborhoods. And I do. Want to say that there are significant efforts by my clients, by many industry actors to to do farmer's markets, to do. Community outreach initiatives, to help better the community and to essentially to deny. Pending applications or to to tell the world that this industry is as bad because certain neighborhoods have more marijuana than others. It's a little bit unfair. Specifically, the language. Of the ordinance that I want to discuss relates around the lottery. There's been a lot of discussion about this oversaturation. I know that's a huge concern from speaking to many of you. This bill is going to. Encourage a secondary market. And again, I know that many of you do not like the idea of a secondary market where licenses, pieces of papers are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill to keep a lottery in place to prevent new actors from coming in online is going to have businesses sell their licenses on the open market. It's going to do. The unintended consequences of this bill are staggering. And I really hope that you guys take some time to reconsider what the language of this ordinance says before you. Before you take your vote. Excuse me. Freezing dispensaries. In saturated neighborhoods by not allowing them. To locate dislocate from their. Growth is is a huge problem for for me and for many of my clients. The language of the bill talks about changing a location. If you're going to move a store, you have to move the licenses, associate with the store. So if you have a facility with a grow a store and a meat facility, for example, you would have to if you want to move the store, you have to move the others. What you're doing. Is essentially encouraging people to take businesses maybe from a beneficial neighborhood. A good neighborhood, and move it to one of these saturated neighborhoods, you know, as you're calling them, sort of bad neighborhoods. But but they're not. There's a lot of room for improvement on this language. There's a lot of room to make a an effective proposal that will satisfy your desires and. Will help the community and the industry to. Grow. And currently, we're just not there yet. So I think it remains. Nathan Mindel And as Mr. Mindel comes up, I'll call the next five names Truman, Bradley, Paul Andrews, Patrick O'Malley, Mike Elliott. And it's just one name, Angelina. So, Mr. Mindel, you can begin your remarks. My name is Nathan Mendel. I live at 7362 East Mansfield Avenue in your district, Councilwoman Black. I own two companies. I own Mendel in company construction. We are a commercial general contractor and have been for 19 years. Five years ago I started a second company called Your Green Contractor specifically so that we could build marijuana projects in and around the Denver area. We have doubled in size since we started building marijuana projects. We have 32 employees now. What I wanted to talk about specifically in an overall picture, I'm a free market capitalist. I don't think there should be any caps on any business. It was mentioned earlier the number of restaurants, the number of contractors, the number of marijuana businesses should be determined by the market. But what I wanted to talk about specifically was the pending applications and the fact of changing the rules at the 11th hour for companies that have spent and invested millions and millions of dollars under a set of rules that they were told to work by. And now those are potentially changing as they're in the process. The process takes months and months and months, in addition to the either hundreds of thousands or literally millions of dollars that are invested to get to the point that they're at. I understand if you're going to put a cap on the number of licenses, if that's the decision that you make, I understand that. But you need to give people fair notice that this is going to happen on a certain date so that they can understand that the rules are going to change. And they know that if they're not in the queue by that time, that they're not going to be a part of the system. But to go back retroactively and say we are now going to go and take this away for you that have spent this dollars doesn't work at all. And is is not what the people of the city and county of Denver, I believe, want in this case. Thank you. Thank you, Truman. Bradlee. We are just that. 10 minutes left. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Truman Bradley. I don't live in the city of Denver. I do own. Ah. I do want a business located here. I'm standing here before you. Holding job descriptions right now for 20 jobs. These are not lousy minimum wage positions. These are middle skills, as well as high paying jobs, all with benefits. Mr. Herndon. These great jobs are in your district. Council members. If you amend the bill before you to deny the spendings, you will destroy these and hundreds of other jobs. Denying pending applications after people have invested their life savings would be truly devastating. Hundreds of locally owned small businesses would be wiped out. You've heard from many of them. I would be one of them. This won't just impact cannabis companies. It will likely wipe out construction companies such as Mr. Mendez, as well as others. It will wipe out vendors, landlords and employees. Denver licenses over 200 different industries. Denying pending applications that are otherwise in good standing sends a clear message that Denver is too dangerous a city in which to invest. This applies to restaurants, hotels, breweries, hospitals, you name it. Denver has always honored its commitments with the business community. As Councilwoman Kennedy said in the committee meeting. There is no precedent for going back and denying these pending. What you guys are doing is simply cruel. Please don't set this terrible precedent. Please instead send a message to all industries that businesses can trust what Denver says. I'm sure you will hear testimony tonight about so-called concentration issues. Most of these state concerns about either crime or odor. As Councilwoman Kennish pointed out in the last committee meeting. Crime data shows that cannabis companies actually have an extremely low incidence of crime, in fact, due to the high number of cameras at the facilities. Many neighborhoods are, in fact, safer. Camera footage from my own company has helped solve three crimes that had nothing to do with cannabis. A domestic dispute, a traffic issue, and a break in a few doors down. As for odor, this council is hard at work on a comprehensive odor ordinance. This will take care of the odor issues. Councilwoman, nature's bill is tough on the cannabis cannabis industry. You've heard mixed reviews here. That's a pretty good indication that it's fair. It protects the communities while keeping faith with the business community. Please pass this bill out as it is written with only Councilwoman Gilmore's amendment. Thank you. Paul. Paul Anders. Paul Andrews. Thank you, members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show and Complex, located at 4655 Humboldt Street. Has leadership of the Nation Western Stock Show. We're writing to express our support for capping new cultivation and retail licenses going forward and limiting pending licenses in the Globeville area and Swansea and neighborhoods . Which we will call geese from. This point forward, either by enforcing the 1000 foot rule or by another standard baits based on saturation. In the area. Over the last three and a half years, the National Western Stock Show, our neighbors in the city of Denver have worked together to develop the nation a Western Center master plan. That plan was Adobe adopted by the city last November, and the people of Denver approve the ballot measure to see to fund the development of the National Western Center. The Nation Western Stock Show and CSU are equity partners with the city and are committed to the success of the National Western Center. We're starting now to build a world class facility where businesses and neighbors will work together to welcome visitors from around the United States and in fact, the world. We are building a neighborhood that is thriving, welcoming and safe, both for residents and visitors. We understand that marijuana businesses are part of our community, but we have to ask how much one community can handle. We need to foster a diverse business space that meets the needs of the community. The overabundance of marijuana cultivation and retail facilities in the neighborhoods surrounding our complex has created challenges for our community. As leaders of an organization that's been part of Denver for 110 years, we want to ensure the exhibitors and attendees feel safe and welcome at our show. Driving through the neighborhood and smelling marijuana or witnessing a police presence at a local store is not particularly inviting. While not all facilities have issues that warrant a police presence or create unwanted odors, those that do create an unwelcoming environment for current and future guests to the National Western Center as well as a global hilarious wants your residents and businesspeople allowing additional facilities to be licensed and located. And yes, will continue to compound these problems. And we hope council members will consider this as they move forward with the legislation and amendments today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Next, Patrick O'Malley. Thank you. Patrick O'Malley live in Longmont. I have a medical nips in Montebello neighborhood. I only wish to speak tonight against any current or future proposed amendments that might apply to MIPS. I did have the pleasure of having a couple of council members through my MEPs over the last couple of months and while there the main point was to demonstrate that MIPS are really part of any solution for. Well, not all problems, but certainly some of the problems. That you're wrestling with here today. MIPS are part of the solution because they both create jobs and more importantly because they help reduce the risk of diversion out of state of product that might not otherwise be able to be sold. And I do yield the rest of my time. And you. Next, we have Mike Elliott and we are approaching one hour. I'll allow six more minutes for the two times we have translations. Mr. Elliott, feel free to begin your remarks. Thank you. Council members. My name is Mike Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. With regards to the pending applications, we are encouraging you to please support these and let these go through. With regards to them, we are trying to find this right balance with the community.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2701 Lawrence Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from G-MU-3 to U-MX-2 (general urban multi-unit to urban, mixed-use), located at 2701 Lawrence Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07222019_19-0449

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Calls me Cashman. Will you please be accountable for four, four, four, nine on the floor? And first, God bless you, Mr. President. Yes, I'd be glad to. I move the council bill 19 0449 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 449 is open. May we have the staff report and you are not? Teresa Lucero I also have it on fairly good authority that today is your birthday, my goodness. And you are hanging out late with us on your birthday. Indeed, Mr. President. Well, happy birthday and thank you. Thank you for your hard work. Yeah, my name is Kyle Dalton. I'm with the Department of Community Planning Development, and I am substituting for my colleague who was out sick tonight with a public hearing for 2701 Lawrence Street. This application is located in Council District nine in the five point statistical neighborhood, and it is requesting to rezone from the general urban multi-unit, residential zoned district of up to three stories to the U.S. Max two zone district, which is an urban context district that allows a mix of residential and commercial uses, but only up to two stories. The Zone District is intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods while allowing transitional commercial development that allows townhouse, general and shopfront building forms up to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. I'll go through some slides that describe the existing context. I'll explain the process, and then I'll go through the five review criteria for a rezoning application. So this site is located at a transition point between primarily mixed use zoning to the north and the West, illustrated in the pink color and multi-unit residential zoning to the south and the east and the orange color. So it's currently zoned Gma3, which as I mentioned, is a multi-unit residential district which generally does not allow commercial. The existing the existing building on the site is a one story commercial building that was built before the zoning was put in place . It's allowed to continue as a commercial building, but it cannot expand and there are limitations on the reuse of the structure for other commercial uses. So they're seeking to rezone in order to expand the one story commercial building to a two story commercial building, which they cannot do under the current zoning, which they could do if council approves their rezoning. Tonight, in terms of the land uses of the surrounding area, that red color on the site indicates that it is an office building today. You see near the north and west, generally red and purple colors that are office commercial industrial again to the east. In the south are the orange colors indicating residential. The deeper yellow color, deeper orange is multi-unit residential. So again, this is right on the edge between a residential area and a mixed use commercial area. Here's some pictures of the existing context around the site. The top is the subject site that one story commercial building around it. You see a mix of residential and commercial structures in the surrounding area ranging in height from 1 to 2 stories and occasionally three stories. In terms of the process. This application was first filed last August for a different zone district for a more intensive mixed use three storey zone district. They revise their application and submitted a new application to us in January of this year for the zone district that you have before you tonight, the UMass two story zone district. After review, a notice was published of the Planning Board Public Hearing and the planning board heard it had a public hearing which they unanimously recommended to approve the application. The Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee move this forward on May 14th and the public hearing tonight has been properly noticed in accordance with the code. In terms of the public feedback we received on this application, there's one letter support from a registered neighborhood organization, Curtis Park Neighbors, Inc., who have included an executed good neighbor agreement that they have reached together with the applicant. And there are four other comment letters received for the original request for up to three stories mixed use, all in support of the proposal. So there are five review criteria that staff have to review, planning board after review and making their recommendation and that City Council ultimately reviews in making the final decision. I'll walk through them briefly one at a time. There's much more detail in your staff report that Theresa submitted to you. So first, is that a rezoning application must be consistent with adopted plans. There are three plans that city councils adopted that apply to the Site Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver 2019 and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan , which was adopted in 2011. I'll briefly walk through each of them. The comprehensive plan 2040 adopted earlier this year has a number of goals and strategies that we found advanced and were consistent with this application, including promoting infill development at a center city location where infrastructures and services are already in place and promoting small, locally owned businesses that reflect the unique character of Denver. So we found that it was consistent with comp plan 2014. Turning to Blueprint Denver 2019. Again, there are a number of stated goals in Blueprint Denver that we found that this application was consistent with, including supporting a welcoming business environment and enhancing the overall character and sense of place of neighborhoods . But Blueprint Denver also includes a lot of mapping that I'll go through as it relates to this application. First Blueprint Denver mapped the city in terms of neighborhood contexts and this map and blueprint. Denver identifies this site and that light orange strip as being in the general urban context, which is a transition between the urban center context to the north and west and the urban neighborhood context to the south and east. Generally speaking, to a blueprint, Denver describes the general urban context as being primarily multi-unit residential, along with one and two, yet residential and commercial embedded in the context. And there are regular grid block patterns of streets. The urban neighborhood context that the applicants have requested is rather similar in that a regular grid block pattern is present of streets. A generally has more smaller multi-unit, residential and commercial embedded within one and two unit residential. They are asking for a UMTS two zone district, which is consistent with this context description, but it's also consistent, generally speaking, with the mapping of this area. Given that blueprint, Denver does indicate that context are mapped broad scale at a citywide scale and not block by block, and that some limited flexibility can be used in interpreting whether to approve a rezoning, an application based on the application that the applicant submitted and the feedback that we received from the neighborhood and the neighborhood organization that this was an appropriate zoned district for the site. We found it consistent with the blueprints general direction in this area blueprint Denver also identifies future places in this site is is at the edge of a high medium residential future place which is described as something having a mix of low to medium scale multi-unit residential areas with embedded mixed use distributed throughout the place. Heights are generally up to eight stories in the general urban context, or up to five stories in the urban context. Again, with the request for a two storey zone district. This is within the maximums that are proposed by Blueprint Denver. A Laurence Street is a residential collector street, which is primarily residential with other uses, and it generally is a higher traffic street than a local street. It collects movement from local streets and conveys them to arterial streets. The Cross Street 27th is a local street, which is designed for high property access and not high movement of vehicles. And then Bluebird Denver identifies different growth areas within the city. It channels most growth to regional centers, community centers and corridors and some other districts. But it also acknowledges that other areas of the city which this is mapped, as are expected to see some growth, more limited growth and blueprint. Denver sets a target of around 20% of new housing growth or 10% of new employment growth by 2040. In areas such as this one. So on balance, looking at all of the plan criteria, we did find that the application was consistent with Blueprint Denver. Finally turning to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan adopted in 2011. It provides guidance both about land use and height. The land use concept here is urban residential, which is a higher density residential, primarily with some complimentary commercial called for in the plan, a mixture of various housing types. It's located in areas that transition from residential neighborhoods to more intense, mixed use neighborhoods as this one is. And in the height map, it's recommended for up to three stories in height. So again, with a few emacs toos on this story zone district proposed here, we found that it was consistent with these plan recommendations. There also are additional plan goals and objectives identified in the plan that highlight the goals of, of and of retaining existing buildings, whether they're historic or not, and that generally promote the kinds of built form character that the mix to zone district would enable. The plan also specifically calls for re-using existing commercial buildings for commercial purposes and accommodating them on a case by case basis in consultation with the neighborhood. And again, as I mentioned earlier, this applicant did consult with the neighborhood, reached agreement in terms of both a letter and a good neighborhood agreement for the use of this existing commercial building. So we found it consistent with the specific goals of this neighborhood plan. So that concludes our analysis of the first criterion. The second is that district regulations must be uniform because their rezoning to a standard zone district that applies the same standards as in any other home to zone district in the in the city, there would we would be applying the zone district regulations uniformly. Rezoning must also further the public health, safety and welfare. And we found that this application would, by allowing a moderate level of reinvestment in this site, consistent with the area character and consistent with the adopted plan direction of the city. The fourth is that there must be a justifying circumstance, some change that justifies the request to rezone the property. In this case, there are at least two that this site meets. Since the date of the approval of the existing zone district in 2010, there have been changed and changing conditions in the surrounding area, including some nearby residential development and commercial development that generally would support an increase of a second story into this office building and also the neighborhood plan adopted in 2011, pointing in the direction of of different zoning possibilities in this area are appropriate change conditions to justify rezoning the property. Finally, the rezoning has to be consistent with the neighborhood context and the intent and purpose of the zoned district as articulated in the zoning code. Again, there's more detail in your staff report, but as I indicated earlier, we did find that the site was an appropriate site for an urban neighborhood context, for mixed use, for up to two stories. And so we found it consistent with this criterion and having reviewed it against all five criteria and found that it met all the process requirements of the code, we recommend approval. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up to speak on this one, please come up to the front bench and I'll call you up. First up is Justin Fries. Good evening. Justin Frieze, studio architecture representing the client. So just a little background on this building. It is kind of a collection of some bungalow houses and commercial building. That was the City Laundry established back in the late 1800s. It's been a commercial laundromat in some form up until I think about the seventies. The reason for the rezoning request is that the current zone district would not allow any commercial development or expansion as a coworking space as they try to expand or change walls on the inside of the building. It requires a special use for a variance permit. Any time a construction permit is filed. For that reason, we submitted originally a you are agmx3 zoning that still only allowed for about 50% mixed use. So then we went back to the neighborhood with a um x three and two planning and discussed that one. The U three district was pretty broad and there's one building in the district that's the Greyhound bus depot building that allows that use. So in back and forth with the neighborhood, the, um, x two, which they've utilized throughout the neighborhood on a couple of a couple of smaller projects, seemed to be the best fit. There was still some uses within that district that the neighborhood was a little bit hesitant on. One was drive thrus, another one was something more of a autobody garage type of use. So the Good Neighbor agreement that was signed between Curtis Park neighborhood and the owner of the building Limited those uses as as as the planner mentioned . The neighborhood plan mentions dealing with these embedded commercial structures on a case by case basis, which we think we've kind of step through the process, noting that along the way. And I believe that's all I have for you. I'm here to answer questions and so is the owner. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm represented for Denver Homicide. Low Black Star Action Movie for self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was an at large candidate for the May 2019 election. I was on top of the ballot, almost got 15,000 votes with no money. I was needed for against this one. Very familiar with this building, the laundry, you know, as an east side native, you get familiar with these things when you've been in the neighborhood for 20 plus years. My questions were what is going to be the AMI level for the housing that was proposed for this this rezoning and exactly what businesses are going to be here? Because right now, this is a hub for a lot of nonprofits that do a lot of awesome work in the community. And I would hate to see that be lost. So so, Michael, please answer my question, as I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jeff Baker. Sir Geoff Baker. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, could you. If you know the answer, why was why was this not given an appropriate Southern district to have the use in 2010 to have the use be conforming in the first place? Sure. So in 2010, when city council rezone about 75% of the city, the criteria that they established for that process through their zoning code task force were threefold. One was existing conditions. So if they were zoning only to existing conditions, they might match the commercial use that was there. But the other two were adopted plans and then existing entitlement. And so the existing entitlement here was R3, a multi-unit residential district that's very similar to the zone district that they have now. And then they adopted plans. Urban, residential, we're generally speaking about a mix of either multi-unit, residential or commercial. So on balance, at the time, the council decided to lean more towards the previous entitlement than the current use of. The current year. So what we're doing or what the request is, is to apply a district designation that acknowledges the current use. Right. And the other way. That's always present. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 449 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman CdeBaca. This is a great space. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a great space that has. Housed many community organizations, as Jesse mentioned, honors that honor the history. And legacy. Of this building and continue to use it in a way that open space to community. I fully support this reason and would love to see. More people who are doing reasons that. Actually respect the communities that they're in and reason in this manner. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. See no other comments. I'll just add. Thank you very much for being here and pinch hitting on your birthday. Appreciate it. Thank you to the staff for the great staff report. I think that this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting yes this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. CdeBaca I Black. Flynn I. Gillmor. I. Herndon, i. Hanes I. Cashmere. I can eat. Ortega. Sandoval. I saw you. I. Torres. Hi. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting and Notes Results. 13 eyes. 13 I accountable for for nine has passed. On Monday, August 19th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 576 changing the zoning classification of 4600 South Kipling Street and a required public hearing on Constable 577 changing the zoning classification for 1634 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 219, 221, 223, 225, 227, 235, 245 South Holly Street in Hilltop. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-MU-2.5 and E-SU-Dx to E-MU-2.5 (urban edge, mixed-use and single-unit to urban edge mixed-use) with a waiver, located at 219, 221, 223, 225, 227, 235, and 245 South Holly Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures of the owners of at least 20% of those property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% within 200 feet of the outside of the subject area) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 27%, respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1346

State your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time. On the presentation mounted on the wall, you will see your time counting down speakers mostly 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. All right, Councilman Herndon, will you please put accountable 1346 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 hours, 1346 to be placed upon final consideration and due process. It has been. It's moved. And can I get a second? Second ID? The public hearing for counsel go. 1346 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. Theresa Lucero with community planning and development. Let me pull up a PowerPoint and we'll get started. So this is an official map amendment to rezone properties to 19 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 20 5 to 20 7 to 35 and to 45. South Holly Street from Urban Multi-unit two and a half stories and urban single unit d ex to urban I'm sorry urban urban edge multi-unit two and a half with one waiver. But the property is located in City Council District five in the Hilltop neighborhood. It is over just over half an acre, 28,129 square feet. It is consists of three one story residences, two single family homes and one multi-unit residence. Again, the proposal is to rezone from urban edge multi-unit 2.5 and urban edge single unit to urban edge multi-unit 2.5 with a waiver to redevelop the property into a multi-unit structure. The waiver is there's only one aspect to the waiver that the apartment building form within the urban edge context would go from two stories to two and a half stories. This would bring it into consistency with the other building forms in context and would allow a three story structure to be built. And of course, with all of the other EMU, two and a half story standards applying. CPD usually doesn't support waivers, but unless there is a text amendment pending to make that change to the zoning code and there is such a text amendment on our list for future zoning code changes. So that's why CPD is comfortable supporting this waiver. Existing zoning in the area EMU two and a half and ESU x were the subject site. The surrounding properties to the North Mex or urban edge mixed use two stories to the South approved PD 101 to the East Urban Edge Multi-unit two and a half stories and urban edge single unit and to the west urban edge single unit. The land use subject property single unit for two of the structures and multi-unit for the third to the north is commercial to the south of that multi-unit residential to the east, a mixture of single unit and multi-unit residential and to the west single unit residential. This just gives you an idea of the context of the subject properties and an idea of the building form and scale surrounding the property. Top is this subject properties. The commercial to the north is the upper right hand picture. And then across Holly streets, the lower right hand picture, the townhomes to the south is the lower left hand picture. And then across the alley structures are is the upper left hand. So as far as the process goes, this went out for informational notice in April of last year. There was a planning board posting prior to their November 7th hearing where they unanimously recommended approval with one abstention. And then the committee passed this on to full city council on November 27th of last year. And then, of course, we're here for the hearing and the signs have been posted properly for this hearing. So there are several R and O's in the area as far as and they were all contacted and notified at every step. There are two are Nos, Cranmer Park, Hilltop Civic Association, which does not oppose this rezoning. And Chris Moore Park Neighborhood Association, which does oppose. And then there are six letters of support and 35 letters of opposition. In your with your application and staff report. So review criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The two plans that apply are Plan 2000 and Blueprint. Denver staff believes that this application is consistent with the. The strategies shown here and detailed in your staff report, basically talking about environmental sustainability and strategies that. Allow a diversity of housing structures to be built in our neighborhoods. The AM You 2.5 zone district again is an urban edge context, which is a blend of the suburban and urban contexts, primarily single unit and two unit residential, with some smaller multi-unit structures and some commercial structures embedded in the area. The multi-unit forms allowed in this context are rowhouse garden court townhouse up to two and a half stories. And then, of course, the apartment building for him currently allowing that two storey height limit. Denver. This is an area of stability where Blueprint Denver talks about preserving and revitalizing neighborhood character and single family. Residential is the land use concept, which is predominantly single family, but does include new development and a diversity of housing types. Size and cost. Street classifications. Harley Street is a residential collector, street balancing mobility and local access. Half of lockdown is East Alameda Avenue, which is a residential arterial and an enhanced transit corridor where we want to connect major urban elements and locate higher intensity, mixed use, commercial development and multi-unit development, and where transit supportive land uses are generally sent. So staff believes that this is consistent with the strategies and blueprint Denver and Compton 2000 that by using a standard zoned district with one waiver, that we are furthering the uniform application of zoned districts of similarly situated properties in the city. And by implementing our plans we are and allowing some reinvestment in our neighborhoods, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The changed conditions is the justifying circumstance. There are several changes specific to the area, as many. Residents in the area are. Scraping their houses and building new single family homes in the wider area. There are some changes on lead with a new community center and some rezonings we've got pending for commercial areas on retail. And of course the further afield, the locally annexed changes that have occurred in the last few years. So staff believes that changed circumstances is the correct justifying circumstance. And of course, we've already talked about the urban edge context and this zone district fitting in with that blend of suburban and urban. So our staff believes that the review criteria are met and recommends approval. Thank you very much. We do have 39 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you are sitting in this front row, I'm going to ask you to clear that so that we can bring five speakers up at a time to try and get right through everybody. When I call your name, please step right up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. And so when I call five, come up so that you are ready for that. Also, if you get to if we get to some people later in and someone has already said everything that you wanted to say, you can indicate that and you don't need to reiterate everything, but you have your 3 minutes to use as you choose. So I will call up the first five speakers and a Dawit, Don Saul, Jaron Lewiston, Jennifer Preston and Carmen Marga and Anna DeWitt. You are a first. Go ahead. Good evening, City Council. I'm honored to win. I'd like to begin by explaining what makes this project and rezoning request so unique compared to many rezonings. I, the applicant, am an owner of one of the properties and I'm a French teacher at Denver North High School. Myself and eight of my neighbors in the Hilltop community came together to redevelop our property. However, it was important to some of us to be able to stay in the neighborhood, and therefore we decided to support a project that we could afford moderate priced and moderate sized condos. As you're aware, the average price of a hilltop home is over $1,000,000. It's a very hard place to find a moderate priced home. This rezoning is also unique because a portion of the property already contains the zoning we are requesting. Immune to five. The two single family homes located within a project proposal lie directly next to a two story pad. These two single family homes are therefore completely enclosed by multi-family zoning. The future of these two single family homes are most likely a multi-family zoning. The essence of my proposal today is that the EMU 25 zoning is extended to these two single family homes and that we are given the waiver that the 2.5 floors are included in the apartment building form, as they include for every other building formula e m2 five zoning. With this will be able to build a beautiful building that houses moderate priced units. We also will be able to spread the density we could build on just that one already emu two five zoned lot to all three lots. Throughout this process we have held public meetings, met with neighbors upon request, and met several times with our neighborhood R.A. and the R.A. in the next neighborhood Crest Swarm. We have also used city mediation over a mini month process. I'm glad to say that we've reached an agreement and have signed covenants and restrictions with our R.A. that will take effect if you approve our rezoning. Some of these covenants include no rooftop decks, which was a difficult concession for us to make a significantly reduced backyard from which is not allowed now reduced side yards, a 17 foot wall along the alley to eliminate sightlines in the neighbor's backyard, added trees if desired, in the backyards of the three neighbors closest to the project and several other smaller accommodations. I believe that representatives from the Hilltop R.A. will speak further about the covenants that we agreed to. Some of the parties in the negotiation as we build very significantly reduce density. That is a direct quote from the media's report, which you have a copy of. We explain that the entire purpose of this development is to create a place for moderate price units. If we were to build a few large townhomes on this property, they would undoubtedly cost upward of $1,000,000. This would price out myself and my neighbors involved in the project. We have also been criticized on the other end of the spectrum for not building affordable units here. These units are moderate price, which in this neighborhood is under $500,000. We have also been told that the building is out of character for the neighborhood. Actually, the 1957 units that they are now are terribly out of character for the neighborhood. Our building or Rita's townhomes for the front. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Don Saul. Good evening. Could they mean city council members? There is a single sheet that you have related to the performance of this project. So as a good engineer, I will start with the end in mind and address the building scale of this project as it relates to the rezoning we're requesting at the building scale. I've already worked on the engineering for a prototype building. That'll be for this project. Our analysis shows where 25 to 35% energy use savings, 45 to 55% energy cost savings. All of this is without the planned Peavey on site. This will be achieved through high performance envelope, 100% LED lighting, all electric heating and cooling systems onsite PV. If we move to the community scale, I want to commend the Council for approving the Green Building Ordinance recently, which requires a cool roof and one compliance path. This project will likely meet many of the compliance paths when we're completed and we move to the global scale. I would like to note the 80 by 50 Climate Action Plan that's been put in place with some specific building goals by year by 2030, buildings by 30%, energy use reduction by 2035, new buildings net zero, energy by 2040. Move away from thermal heating emissions. All of these things are being accomplished by this project today, not 20 years out in the future. So I want to mention that I agree with a statement made in the 80 by 50 climate panel. I quote, The tools to solve this generational challenge are available and affordable today, and that is represented in this project. My name is Don Sol. I'm passionate about transforming the built environment. I want to thank the mayor for stating in the Climate Action Plan and reinvigorating my passion that I quote in pivotal role in pivotal, pivotal times . It is necessary to shed complacency and raise our voices for progress and prosperity. So I am raising my voice as a climate reality leader. As a past chair of the USGBC, Colorado, as a professional engineer, as a concerned citizen, and most importantly, as a father. We can and should be aggressive on all of the 80 by 50 sector specific goals, not only buildings and achieve them today like this project will. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Jared Lewiston. Jennifer Preston. Hello. Good evening, council members. I'm Jennifer Preston. I am the owner at two, two, five South Holly Street. So one of the applicants. I have not responded to a lot of the negative comments that have been, quite frankly, thrown our way from every direction by members of the public and our surrounding neighborhoods that are not interested in this project. And. My original decision to purchase this home with my husband was we needed more space. We were living in a downtown high rise, wanted. We had gotten a dog, we were going to start a family and we wanted to be in a good neighborhood. We found Holly Street. It was absolutely perfect, but we also were looking forward enough to the potential investment opportunity in purchasing this home. Our home inspector very clearly said your sewer is is getting really old, your roof is getting really old. So you're going to have to put some money into that or the land is really valuable. So that was absolutely part of our plan to purchase. This was the investment opportunity. And I think obviously in today's age everyone can understand that investment. Preparing for your future is something very smart to do and sometimes difficult to do when you're in your mid twenties like I was. And while living there I have obviously seen a lot of the original traditional 1950s ranch homes be purchased and torn down and become a three storey 5000 square foot. They take up every square inch of their 6000 square foot lot and that makes me sad. But at the same time that is the right of the owner of that unit. I just request the same respect as the right full owner of my unit to be able to build what is best for me, for my family, and . What I feel would positively. Contribute to the neighborhood that I love to live in. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Carmen Marga and I'll call the next five up to the front bench. Marc Passman. Cecilia Ratelle. John. Ricky. Lisa. Ah. Unkrich and Logan. Maya. Carmen. Margot. No. Carmen Marc Pressman. Hello, everyone. Good evening. I am the husband of Jennifer Preston who just spoke just earlier. I don't have a massive amount to add to what she said. I think she spoke fairly eloquently about it. I will speak a little bit about the the the reaction to what we have proposed within the hilltop community. On the one hand, I understand the change is difficult for everyone. Unfortunately, Denver is changing from the city that it was ten years ago and will change still further to be a different city ten years from now. Our goal with this redevelopment has been to honor the architecture and the kind of quality of architecture and craftsmanship that we see already within Hilltop and to find something that works within those parameters. If we wanted to simply make a quick buck and slap something up quickly, we wouldn't have taken the last 12 months to ask for this rezoning. We already have zoning to be able to place in some, I think, what was classified as slot homes that we really didn't want to put in there. We have also taken the time to speak to many different neighbors, registered neighborhood associations and many different people. We have listened to as many of their as many of their issues as possible, and we have made the changes that they have requested us to make. Things like trees for additional privacy. We've reduced the initial density of the redevelopments as well. And so even though some who do not like our redevelopment may say we haven't consulted our neighbors enough, I honestly don't know what more we could have done to be able to speak with them and try and appease our neighbors as much as possible. Through the process, though, it has been shown that change of any sort has not been welcome. And unfortunately, that's just not an option for us with the land that we own. So we respectfully ask for the right to be able to change the zoning so that we can build something that is going to stay in our neighborhood , be it will fit within our neighborhood and will be there for years and years to come and that everyone can be proud of. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Cecilia Ratelle. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the committee. I'm here to speak on against Bill 1346. I am a member of Mary Beth Assessments District. I live in Chris Moore. And there's really three issues here that we're concerned about. The first one is the continuous rezoning, right? So as you I'm sure you guys have all felt like no, the area you've got what some people refer to as Buckley Annex, but Boulevard one, which is still not complete. You've got multiple other condos and apartment buildings in the area that are just coming on the market that have four rental signs all over. I just did a quick Zillow short search and there's hundreds literally within, you know, just like you can zoom right in. You can see it yourselves, right? There's plenty of inventory. So when you continue to. Reason is different large parcels of land. The long term impact is still unknown. Right? So we had this Villawood is Boulevard One or Buckley Onyx, which used to be the payroll area for the Air Force. That's where there was a lot of wildlife. And now we have literally deers and rabbits running through our neighborhood because they have nowhere to live. Right. So it doesn't in pieces. And when you just rezone one thing at a time, it's not as big of an issue. When you continue to rezone one thing after another, that's where this becomes an issue, and that's really what our concern is. So we also had on the other side of Christmas Park where there used to be a church, there's now multiple huge units there that are buildings and condos. And all of this is within, you know, a very small area. The the apartments that I'm talking about now are less than a mile away from where this new development is being talked about. So that additionally, the traffic issue, Mary Beth, was nice enough to come to a meeting. I want to say it was December four. We had a traffic meeting and our neighborhood showed up in droves. I mean, it was unbelievable the number of people that came to that meeting. And from that, one of my neighbors put together a list and had people sign a petition that were concerned about the traffic, the safety and the enforcement of the traffic issues that are being developed. People are going 50, 60 miles an hour around the park through the neighborhood. And this is an issue. Right. And so now you're adding more dense traffic to Holly, which is where a lot of these people are coming off of to cut through to get over to Monaco or Quebec. And that's an issue in here. He has over 450 signatures in just the last five weeks. And that's not that many. That's a lot of people for a neighborhood that's not that large. Finally, the safety, right. We need to address the impact of what these additional people constantly in these small areas are. There's no problem with having high density housing in cities. However, when you continue to put them in these smaller neighborhoods, that's when it becomes an issue. So I encourage you to really think about the full impact before continuing to rezone Denver and the neighborhoods that we're trying to call home and oppose. 1346 Thank you. Thank you, John. Ricky. Hello. My name is John Rickey. I want to speak to the project itself, except to say that it's a well-chosen, reasonable and worthy. Because we're here. To speak about the zoning. The zoning is a minimal change in other parts of the city, have seen much larger changes in zoning next to the same current low density. This is not a big change. It's actually the next increment of change. It's as small as you can get while actually allowing more people to move into the neighborhood. So the scale is reasonable. The location is ideal. As I was looking, there's coffee in local grocery. There's a burger place right next door. Within walking distance, there are furniture stores, gyms, dry cleaners. My goodness, there are elementary and high schools. There's Crest, Moorpark. This is a walkable neighborhood. And the more people who have that opportunity to use it as such, the better the transit. How has no one ever told me about the three? L How do you guys know the three? L That bus goes from Aurora City Center to Cherry Creek to downtown. That is like a commuter dream right there. That that's this is a perfect place to add a little bit more density. There's absolutely no reason not to put it there. But moving on from that is the bigger question that everyone I think is probably really upset about. And that is, are we going to be a Denver of Denver rights, a people with a common cause building a better city? Or are we all a bunch of individuals who just happen to live next to each other and we put up with each other just as much as we have to? Where does our civic duty lie? Are we going to fight tooth and claw for our tiny little piece of property to the detriment of everyone else? Does our responsibility to our Cindi, to our city, and at the four corners of our lot are a green lawn and fresh paint as far as it goes. As you pick out your window, you know. Or do we want or do we owe it to Denver? You know, the very idea of the city to to to strive for better to to invite more people in, to make the city more accessible. Is that something that we as Denver ites need to be doing? We could just sit here and revel in our comfort. You know, we're comfortable where we are. We like the way it is and we don't need the change. But is that fair to everyone? Is that fair to our neighbors? What about the neighbors we haven't met yet, the neighbors who can't move here because there's no place for them. The question it really comes down to is, are we going to build higher fences or longer tables? That's that's the way I see it. Are we going to try and get more people here to make Denver even better? Or are we going to wall ourselves off and be happy with. What we've got? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Lisa Ulrich. I'm Lisa Urich. My husband and I own the home at 230 South Hudson, directly across the alley from the proposed project. I also was chosen by my immediate neighbors to participate in the mediation process. They say good fences make good neighbors and good zoning laws make for good neighborhoods. The applicants are asking you to waive the current zoning laws. The zoning restriction that currently exists for an apartment style project is to limit the density of the property. It's not too long ago in just the same neighborhood, that hilltop that the city council limited lot splitting in hilltop in the same neighborhood. What for? To preserve the nature of the community as it is. It's a bad idea to violate your zoning laws without a compelling reason. The homes that are there now are livable. They're lived in. It's not that you need to pass a waiver in order to fight some sort of a blight. And it's a bad practice to allow the planning board to, in effect, change the zoning, do it piecemeal by granting waivers without a powerful reason to do so. I'd like to talk about the mediation process. I thought it was a good opportunity to see if we could come together with the developer and see if we could find something that we could all live with. And the developer did make some concessions. In the end, I took those back to my neighbors. And the basic concern, which is the danger, the safety issues of the density. It just there was no agreement to be had. The developer wanted to triple the number of families in these properties and the neighborhood believes that that was would be detrimental. Sometimes the middle ground is just too far away. Next, I like to talk about the crown or Hilltop R.A., which was deeply involved in the mediation process, too. And I want to acknowledge that there was a lot of time and hard work and effort put in by the R.A. to become familiar with and to deal with this issue. But don't let their hard work, which I also put in, convince you that their decision is the right one or that they represent me or my neighbors are for this project and our property is on the very edge of the crown or hilltop. R.A. This project more fully affects the rentals on the other side of Holly than a large number of the people in Crown or Hilltop. I believe Crown or Hilltop R.A. approved the project with concessions out of fear. Out of fear of what could be built. The developer had made some comments that something worse could be put in there. I if the if the applicants want to redevelop their property, I think they should do so. I just think that they should do it following the current zoning codes. Otherwise, why do we have them? Thank you. Next up is Logan Mayer. And Logan, before you start, I'm going to call up the next five major Katie Burke, Tom Hart, John Pratt, Wendy Rioch and Siri. Maggio I'm really sorry. I'm not I'm pronouncing a lot of those apologize. Logan Mike, go ahead. Hi. My name is Logan Mayer. We have been addicted to single family houses and low density spread out white picket fence development for over 60 years since the Highway Act of 1956. This spread out low density suburban development has deep roots and economic, environmental and social injustices. And the consequences are becoming more and more apparent. Every day we have car clogged roads and freeways burning our valuable time day in and day out. We have an ever increasing number of typically young, poor and nonwhite people struggling to find affordable rent, let alone the American dream. And we have increasing infrastructure liabilities from the miles of sewer pumps, water lines and roads needed to service these areas patched over with municipal bonds and bad debt. And when we are developing, we are promoting monstrous beige tower blocks that are notoriously bad at standing the test of time. This is opposed to middle development that has been proven. That has the proven flexibility to be reused for generations. Think up Hill and most of Europe. Additionally, middle development often is built with character and heart by long term residents who have a vested interest in the city. And they are also who provide us provided us with some of the best historical buildings Denver has today. Perhaps most importantly, with our addiction to low density, suburban building esthetics, we are promoting heating and cooling 5000 square foot homes for four people, for two people and car dependent lifestyles that have zero with car dependent lifestyles. And these have zero objections from the zoning code. These zoning policies may not affect you today, but the cost of the sprawling, manicured lawn and white picket fence, keeping the right neighbors the right distance away and copious carbon dioxide will have devastating environment, environmental costs that will haunt my generation and many generations to come. Today, you will hear from people who will maintain that this proposed variance is not in line with the neighborhood that they thought they moved into. I would suggest that these neighbors build a time machine and go back to the decade of their preference. As the challenges that Denver and America face today and the challenges that will consume future generations is largely the byproduct of zoning wisdom. In the built environment of previous generations. As for the approval process, requiring such high barriers to entry for middle class developers will continue to prove to be a disaster economically, socially and environmentally for Denver . While the rigorous approval process and gaggles of architects, engineers and lawyers that are required for such a project is a complete nonstarter for most middle class Denver ites. When someone has the creativity and drive to follow through. Despite these considerable obstacles, we create absolute spectacles like this one involve all of Denver and make our neighbors go on trial and feel like bad guys for simply trying to make where we live a better place with some slightly taller housing. Given the economic, social and environmental consequences of our current built environment. I think we can afford this variance and have a moral obligation to allow situations like it be right in the future. Thank you. Next up, Major Katie Burke. Good evening, city council members. I'm Katie Borsak. I live on South Ivey, south of in Alameda, about one block from the proposed development. I picked this neighborhood because it's single family housing, because there's a yards and it's near a park. Over the last five years, all of us who have live on South Ivey and in this neighborhood have had a front row seat to watch. Alameda and South Holly Street just become so busy that there's traffic all the time. If anyone really wants a lesson in patience, take Holly Street around rush hour in the morning or in the evening. It's backed up for blocks. It's therefore pretty normal for people who want to skip Holly Street to get on Ivy Street. My street or a few streets down to skip the traffic. And as has previously been noted by Cecilia, they go 60 miles an hour. They run the stop signs. And this isn't this is a neighborhood. There's people walking to the synagogue that is 50 feet from where this proposed development is, a 65 year old synagogue. There's restaurants there. People are walking their dogs. There's joggers. It's a resident. There's the residents, a resident neighborhood with lots and lots of people who are out there playing in the streets. This does bring a lot more cars, a lot more of that traffic to the area, regardless of what people say about how many families. Yes, maybe it's only triple, but we're talking about a road that's already congested beyond belief. And if you don't believe me again, take that little drive down Holly around rush hour. And I hope you have a book on tape. It's a neighborhood where we've seen, as previously noted, a lot of already a lot of development that's already congested beyond what we can tolerate. No one seems to be listening to us about what we want in the neighborhood and the kind of development that we want. It's not about being opposed to development. It's about being listened to what we want that development to be in our neighborhood. So I think when we look around and I know myself, I look at people walking in on Saturday, I look at people playing in the street and I'm just waiting for when someone's going to get killed by one of these cars. And so I think we all have to ask ourselves, like, how complicit are we willing to be in negligent manslaughter if we allow these developments to continue to happen and this traffic to become so bad that it's regular for people to go down my street going 60 miles an hour and put my dog and my neighbor's kids and my neighbor's neighbors kids at risk, because we want these streets to have so many houses and so many people. And we picked this neighborhood because we want to have a yard. We want to have, you know, single family houses. So just please consider our arguments with that. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tom Hart. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Tom Hart. I live at 4530 East Cedar Avenue, which is just down the street on Cedar. I am the zoning committee chair for the Premier Park Hilltop Civic Association and an architect. Our neighborhood is from Colorado to Alameda to eighth to Holly. And so this property is within our boundaries. We've been working with the neighbors for over a year on this issue. And our goals have been to have some control over what is going to be built and to get the best possible project for our neighborhood. We are aware that with current zoning, up to 20 dwelling units could be built where there's now a multi-unit building, then the adjacent single family homes would be vulnerable to rezoning and on those properties would probably get another 25 units on there. So 45 possible on this property. We believe that these properties, however, which are along a collector street adjacent to a neighborhood center, adjacent to other multi-unit properties within a block of a transportation corridor. And along the edge of our neighborhood are an appropriate location for increased density that provide more housing that is more moderately priced and is currently available in Hilltop. We had multiple meetings over many months past year. These were open to the public. We have heard and understand the concerns of the neighborhood. We had mediation. Included in the mediation was R.A., the adjacent property owners, the current property owners, adjacent Arnaud's and the developer. The mediation concluded with a report that summarized our agreement, and we voted to not oppose the rezoning contingent on covenants. And the covenants include were limited to 23 units. The height would be limited, there'd be no rooftop decks above the third floor. There would be a rear setback from the alley of 65 feet to habitable space compared to 12 feet by the current code would provide. They will provide 36 parking spaces which exceeds the code by 50%, and no short term rentals would be allowed. So these covenants, and this is important to know, will not be in force unless the zoning is re-approved is approved. So we want to have control over what is built. We have negotiated covenants. We don't oppose the requested rezoning and we respectfully request that you approve the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Pratt. Father, John Pratt, 2/10, alcoholic. At a property in the alley across from the main green here. Okay. I'll keep it real simple. I'm not going to give you all the detail. I'm going to keep it real simple. Life and death. The applicant has proposed that they use the alley between Holli and Hudson for entry and exit. Of their residents of the main green. Okay. I don't know how this thing got got by somebody in the city without turn in and turn out of Holly. But they're gonna use the alley. I find that a little strange, but let's just take that as the basic fact. Everybody remembers the old thing from the seventies. If you're old, as I am, or the eighties. Speed kills. We're not talking about methamphetamine here. We're talking about vehicular speed. Now, if you've been the intersection of Alameda and Holly, it's the highest point of the relative terrain. If you approach the intersection from the east, going west towards the mountains, there's a distinct rise, not a real hilly rise, but you can't see over the intersection. All you can see is the traffic lights, if you can see them. Now, there's been several axes there. The most recent one was a motorcycle accident. I'm not sure where he lived or not. Seemed like in the summertime the the the low setting sun. It's longer in the sky at the perfect angle that blinds the drivers. It's blinded me a couple of times, I'm aware, but so I try to avoid the circumstances. Some people are not not as privileges that they have to sort of look for the light. Maybe they can't see the light. We've all been there some time in this room where we've driven into a setting sun or a rising sun in Denver, Colorado, and had not seen the light at the intersection at all or have mistaken it. We've all been there. We've all maybe somebody in this room has run a yellow light. Maybe somebody has maybe even gone their car to make the yellow light. And worse, even they a reception under a red light. We've all seen it. We see it every day. Maybe we've done it ourselves. The applicant attends. Applicants intend to exit their residence vehicles. To the Alameda side. Or the Cedar Side. If it goes to the Alameda side, you're going to kill somebody. It'll happen. Here's why. Because as people increase their speeds. The reaction time increases, the braking distance increase, and they won't be able to to to assess the situation a half a block until the impact the cars exploded in the alley on alameda , ca. Those people only know they're turning out onto a perfectly safe situation. They can't see the car coming over and vice versa. To the north is not much better. It's a slower speed. There is parking, lack of visibility and a lack of a four way stop at Cedar. And that's Cedar and Hudson. That's reason to shortcut for Alameda. So. Police. Say in Denver. Protect and serve. I asked every member. Same. I'm sorry, sir, but your time is up, sir. Next up is Wendy Roach. Hi, I'm Wendy Rehak, and I am the interim. President of the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association. And I, I wanted to tell you a little bit about the association. We're approximately 2500 households within the boundaries that Tom just mentioned. All the households are considered to be members of the association, whether they are dues. Paying members or not. We take seriously our responsibility to individual members of our neighborhood, particularly when they hold opposing points of view. Our board of directors is made up of 22 residents. Who are annually elected and live throughout the neighborhood. And we strive. For geographic diversity as well as a diversity. Of skills. And interests that they bring to the board. Our association has a deliberative process when it comes to matters of rezoning liquor license requests or Board of Adjustment Appeals that come before us. And what we try to do is gather information about the matter at hand, invite the affected. Parties to the table to hear what their concerns are. We try to work. Toward a mediated solution whenever possible, and in the matter of recent zoning applications. We have made use of restrictive. Covenants. To achieve. Protections for the neighborhood at. Large and for those closely. Affected neighbors. Rather than engage. And protracted and often unsuccessful lawsuits. So our Civic Association's position, our official position is not to oppose the application. I want to tell you, this has been particularly difficult for us because it involves sets of opposing neighbors. We have the seven. Applicants asking for the rezoning and immediately. Affected neighbors that are ten or 12 or more in the homes, the single family homes across the alley as well as in the pod and surrounding areas. So we this was difficult for us. And. It was a tough decision. To make. But what we feel is that we feel strongly that we are. Protecting the neighborhood. We're protecting it by assuring that there is a set of restrictive. Covenants that limit the number of units. Require a minimum number of parking. Spaces that is above the current code required to keep those folks from parking on the residential side streets in the neighborhood. We address privacy concerns that the neighbors expressed. And other concerns noted in the mediation. Report. These are in place to protect. Both the nearby neighbors and the neighborhood. At large. If this application. Is approved tonight, and I. Respectfully request that. You approve the zoning application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Siri McGill and I'll call the next five to the bench up front Mike Hughes, Katie McCrimmon, Leslie Tau Gorski, Gail Hamlett and Adam Astrof. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Siri Maggio. My husband and I live four blocks from the proposed development. My R.A., Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association never once solicited my feedback. About the proposed development. My husband and I are vehemently against this development. For the following four reasons. Number one, the project has been proposed as a moderately priced solution for the neighborhood. I tell you, it is not. The average listed. Sales price proposed for this development is $550. The current average dollar per square foot in our neighborhood is 435, so it's about $115 difference more than what we would normally pay in our neighborhood. Number two. The project brings absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever to the neighborhood. Unlike the coffee shop and the burger place, other than over densification and more traffic issues. You've heard from a number of us about the traffic issues on Holly and Cedar as well as Alameda. The only they only. Reduced the number of units by a very small handful of units. So their concession really is no concession at all. Number three, the developer, Jason Lewiston, has employed what I consider to be sneaky and threatening tactics to prove his point and to get this approved. He was quoted as saying. If I if we get rejected on April 4th, watch what I submit on April 5th. If you think this is bad, see what I'm allowed to do by law. You think you're upset? Now, wait till April 5th comes number four in my last bullet. Any time you allow a waiver, you set a very dangerous precedence. In closing, there are many of us here tonight who do not have speaking roles. I'd like for those of us here who oppose. This, to raise their hand so that the council can see you. Counsel, I please ask you to reject this waiver. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, Mike use. Council members Mike Hughes, 40, South Bellaire. Street in Hilltop and a board member of the Crown Park Hilltop Civic Association. I simply want to. Stand here and stand behind. Wendy and Tom in the work that they did to try to find a compromise that would work for everyone. As you can see, that's a hard thing to do. But I commend their efforts. I commend the efforts of the applicants, our neighbors who are here asking for your help. As they. Try to move into their own future. And I. Believe that this is an. Appropriate compromise and a reasonable choice. So I'm going to ask that you support. The. Rezoning tonight. And again, I wanted to be on record. Supporting the hard. Work that went into the mediation and that Wendy and Tom in particular did on behalf of our neighborhood. I'm proud of their efforts and hope that you will support the rezoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Katie McCrimmon. Hello. I live just blocks from the proposed zoning change. And I just want to thank all of you for this hearing tonight. I've attended a lot of these over the years. I know they last a long time and it's hard to listen to public comment for so long, but we're very grateful that you're willing to hear our voices. I want to talk to you about two key issues. One is traffic that you're hearing a lot about. And want to give you some data that I hope will help you. And I think you have a packet with this information so you can refer to it. And the other is polling. I helped do polls in our neighborhood in the crust Moorpark Neighborhood Association and also in the larger adjacent press. More filings, too. We wanted to be sure to represent our residents without assuming what they thought. And so we did polls. Let me start first with traffic. This is a picture that I think you have a copy of. We're lucky we have some synagogues right in our neighborhood, too. This is just across the street from the proposed site at the synagogue. And you can see the car ended up on their front lawn. These are folks who are our Jewish neighbors, walk on the Sabbath on Saturday and on their holidays. And this is the kind of traffic we're dealing with now on Holly. Holly is a small it's a narrow street. People park on both sides. So you end up with about 24 feet across. There's just not a lot of room. And you're hearing about this traffic. So we got the data. And in fact, what we found is that last year alone, there were six hit and runs just on Holly and a couple of blocks. This is Denver data. You can check it out yourselves. 20 accidents in a couple of blocks and it's been kind of consistent for the past few years. We have the park burger that got redeveloped and we do have a lot of traffic people coming in to go to the park burger and the novo coffee shop. They're great in our area, but people are walking across the street. It's really tough. There aren't there's not a traffic light there at all. In cedar there are traffic lights further down the way between hilltop and and the cross more neighborhood. Another thing you're hearing a lot about tonight is affordable housing. And I just want to convey to you that some of these folks are making it seem like they're doing us a favor. We do have a challenge in Denver. I'm a native and and I want teachers and firefighters to be able to. And I have a kid who's as a son who's studying to be a teacher. I would love for him to be able to buy a home in Denver, and I worry about that. But these homes that currently exist that they want to tear down, these are the most affordable homes in our neighborhood. They're not technically restricted, but they are the least expensive in our neighborhood. And finally, I didn't tell you about the polling, but all of our polls in our neighborhood of nearly a thousand people showed opposition between 80 and 95%. So we're here tonight, but there are many more people who are at home and agree with us. Thank you. Next up, Leslie, to our guests here. Thank you. Hi. My name is Leslie to our galaxy. As many of you know, I ran against Mary Beth Sussman. She and I don't always agree, but on this subject, we're in agreement. I feel that this development is thoughtful. I think it's considerate of the neighborhood. To quote a line from Diane Carmon today, neighborhoods rail against plans that would increase density. And yet the affordable housing shortage cannot be addressed unless we make room for more homes in our midst. It is not fair to ask every district except Mary Beth to add density. And that's why I'm here tonight, speaking in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Gail Hamlet. I'm Gail Hamlet. I own a home at 200 South Hudson Street. My family has lived in Hilltop for 45 years. So I've seen change. You have to change. I am opposed to this zoning change and I'm going to make it short because some people have already expressed my concerns. But my main concern is safety, traffic and the health and well-being of the citizens of Hilltop. Holly's street is a narrow two lane neighborhood street on an established, stable neighborhood, with the addition of Park, Burger, Restaurant and shops as street has become more and more congested. I live immediately in back of Park Burger on the alley across. In the last year we have listings, increased multi-family dwellings and Cedar East of Holly and Monaco, making Cedar even more busy. From 11 to 9:00. I cannot find parking around my house. All the parking is taken mainly for people going to park. BERGER The developer's plan is to add 30 or more cars to a very narrow alley, which would be the main in and out access to these proposed units. My home is at the corner of South Hudson and Cedar with a front driveway to get in to my homes. But many of my neighbors have to get into their homes through the alley. The alley is very small, as I said, and this presents a dangerous situation. There's been a dramatic increase in accidents in the last year. As one of my neighbors already said, there have been 20 car accidents and six hit and runs. What would happen with an increase in traffic in cars from an alley to flow on to Alameda, which would be one way and to get out of cedar? The Hilltop neighborhood has lots of walkers. We're a walking neighborhood. Many children and parents are walking to school, and many of our neighbors are worshiping at the synagogues and temples in the neighborhood. And they walk. Rezoning would result in more traffic and definite safety issues. This is a Denver part of Denver that's already stable. There is no justification for a zoning change. I joined 90% of my neighbors in opposing this change. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adam Astrof and I call it the next five up to come to the front bench. Lynda Lewis, Patrick Quinton, Amanda Sawyer, Jane Harrington and Sara Franklin. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Adam Astrof. I currently live in District nine and I wanted to come here and speak in favor of this project, both on a personal level and on a citywide level. I am a Colorado native and I've been really heartened to hear all of the concerns that many people have voiced for housing teachers here in the city of Denver, as I am married to a kindergarten teacher. I also really appreciate the concern for the Temple Emanuel community, which I am a member of, and that's kind of what makes this development a potential dream home for my wife and I to start our family. These condos are something that I married a teacher with a master's degree, many of whom are in DPS can afford. This is walking distance to Temple Emanuel, where we could send our kids to preschool. It's a beautiful neighborhood. We go there regularly and it's a place that we'd love to be a part of and set down roots. And so we could really make Denver our home. I think that the concessions that have been made by the applicants are really effective. The building, it's nice, it's brick. It's not one of these slipshod slat homes that we've seen go up around the city. This is something that's going to stick around. And I'm especially attracted to the ecological, you know, component of it with the green roofs. On a broader level, I've lived in a number of districts in Denver over the past eight years. Right now in District nine, I live adjacent to the Highlands and to five points and there has not been an area of stability for them. There is a lot of change throughout our entire city. It's been borne primarily on one side of the aisle that I learned about from a recent Denver ite article. And frankly, it's time for everybody to bear their share. I know from History, Colorado that Denver's population didn't really grow a lot from 1960 to 2010, and now the city's exploding. I've heard a lot of concerns about traffic. You know, more single family spread out. Development isn't going to help with that. And I think that especially as the city is, I think conservatively expecting to reach a million people by 2040. We just can't keep up with the demand for car infrastructure. I'd really encourage the council to embrace this zoning change. This is something that it's not going to solve all of our affordable and attainable housing needs. But this kind of missing middle housing will help get young professionals out of the rental market. And, you know, I will tell you that we're driving up those prices. We can't afford the mortgage on $1,000,000 home like the ones in Hilltop, but we can pay 1500 or 2000 and rent, and that's certainly not making the city more affordable. So thank you so much for your time and I hope that you will support this rezoning to make Denver a city that's more livable for everybody, especially teachers . Thank you. Next up, Lynda Lewis. My name is Linda Lewis. I've lived in Hilltop for 48 years. I live 14 feet from this project. My views are not represented by my councilwoman, Mrs. Sussman, nor by my R.A., the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association, which focuses on Cranmer Park and its beloved sundial and tells me I am lucky that the board has members with expertize in real estate and architecture. Why they not protect me out of all I own. Despite its mission statement, it tries to represent the bricks and mortar of the neighborhood, not the people who really live here. I am vehemently opposed to this project. First, this is not affordable housing, but luxury condos. Second, this is seven units of 1950s housing in the neighborhood of 1950s housing. The owners talk. Of redeveloping their units. Because they don't want to pay for the maintenance that 1950 housing requires. Third, they want to put up 23 units on Holly Street with no bus route and only one lane of traffic each way. Near an intersection with no. Stop sign or a light which has a grocery store, a synagogue, a restaurant with an outdoor play area for children, an ice cream shop and a coffee house. Parking is grossly inadequate already, and traffic backs up for blocks. There have been 20 auto accidents in the past year. To add an additional 46 cars to this, all to enter or exit through the alley between Hudson and Holly poses not only a constant difficulty for those whose garages are in the alley, but a clear and present danger to the children who play outside the restaurant near the alley entrance. Fourth, the R.A. set up to guide your deliberations by telling you the prevailing sentiment in the area most affected by your proposed development has decided it prefers. A more. Activist role for. Itself. Rather than describing what the local residents think it is prescribing, what the board wants the residents to think. Think how by doing the magical two. Step one We are neutral, but we sign covenants. I am sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Patrick Quinn, Tana. Patrick went on a Amanda sawyer. Hi everyone. My name is Amanda Sawyer. I'm a resident of Hilltop. I live seven blocks from this proposed development, and I'm also a candidate for Denver City Council in District five. Respectfully, I ask that you deny this rezoning request. We all know that there's a housing crisis happening in Denver. We desperately need to add housing in our neighborhood for middle income earners, and we need homes where retirees can move when they're ready to leave their single family homes. But we also need to make sure that the families who live in this neighborhood are safe. If this development were actually going to serve a public benefit, I would support it. But even families making 120% of median income, 120% of median income will not be able to afford to buy these properties. And this developer is not selling the physical, affordable units. He's paying into the fund. So it's just another set of $10 million luxury condos. So why should we sacrifice our neighborhood safety for it? It doesn't make any sense. This neighborhood doesn't have very many sidewalks and it doesn't have any bike lanes. But this project is going to add at least 24 vehicles to this block. The density it adds, will create more than 35 units per acre in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes, 35 units per acre in a neighborhood of single family homes. There's no neighborhood plan governing this, but an analogous plan like Mayfair caps density at 14.5 units per acre. That's more than double. The city is using leaps in logic to justify this development like considers considering building builders sorry scraping single family homes as quote unquote changed circumstances. Councilman Flynn, you brought this up at the land use transportation and infrastructure meeting. That's within the current zoning code. That's not a changed circumstance. This developer is also requesting a waiver to make this work. Waivers are supposed to be used sparingly and to provide a public benefit. Where is the public benefit here? It doesn't make any sense. The truth is that there are other options for this land that would serve a compelling need. But they won't make this developer enough money to make it worth his time. This project is not about serving the general public of Denver. It's about lining the pockets of a developer. While the hardworking people who live in this neighborhood get left behind with rocket high rents and unsafe streets. Our city needs to find its soul again, and it will not be found in lining the pockets of the developers. It will be found in the spirit of the families who live here. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Jeanne Harrington. But ladies and gentlemen, I will ask that you contain your applause, your cheering, your booing. We are here to hear everyone. And that is eating up time. There is a room right next door where you can watch on TV if you feel compelled to cheer in there. That is okay in this chamber. If you would, please let us timely get to everyone and make sure that everyone has a chance to voice without cheering, clapping and booing. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next up, Jeanne Harrington. Okay. All right, Sara Franklin and I'll cover the next five. Jesse Paris, Mary Conway, Jonathan Remo, Kofi Snow, Mark Gibson and Betty Zimmerman. Sorry about the names. Go ahead. I'm Sarah Franklin. I live at 456 Dahlia Street. I am a native of Denver and I have lived in Park Hill. I have lived in Cherry Creek. I have and I have lived in Hilltop where I live currently. So I'm kind of aware of problems with parking and especially like when Cherry Creek where you go down to Cherry Creek, you don't have parking because the residents have their space where they can park all day. Is that what you're going to create over here on Holly? Because right now there's no really good parking on the street for the residents. If you go over to Pearl Street and the Sushi Dan area, what has happened there with the parking? And you already have. They have like seven spaces. At the park burger and the ice cream shop and. And the people, if they do have parking for these new this new complex, where are their guests going? To park. Whose parking are they going to take? Like down in Cherry Creek, where we have to pay to go into the Cherry Creek Mall now. Are you going to have parking? What kind of restrictions are there going to be? I just feel that between the parking and the traffic, with the addition of what's going on at Eighth and Colorado Boulevard, Holly is going to become more used than ever because Colorado Boulevard right now is that. And I think it's time for city council to take into consideration what they've already approved and let it soak in when they all get filled up and figure out just exactly what's happening before you add more to this. So I would appreciate your voting no and setting a new precedent for the city and county of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good afternoon. Evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm representing four Black Star acts. A Moment for self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud. And Positive. Action Commitment for change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Clearly this is not what the neighbors want. This is definitely a NIMBY. After hearing all the testimony today. I am definitely against this. This is more. We don't need any more unintended consequences from this rampant development that's going on in the city. The members of this neighborhood have literally told you like it's going to be an issue with the parking is going to be an issue with the layout of the neighborhood. It's just not right for this district at all for this neighborhood. So I have to honor the wishes of the community and vote that, you know, in response to this, because this is not what this city needs. This is now what the community needs. And they're very blatant and crystal clear about it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mary Conway. Hello. How's everybody doing? My name is Mary Conway. I live at 238 South Harley Street, which is directly across the street from this development. Both of my sisters, both owned units at 227 and 225 South Hall. They were first time home buyers and they were able to buy in the neighborhood that we grew up in, luckily enough. And they were great first, first time homes and they built a little bit of equity and they bought bigger homes. That's what Denver needs. We need first time homes. So now you're going to change the zoning and allow them to take out any of the affordable housing in our neighborhood. This is it. This little five plex. 225 to 20 7 to 20 3 to 21 and to 19. That's the affordable housing we have in our neighborhood. And you're going to do away with it so that because they didn't put enough money in their highway to replace their sewer line or replace their roof. That doesn't seem right. The traffic I wish you could I wish you could spend an afternoon on Harley and realize how horrible the traffic is. I have to deal with it every day. And, you know, I'm worried my son is going to get run over all the time if he goes out and he's 14, 15. So I'm worried he's going to get run over because people fly down, Holly. They fly. If it's not bumper to bumper traffic, people ask if people flying by 35, 45 miles an hour, just like like it's nothing because, oh, it's in Colorado Boulevard. So backed up. So I'll just use Holly. Well, that's what everybody does. So Holly is already. It's it's ridiculous how how unsafe it is and for you to even entertain the thought of adding it would amount to 50 cars in this in this project. I it's it's mind boggling how bad of an idea that is. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Remo can you know. Hello. I'm Jonathan. Remote Casino. Good evening. City Council. I was formerly a resident of 540 South Forest, which is just south of Leeds. Still, they call it Hilltop Adjacent. I was one of these people who was walking to synagogue on Saturdays, pushing a baby stroller, you know, wife, kid, that whole deal. We had a two bedroom condo which was walk up outside. We were aspiring to live in the neighborhood. You know, there really aren't a whole lot of affordable options, certainly anywhere near Hilltop. You know, frankly, you know, this this is my my religion. I mean, like I would like to walk to synagogue. I realize that's not exactly a governmental Denver city and county issue, but it does speak to a broader issue of inclusivity. My wife is also a Denver Public Schools special education teacher on the West Side. I'm a federal government employee. I'm not furloughed. I mean, to give you an idea, like I used to take the 83 L, I was like one of these transplants that took, you know, like, I didn't drive a car at all. I didn't own a car. In the four years I've been in the state of Colorado, I think I've had a car in the last year. And the reason I've had that car is we had to move farther south to Yale and Quebec. So. You know, that's a great neighborhood. We're happy to live where we live. You know, my strong preference, you know, my my my affinity community is in the hilltop neighborhood. I guess what I'm trying to say is if. People who are making. Probably in the upper. Third of the income spectrum, can't afford to live in the inner core of Denver. Who can? And I think. But that'll just yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Next up, Marc Gibson. Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, thank you for your time. My name is Mark Gibson. I live at sixth and Bel Air since 1995. I urge you to deny this zoning request since the 300% density increase you are opposed to bestow on this assemblage creates a 500% increase in cars. And in reality, this amount, this density increase amounts to a ten X increase that is 1,000% higher density than the average in this neighborhood. This rezoning or this way, in this waiver, this amounts to basically writing new rules for developers, not for the city. And you're abusing the argument that unmitigated growth and changes somehow justify more more unmitigated growth. And once again, we're entertaining the zoning density increase without asking or or requiring any real growth in gridlock mitigation. Now, this city government has presided over recent years and the proliferation of stacks and stacks of soulless shacks in this community. And now you want it down on the Holly Street neighborhood. Let's kill this cluster right now. Thank you. Next up, Betty Zimmerman. Good evening, honorable members of the council. Mr. President, I first of all, in full disclosure, I promised Wendy that I was going to publicly apologize to her because I misquoted her in the letter that I wrote to you. So please accept my apology. That was not my intention. I leave in 255, thankfully, the first house adjacent to the proposed project. I want to say that this is not old versus young. This is not about not in my neighborhood. This is about not this in our block. I cannot even begin to sense how families will move into these $500,000 apartments and be comfortable walking with their kids or their kids riding their bikes down the street. The only access I have to my house is through that narrow alley. That's the only access I have. I believe that when you rent a waiver, there must be extenuating circumstances. Maybe we want to implement Blueprint Denver, for which I worked very hard. We are as Blueprint Denver as they can be. We are diverse, different economic backgrounds, ethnicities. Just come and take a look at us. Affordable housing. What does that mean? No. 500,000 other apartment? Is that what we call affordable housing? Their scarcity of housing? Maybe that will be a reason. However, just down the street, they renovated 12 garden homes that tried to sell for $500,000 each. Individual individual units, they are now rentals for sure. They are vacancies on Monica in Cedar. Honorable members, I am going to ask you to deny this petition because a waiver, if I did my research correctly, sets a precedent that would prevent that open, which will serve as a springboard for other developers that want to do something like that. Getting to do this without having to even ask for it because we are ruled by precedent. Please, are we being a test site to see what happens here? Because. This makes no sense in our block. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. I'm going to call the next five up. Michael Rich. Meg Whitelaw, a niece reached reach. Larry and Larry brawl. Oh, and I'm sorry, John. The Rungs, you're also in that group, and I had scrolled past you, so. Michael Ulrich, you're up. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Michael Urich. I'm a property owner located at 230 South Hudson Street, which is located directly across the alley. And I'm one of three property owners most directly affected by this proposal. For reference, I have lived here with my family for 26 years, 28 years, and have been enriched by the neighbors and the homes built in the fifties, the owners of the properties and to 19 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 25 and 2227. South Holley have indicated that as first time property owners, they are short of capital for the improvements they would like to make to their properties. As a homeowner, I also experienced this situation and paid for those improvements, sacrificing the enjoyment of other things I would prefer to spend my money on as this is a. Part of being a homeowner. If this is clearly the reason for a rezoning request, then it is misguided. An approval of a change to s m you three would drastically alter for the neighborhood, raising several concerns. Of which safety is a major one. As you may or may not be aware, that volume of traffic in the neighborhood has. Increased dramatically since the addition of the Park Burger Restaurant. While cars and pedestrians navigate through the neighborhood, there are constant near misses with children and families. As we currently travel out of they out of the alley, north to Cedar or south to Alameda. An addition of residents of 27 units and 40 parking spaces exponentially increases a probability of tragedy. Technological distractions do play their part with drivers. If covenants have been agreed to by the developer and have been filed in the public record, who is going to monitor and enforce them? Should the developer run out of money? The possibility of an unfinished project exists. Due to competition and economic downturn. Leaving a large open space in a residential. Neighborhood and the current residents of this complex with no place to live. This is not a neighborhood in transition, such as Lowry, where large tracts of land have been cleared to create neighborhoods. As mentioned in the status report, the neighborhood is a stable neighborhood. I asked that you consider the damage potentially done by the approval at this rezoning request. This is clearly. Not a good fit and the approval of this request would. Be misguided. The correct decision will be to deny this request for approval of application 201700153 as there is no compelling reason to approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John, drugs. Members of council neighbors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm John de Rawlings. I live at 40 Kearney Street, right on Crest Moore Park. I tonight am. Conflicted. Participant I have spoken with Anna and Jason many times over the years. I've spoken to neighbors. I was asked by the Moorpark. Organization to be involved in the mediation sponsored by the city. What I noticed noticed. That and and Jason had pretty much. Religiously rejected any. Changes to the proposed apartment. Building, which no one has mentioned is net zero. As far as I know, this hasn't come up tonight. Consequently. According to the plans I got to begin with and. Have still have here after they were revised its over 50 beds. To start with and there's still 50 beds. And if you double up that's a lot of people that location. In mediation. I offered, along with Pete Casillas. Support if the project. Included. Some townhomes. A portion to be townhomes and kind of what was built on the property over near the church, what used to be the church on Monica after it was zoned and a place we thought maybe if our wives threw us out. We would be. Able to live there. Without being in a shoe box. We were told there wasn't enough revenue generated. By that project, but on the other hand. Getting back to this to the net zero concept. I was taken with the idea that. Maybe this. Might be something the city was working toward, even though we're talking, you know, decades from now to some kind of standard. My concern. Is. That. There. Hasn't been anything built. In Denver that's net zero in apartment apartment buildings. There have been a couple of thrive projects up in Stapleton at Lowry that were. Strictly single family. Attached projects. I might they might get my vote alone. I'm not talking. Just me, not the neighborhood. If I knew that it was possible to start to make some headway with this concept. On the other. Hand, the. Other thing that. No, I've run out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Meg White La. Hello. I'm a resident. Of the Cress Moore Park neighborhood. We are a small community located. Primarily on. The south. Side of Pressman Park. We are bounded by large streets. That carry heavy, heavy traffic. Monaco on the east and Alameda on the south. Our westerly boundary is Holly Street, which in recent years has seen greatly increased traffic as vehicles. Try to avoid Monaco and Colorado boulevards. The results are speeds. And volume on Holly, not appropriate to a residential neighborhood. The entryway to our neighborhood is Cedar Avenue. It is the street that binds our neighborhood together and which is. The access point to all of our homes. The intersection of. Holly and Cedar is the gateway to our small neighborhood. We are a religiously and. Ethnically. Diverse community of about 186 total homes, businesses. And synagogues. Historically, ours. Was a place where African Americans and Jews could reside. Unlike the Chris Moore neighborhoods. In earlier years. What happens at the. Intersection of Cedar and Holly is vital. To the interests of our community. Obviously, the addition of another housing development across from this gateway has a significant impact on us. Why is this so important to us? Very simply. Safety. This is an area we traversed. Day in and out. Cedar Avenue is the heart of our community. About six years ago, on the hilltop side, a trio of businesses were slotted into this intersection a burger place. Coffee place, and an ice. Cream shop. The number of vehicles at the intersection has greatly. Increased, both. In terms of traffic. And parked cars. All over our immediate. Neighborhood. To this already congested. And dangerous area. Dangerous to try to make a left. Hand turn out of our. Neighborhood. Dangerous to try to make a left hand turn into it. There is now. A. Proposed high density 60 bedroom development to be shoehorned in next to the businesses. The access will be off Cedar. Avenue on a less than 12 foot wide alley. I went out and measured it myself. It's 11 it's 11 feet six inches. Wide for all these cars. Both existing. And and new residents are smaller. Than the standard residential. Alleyway. You as council members. Members are the final decision makers and sadly. The very first ones in this entire process who will consider safety. The proposed. Development burdens an already bad. Situation. We do not think we should be frightened into accepting this development just because the developer. Has threatened us with a, quote. Worse alternative if we don't go along. And the Hilltop Board has sadly bought into this fear. We would support we are not NIMBYs. We would support a modest development appropriate to the scale and circumstances of the surroundings. Please, we ask you do not hide behind hilltops. Decision not to oppose that decision hurts some hilltop residents. And every one of ours. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, a nice rake. I live on first, then I the traffic. If you take and look at your traffic count there are two every two weeks from. They are two seater to Alameda. There are there is a traffic accident. There are six hit and runs. Now. There is a problem with that. We also have an air BMB at 244 South Hawley, which the city is unable to enforce. It is illegal. There are 22 residents that are invited in to smoke marijuana, adding further to the congestion. Mary Beth is well aware of this. The city is well aware of this. And we were told that they didn't want to interfere with their already reservations. The owner does not occupy this. 244 South Hawley It sleeps 22 as it's advertised. Again, another addition to the 20 to the Holly Street. The developer has not operated in good faith. He was they were offered an adequate $25,000 to pay for her roof and her sewer problems. That was from the lyrics. They turned it down. The exaggeration of the people that are involved in this project. It is not. The average house in Hilltop is not $1,000,000. Good God. Where did she get that? She pulled it out of a pile of hay. Affordable. It is the only affordable housing in hilltop. She paid too much and she has been whining ever since. We all paid too much, depending on the market. We all bought 1930s, 1950 houses. But we sacrificed. So why are you even considering sacrificing entire neighborhoods for so few? Why did they buy into the neighborhood to change it? And it was quoted yesterday in Denver. Right. That she is no longer going to live there. So she leaves us with. God knows what it is a myth to say that. We are. I am sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much, Larry Brown. And then I'm going to call the last four Pete Cassius, Greg Kerwin, Keith Whitelaw and Sean Emery, if you want to come up to the front. Go ahead. Hello. I'm Patrick Allen, and I'm representing one of my neighbors. Who? I'm sorry. It's Larry Brown. This is for Larry Brown. He gave me a statement to read. I don't think we allow statements to be read. The person who signed up has to read. All right. I'm sorry about that. So is Larry Brown here or. No. Okay. I apologize, Pete, because. Yes. All right. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for your patience. A lot of good points have been made and I'm going to try hard not to be redundant. I'm Casey is a live at 175 South Jasmine's street which is about three blocks from the development. I am the vice president of the Customer Park Neighborhood Association and I am the member of the Mediation Group on behalf of our neighboring neighborhood association. And really, I just want to add a little something to the flavor of the mediation. So if we if we are if we derive any kind of satisfaction from the fact that there was a process that arrived at a set of restrictive covenants, I have to tell you, in all honesty, at least half of the people that were present at the mediation effort were not in favor or supportive of of the takeaways from the particular, you know, two meetings that we had as a group. In fact, you know, it was one of the stranger processes that I've ever been a part of as a business person around and mediation and negotiation. We started from the rigid point about the very specific proposal. We were encouraged by the mediator to come with creative ideas and thoughts and represent our constituents the best of our ability, which was and is our our desire. And we got to a place where I believe a subtle reduction to the total number of units was taken as kind of a win and and a reason to rejoice. And that was not our that was not certainly the instructions from our constituencies. We wanted to have a substantive discussion about alternative building forms. You know, mind you, on the property itself, we have a garden court building form and two single family units to jump all the way to a apartment form with waivers was just a jarring change to to the neighborhood and to to from a density perspective, certainly. So we would have loved to had more conversation about is there a more appropriate interim step that we could get to that would still drive some of the affordability issues that the applicant put forward as the whole reason for them going down this path. And we just we just they just wouldn't go there, frankly. So I am disappointed that we didn't get to a better outcome from the mediation process. The covenants are made as stated between the Hilltop Cramer, Cramer Park, Cramer Park, Hilltop Civic Association and the applicant. They don't represent, I think, the opinions and desires of our broader neighborhood. And I'll just I'll just leave you with, I think, net net, if you just kind of back up and apply common sense this thing, we're taking a a large structure that's very dense and we're plopping it in a really, really bad spot. We've heard, you know, chapter and verse on how bad it is to traverse between Holly, between Alameda and Cedar. And and that is no joke because as a father of a young family, it can be downright scary sometimes. So for no other reason, we would encourage you to to turn this down. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Greg Kerwin. Good evening. My name is Greg Kerwin. I live at 200 Kearney Street in the more area I drive on Holly almost every day to get to and from our home. I oppose this rezoning. I have three points to make to you at this public hearing about the constraints that the Denver zoning code puts on what this body can approve as a rezoning. First and most important, when you deliberate tonight, do not. Do not tell us that you cannot consider traffic and parking in a rezoning. And I'll explain why. In fact, because of the 2017 court decision that I helped win, in part for some of our neighbors, the white law decision. You are required to consider traffic and parking. Problems for this proposed rezoning as a factor that weighs against it. Under the Public Health, Safety and Welfare factor in section 12 .4. 10.7 C of the zoning code, that's what the Court of Appeals told you. The city of Denver's position did not get accepted in our case. For many years, one citizens have attended a hearing like this or a planning board hearing. What we've gotten used to as the refrain from council members and planning board members is. Oh, we understand traffic and parking problems. Are the major concern we're hearing about tonight. But too bad we are not allowed to consider traffic and parking problems when evaluating a proposed rezoning. That excuse never made sense to me and because of the recent court decision we helped obtain, it's not lawful anymore. There's nothing in the zoning code, the Denver Charter or any Denver ordinance that tells this council it cannot consider traffic and parking problems. In our lawsuit, we ultimately lost. You're probably familiar with that, although the days of the expert contacts between developers and this council are over because of our lawsuit. You don't hear. From developers knocking on your back door or. Sending emails to your private email anymore. That was our lawsuit. I explained the rationale of the Court of Appeals in my written comments, and I brought a copy of the decision. I would urge you to check with the city attorney's office to confirm my interpretation. Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the White Law versus Denver District Court decision. You should not be telling citizens anymore, and you should tell the planning board not to use that excuse. Finally and very briefly, you construe what. Is the adopted plan requirement? Don't construe it as meaningless, where any strategy citywide can constitute an adopted plan. There's no plan that calls for this density and don't construe justifying circumstances as meaningless. Here development. In Lowry and on. Lead stale or changes from small homes to big homes. Those aren't justifying circumstances here. Thank you. And Mr. Clark, may I put this copy of the court decision in the council record? You can hand it to the council secretary. Thank you. Next up, Keith Whitelaw. Good evening. My name is Keith White. I live at 6300 East Cedar Avenue, seven blocks from the rezoning site. I'm the president of the Crisp Park Neighborhood Association, which is a Denver. R.A. Our R.A. boundaries are on the North Bay and Cedar, Alameda, Locust and Hawley. The R.A. includes 187 more or less households, businesses and institutions within its boundaries. All residents, businesses and religious organizations within its boundaries are considered members. Following receipt of notice of the subject rezoning application, the R.A. communicated with its members through multiple email and hardcopy notices. Online surveys, an extensive informal discussion to determine a position regarding the current application. On October 15th of last year, the R.A. conducted an online survey directed to all known email addresses of its members. The survey produced a 91% rate of opposition of its members to this application, and that's the basis for our owner opposing the application. Our members have valid reasons for their opposition. These are stated in the numerous letters and emails that you have before you as a concession to the brevity of life. I will not repeat them all now. These reasons, though, make clear the failures of the application. The requested rezoning is not consistent with Blueprint Denver an adopted plan. The application itself admits that the land in the area that the land subject to the rezoning application is in an area of stability where redevelopment of the type proposed is generally inappropriate. A recent well, we've heard about the recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision just now, which does direct you to consider parking traffic and certainly safety and your rezoning decisions. So you heard it from the expert prior to my speaking further. There are no just just circumstances to justify the rezoning in this vibrant, stable neighborhood. The proposal is wrong on many levels and should be denied. One final point. The other R.A. has touted ill conceived restrictive covenants as some sort of a solution that supposedly will protect the neighborhood. Who can enforce these covenants? The applicant developers themselves. Who are the only persons able to restrict their own properties? That is pure foolishness. So please don't be fooled. Deny the application. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Sean Emery. Hello there, city council. My name is Shannon and I have lived with my family at three, six, seven South Kearny Street for over ten years. Even though I live in South Hilltop, the proposed rezoning site is only four blocks from my home. I travel the intersection. By the proposed rezoning site at least two times a day with my family and used to walk through the. Intersection to visit Park, Berger. And Highpoint Creamery, a donor walk to this area for the past year. Given the history of my family and my family's safety when crossing Holley along Cedar. There are always parked cars along Holly, down to Alameda, obstructing view of drivers and pedestrians crossing the intersection. I've seen numerous. Near misses by both vehicles and pedestrians. The other concern I have with the rezoning proposal is the precedent of rezoning the single family home to a high density three story structure. When we moved this, when we moved to this neighborhood over ten years ago, we chose this neighborhood because of the lack of population. Density and. Towering structures. If we desired living in congested areas or high rises, then we would have moved. Stay closer to downtown. The next logical move, if this rezoning is accepted, is that developers will be emboldened to rezone other single family homes and our neighborhood to high density structures because of the precedent set by the creation of this high density structure and waiver. When considering your vote in this matter, please don't vote for the sake of your fellow council members. Instead, they should vote for the consensus of the neighbors directly impacted by the. Proposed rezoning of this property. Thank you. Thank you. And lastly, I think we've ironed out Patrick Allen. All right. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Well, we got that figured out. Go ahead and thank you for doing that. You know, it's great to be. These people do sit at my table, never use that table fence thing. I love having them at my table. But great comments and it's a wonderful community. I worked very hard to build up equity in my Washington Park home and thank God Chop was my favorite class in high school. But I built up this great home and I was able to sell it because I always wanted to come to Hilltop Crest Smart, the park, and I did. It worked hard. Now for the rest of you are looking for some living spaces. That huge monstrosity of a development behind my home. That was rezone two years ago. We have 50 units for sale, so come on over. We need to fill up. You know, Kudlow Donald Trump. Want to be. Developer banging on my door at 715 in the morning to talk about the cost of the fence we've asked him to help us with. Be careful. Scuse me, sir. I just ask that you address the council, not the audience. Just be careful when you're working with them. This has not worked out for me for the last two years. I've been there for a president privileged to do that. I have a very small budget, $43,000 to pay taxes in church, you name it. And I've spent 1500. Dollars. On legal fees. On zoning. Issues just to deal with deeds and things. And we're still not done. So it has not worked out very well. The density is huge. One of the original owners, one of my neighbors, great guy. Has left. He has moved. He just cannot handle the density of that little neighborhood. My wife was involved in a terrible car accident at Monaco on Cedar. Made me a believer in the rob for all those bags deployed. Thank God. But that guy ran. That red light. Who knows? Late for work. All that traffic beats me. And then when I went to the this the traffic meeting, here's these city planners where they had I don't know, they got to readjust. Recalibrate. We have people driving on Locust Street because they don't want to handle the traffic on Monaco. They're on locusts. Think about locusts, the Lever to Beaver community. And they're driving they're all around going through the parks and all that. That's not good. I ask you guys, the city, it's getting out of control. My beautiful hilltop neighborhood, community, it's going downwards. Please give it some thought. I've worked very hard to live there, so it's all the people at my table. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That does conclude our speakers. I want to thank everyone for helping to create a safe and respectful place for everyone to share their opinions. I know that's not always easy when we're here with neighbors and we don't all agree. So thank you for that. We are going to move on to questions from members of council. Council. I will ask that you please keep your questions concise. Be cognizant of the time that you're taking and stick to questions during this portion. Councilwoman Ortega. Your first one. I want to ask someone that can speak to the restrictive covenants that have been discussed in terms of when they would be filed. And maybe just a little bit more details about what those covenants entail. If someone can come and address that, please. So the and. If I could ask you just I know you've already spoke, but if you could reintroduce yourself, if you're asked to come up for a question, that would be great. Thank you. Tom Hart and I am the zoning committee chair for Grammar Park Hilltop Civic Association. And so we let's see what really in the covenants we have put a limit on the number of units, the 23 we have or you can't go any taller than the rest of the neighborhood zone, which is 35 feet. We've got 36 parking spaces. I'm sorry. Could you speak more directly into the microphone thinking. There'd be no rooftop decks, which is a lot. Thank you very much. 23 units, the height, 35 feet. No rooftop decks. Really limited number of building forms to permanent townhouse, suburban house, duplex. Materials should be brick on all four sides. Setbacks where they're going to meet the front and the side setbacks, including the third floor being setback. Additional differences. The rear setback is 60 feet. Have a little space, 60 feet, 65 feet to habitable space. The code requires 12. This can be garages built along the west property line, which is the alley, and that wall will be brick and will be 17 feet tall. That was done to restrict views to the neighbors across the alley, 36 parking spaces, minimal light trespass to neighboring properties. Trees divide provided for the neighbors across the alley. So. And no, I don't see it right here. Yeah, short term rentals. Here we go. The the covenants then are not going to be put on the title until and unless this zoning passes. Obviously, you wouldn't put the covenants in its own passes. So if it passed, then they would be filed thereafter. So it's not contingent on whoever the developer is, it's based on the property. That's regardless of who would develop. Right. We had a similar you might remember the project, the 3050 South Colorado. We got covenants placed on that. Now the property could be sold to somebody else. Somebody else could build fewer units. But these are the limits. Okay. Okay. At this point, I don't have any other question. So I yield to my my colleagues. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Mr. Hart, are all the covenants on that piece of paper? We've had a member who's asked if you could turn that over to our council secretary to take a look at or do we have the print copy of it here? You have a print copy of those covenants, would you? Okay. Handing that to our secretary. Thank you. All right. Next up, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I had some of the same questions that Councilwoman Ortega answered. So that is good to know that those covenants would go on to the title if it passes. I have some questions. Maybe this is appropriate for Teresa Lucero, but I'm interested in how many units are on the properties now? How many can be built there now and how that compares to the proposal? Teresa Lucero With Community Planning and Development. There are currently seven units on the properties. On all three. Parcels? Yes. And. If the properties were redeveloped without being re zoned, how many units could go on each of those? I don't generally get into estimating that the it depends on how parking and how things are designed and the building form selected. So there are a lot of decisions that need to be made before you can decide what you're building. Currently, I will say currently the zoning is EMU two and a half for the larger portion of the property, the five unit. Portion. So there is existing. Authority to build multi-unit. So what are the forms that could go on that without doing anything? There is the garden court, the apartment, the townhome. Sorry, let me get to the right page on my notes there. And then can you also define what apartment means? So the forms that could be built under the EMU 2.5 are suburban and urban house. So single family homes, duplex, a tandem house, townhouse, garden, court and apartment. So the apartment form is a multi-unit structure that is basically your basic boxy apartment building. And are there parking requirements? There are one unit. No matter how many units are in there. No matter how many units, if there are 40 units, then the requirement would be 40 parking spaces. As we've heard, the current proposal is 23 units and the parking. They've negotiated a higher parking. I think it's 36. Right. Okay. And then I have some other questions. I'm a me. I'm not sure. Okay. Let's start with you since you're there. So immediately south there is a development that's a PWD. This is clearly not as old as the rest of the neighborhood. Do you know anything about that? How many years? I know it's seven units. It was approved, I believe, in the late eighties. So, yes, seven units. And and was that rezoning into that PWD, had that previously been single unit? Yes. So it was a pretty. And then immediately to the north, there are the commercial properties that people have talked about that seem to be causing a lot of traffic issues. Has that always been zoned for commercial or was that zoned? It was resolved in 2010 with the citywide rezoning, but it was risen to a commercial zone district because it was an existing commercial zoning. It was. So those retail spaces had always been there. Oh, okay. Someone told me, I don't know if this is true, that Holly used to be a streetcar line. Is that does anyone know? Is that correct? I don't know that we. It would not. Surprise me because a lot of our collectors streets were. Streetcar lines. And Holly is a collector, is that right? And Holly's a collector. Okay. I'm going to ask one more question and then I'm going to give someone else a chance. Okay? Okay. It's not for you. Okay. Some people were referring to the developer, but after hearing our first speakers. You're the home. Are you the homeowners and the developer? Could, could, could. Can you come up to the microphone. And clarify what. Can. Sorry about. Your question. So some people were referring to you all as the owners and then also referring to the developers. And so it sounded like you are where the developers are now, clarify what they are. There are seven separate homeowners that all own their individual properties. And then we have been approached by a developer, Jason Lewiston, with a proposal to purchase all seven units and redevelop the lot into more multi-family housing. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks? Yeah. I want to keep going on that line of questioning. I'm going to ask, can you come back up to the mike? Thank you. So I want to. The existing zoning is EMU 2.5. Correct. Can on one lot. On one left. Yes. Okay. On the other lots. It's it's single family. Okay. So you. Have R s e, SMU X. Right. And Theresa, why don't you come up to Lucero? Yeah. And could you could you pull the microphone up? Sorry. Thank you. Sorry. So, um. So that's helpful. I don't think we've. You know, make that distinction. So on that lot where it is EMU 2.5, what's the maximum you think as a developer you could build there? I'm not a developer. I'm just the homeowner. Oh, do we have a developer in the. Yes. Oh, there is. Yeah. Okay, I'm 60 inches away. Okay, great. What's the maximum you could build on that? Um, m e IMU 2.5. I'm Jason. Lowest and. Introduce myself. We we believe we can get 20 units, maybe smaller units. We're essentially limited by that. It's. There's no set. Amount of units that are limited. It's parking. And if we do. One space per unit and we built an 18,000 foot building, we'd have to do structured parking underneath. But you know, I'm very good at infill and I know how to maximize, you know, parking spaces and building sites. So. So if you had the EMU U 2.5 on all of the lots, you're saying you get the 20 units. No, I'm saying on the existing lot. Yeah, I could have we could have taken the five out of five units. Thank you. And saved all of this. Grief. And it's been some grief for us particularly. Well, I'm not. But, yes, we could do 20 minutes without any meetings, any neighborhood discussion. Right. And are those 20 units what those have to be for sale, for rent? What would be the sizes? Just give me a ballpark, I. Well, I mean, they be, you know, smaller units. It'd be between 500 feet and 800 feet. And I don't. You know, they could be for rent and they could be for sale. Okay, great. Thank you. Theresa Lazaro. This came before planning board. I didn't get a chance to attend. Can you tell us the outcome and the outcome? Well, this came before planning board twice. The first application was for a different zone district planning while CPD opposed and the application was denied. What was the original suburban multi-unit? Three stories. Okay. And then the applicant revised their application to the EMU 2.5. And the result was there was a unanimous recommendation of approval at planning board with one abstention. Okay. And it was the abstention for conflict. The abstention. He didn't say why he was abstaining. He just said he was abstaining. Great. And did you get any. I'm sorry. I didn't look in my packet here. Did you get any letters of opposition. From. Any neighborhood? Well, Chris Moore Park. Yes. From R.A. or. Yes, Chris Moore Park. And the of no position. What neighborhood was that of? No position. Oh, that's Hilltop. No opposition. Thank you. You done, Councilman? All right. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Mr. Lewiston is here, so I have a chance to ask him something on the architectural drawings that we were given. There's a term that I'm not familiar with that says that the units will be. Fully. Accessible. What does that mean? Physically handicapped. Okay. Thank you, Theresa. I don't know if you'll know this because it predates everybody in this room, probably. But I'm curious how those two commercial parcels at Cedar came to be. And I looked them up and they were built in 1955. Or prior. So it even predates Chapter 59. But it seems odd that there's because just to get to Councilwoman Black's question, there was not a streetcar line that went down. But one of the speakers looked it up. And no, it wasn't a streetcar, Holly wasn't a streetcar line. Right. So we don't know why that wasn't on Alameda as opposed to sort of in the middle of the neighborhood. Okay. So so the fact that the Park Berger in that building is new, that's not in itself a changing circumstance because that's been there since at least 1955. Nonresidential structure has been there. Right. New business, new use of the structure. But can you explain how the waiver works? And that's different than the than the covenants that the neighborhood has. But the waiver, it seems to me it allows more square footage or more density. Well, it allows a third story to be built. The other building forms in the zone, just in the context, all allow 2.5 storeys and the same height, 35 feet. Right. So everything from a single unit. Through every other building form except apartment allows the two 3030 to 35 feet depending on your width of your lot. And then. The two and a half stories except the apartment form. So the proposal is to take the apartment form to two and a half stories. And that allows the waiver allows the third level to the. Second or last level, third level only habitable. But on a smaller. It's smaller because there are. The both planes. Step backs. Yes. That are apply in this context. So the side step backs are 15 feet on either side and then in the front it's ten feet off the street. So you end up with a smaller footprint on that top level. Okay. And I appreciate the solution talking about how many develop how many units can be developed under the existing zoning, because that was that was going to be one of my questions, Councilman Brooks. And. Tom Hart listed the covenants that had been negotiated. And as you went through the list, that sounded it sounded more like the covenants make this more of a negotiated pudi than a standard zone district, don't they? They are pretty restrictive. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's all I have right now. I think Councilman Flynn, Councilman you know Theresa. Okay. I'm sitting here some discussion about obviously a lot of discussion about the traffic on Holly and the safety concerns there. Has there been a traffic study when you're in the discussions of all this, you sound like you've been through a lot of discussions after it was denied one time and now you're back again with what discussion has there been about? How do you know? There has been a lot of raising of the issue. But CPD usually takes up traffic issues at site plan instead of zoning. So that's. They didn't give you a position? No, they didn't give you any data or any. There has been some discussion of the traffic counts on Holly. There was some discussion of that at both planning board hearings. And was there a conclusion to that? Well, just stating what those counts were is extraordinarily high. Or is it. Not being a traffic engineer? I'm not privy to how they are, but I can tell you what counts. There were and these were taken four years ago, so they might not be as current. And they were 11,338, both southbound and northbound on holly between cedar and alameda. So around. Well, 11,000. Oh, okay. Question about today. Question about the Ali. You know, the access on the Ali. I know we approved a rezoning overall Colorado. And I think they're using the Ali access to the private Ali. Remember Ali? So is this Ali much more narrow than the normal? Ali I have not measured this, Ali. It is a public. Ali Right. The zoning code does require Ali access if an Ali exists. I would imagine that public works might want some widening. Okay. If it was inadequate. Okay. Great. Thanks to his assertion. Joel Noble of joke. Come up. Star witness. Jill, I appreciate you coming up. I know you're a member of the planning board. I assume you were there for this discussion. Good evening, Councilman. Yes. What about the traffic or the traffic situation? Did the planning board get an interpretation of the traffic situation? Certainly. John Noble 2705 Stout Certainly Planning Board heard as you have concerns, as we often do at rezoning time about potential traffic impacts, because a zoning allows a range of things that can be built, it's generally not felt by CPD and what planning board follows that we are in a position to analyze traffic at that time. It's later at site plan. When somebody proposes a particular building with a particular number of units, with a particular set of uses, uses would determine the time of day traffic might come and go. That that's analyzed by staff. So while we, as you did, heard those concerns, it really didn't factor into if this is the appropriate zoned district for the location. So it's site plan you can probably get into whether there needs to be a traffic light added at Seton Hall or the speed reduced over there on the Harley, those kind of issues. I would expect public works would. Yes, that's exactly what goes on. Okay. Thank you very much, John. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Miss. Mr. President. Teresa, help me with a couple of things, if you would. See if I can get to where I need to be here on the review criteria too. On uniformity of district regulations. Further see uniform application of district regulation because the same regulations will apply to the subject site as to all other areas on the AM you 2.5 in the city. Correct. But we have a waiver in this case. Mm hmm. So that one. That would. Standard would be different. Yes. Okay. Okay. So it is slightly different in that case. Until we until we complete the text amendment. Okay. Oh, I see. I see. On the third criteria. Furthermore, public health, safety and general welfare by allowing redevelopment that is in character with the neighborhood in scale and design. I'm having trouble seeing how what's proposed meets that. Can you help me with that? Well. The same height restrictions are consistent throughout. I mean, if you're building a single family home, you have two and a half. You're allowed to build two and a half storeys and 30 to 35 feet if you're building a townhome. You're allowed to build two and a half storeys and 35, 30 to 35 feet. The only building form in this context that has that two storey is the apartment for all others, including single family, have the entitlement to build two and a half storeys. But it talks about in character within the neighborhood. So not not with the code. When when this first came in, the proposal was that SMU three. Right. That would have allowed an apartment building to cover the entire lot from the front to the back in a three storey apartment building. Staff felt like that was out of character because this is a neighborhood that has. A different height in the front and the back. And that's what the zoning standards are, the way the zoning standards are written in the context. So with this new proposal, this new zone district, there is a height limit in the front, 65% of the lot. That's that higher height. But the rear, 35% of the lot is is held to one story. So Steph felt like that was more in character with the urban edge context. So the three of the of the original proposal differs from the three created by the waiver because of the setbacks on that third story. Is that. Correct? Well, that's plus those three stories are restricted to that front, 65% of the lot. It can't cover the whole lot like it would have in the suburban zone district that was first applied for. Okay. Thank you. And I don't I don't know who whether the developer or the owners. I'm just wondering along the lines of Councilman New was talking about. Has anybody had this discussion? I'm sure you've all heard your neighbors concerns. You may share your neighbors concerns about traffic in the area. I'm wondering if anybody's had any discussions with Denver Public Works about what might be done. And I understand that normally it waits until site plan to do this. But just wondering, I see no hands go up. Okay. Thank you. Further developer, Mr. Lewiston, without without the waiver. How many units does that would that limit development to? What? What does that third story waiver get you? Well, we can still build. An apartment form a 35 foot tall building. It has to be two stories. Okay, so I show on the. I show on the. 20 unit version is. Yeah. So that we can see what you'd end up with. We could do mezzanine and the second story and have a third, you know, so the second, the second floor units can have 15 foot ceilings and a mezzanine that takes up one third of no more than one third of the space below. I'm you know, I'm good at what I do, right? I mean, I'm not good at very much, but I'm good at land development. And so, I mean, I know how to max out of sight. And that's what whether it's me or the next developer, that's what would happen. So that's why we're we're hoping you'll consider. Yeah. And the last question I have for you, we heard 23 units. I've heard 50 beds. 60 beds. Do you know where you designed that far along. Yeah. Again, the math I'm not I, we have 9/1 floor units with three bedrooms to that. That's 27. 9/2 floor units with two bedrooms that's 45 and then not five is is 50. And then we have a penthouse unit that we haven't designed yet. So it's that's a little high, but. Okay, so about 50 beds. Yeah, something like that. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. I had questions for the four for you, Jason, but I'm going to skip first to Teresa. Are you aware that the city has never approved a stacked structure using their rowhouse form? I'm not aware of that. Okay. Well, they they never have. And it's in eight years of the existing row house. The row house, as you know, is the is the row house form an allowed building form in the zone this. It is. Are you certain of that? Well, can I go get my zoning code? Yes. I find the right page. You can do 4.3-5. I'm sorry. 4.3. Dash five. Three. Oh, that's my. And you're looking at probably something newer than I am. You're right. It is not. Okay. So the city has never allowed that form to you to have snack units. So what we did through the legislative means, through the slot home text. Councilman, I just want to make sure you're getting into a question and not a comment here. It's it's trying to get the staff up to speed on changes that have occurred in the life of this of this application. So is the townhouse form allowed in this zone district. In the EMU? Yeah. 2.5. I thought that's what we were just talking about. I meant the row house. And townhome is. Yes, but Row House is not. In the townhouse. Do you know what the difference is between the Townhouse District and the row house with regard to unit relationship between units? It's limited to. Understanding what you're asking. Me. It's limited to side by side only. Meaning we had to write a whole thing, a whole. It's been two years to create this sort of a bility to have street facing rowhouses units that weren't in fact stacked. And if you look at that zone district because you're saying something, you've said something in answers to my colleagues that sort of try to equate garden corps. I mean garden mean apartment forms at three. Stewart I mean at 2.5 and all the other forms at 2.5. So if so, if we look at the apartment form. What is the lot coverage? Maximum light coverage for an apartment dorm? Well, it would be restricted by those setbacks, so it would be a minimum 6000 square foot lot. But this is, of course, larger. There would be a block sensitive setback if there is. To. Where the condition exists. That you have a front rear and side setbacks. Correct. In every single one of the form standards. Right. But in the case of the apartment form, you can build the entirety of the space inside of that. Is that correct? Say that again. I'm sorry. You can build a building the entirety of the maximum height and volume inside of your setbacks. Yes. Which is what sub for that. The applicant has to step. Back. Right. Which is what I am. Which is what the applicant has depicted. Right. In their other drawing. Okay. Yes. So now going back, is there is there a lot coverage? So when you said that apartments mean that we're trying to equate the fact that you can build two and a half storeys in a suburban home, an urban home, a tandem home, and now an apartment. Can you build 100% inside of the setbacks in the in the other forms? And so is there a zone lot coverage maximum? Well, there's. The 6535. Split. That's on a height. That's the man in the massing. We don't have that restriction on the apartment form as of course we do. We do. We do. Where I see it for 65%. On the apartment for on. The apartment form. Front. Page 4.3. Dash 23. I'm looking at the zoning standards. Yeah. And so I told you, you're probably going to see something that's more updated than I. I'm looking, unfortunately, at the 21 that is predates the urban townhouse form. So you're looking at before the slot home. Text we did, we modified the apartment form to have this front back separation. Mm hmm. Okay, that's good. But we're still but I'm still talking about block coverage. So on the Urban House form, do we have a maximum lot coverage? Um. Let me get back to that one. Urban House. You have the front 65 and the rear 35. I'm talking about line I in the in the zone standard. Rear alley building coverage per zone long including all accessory structures for. It depends on your lot size. So it ranges between 37.5% and 50%. But we're only talking about the EMU 2.5, is that correct? Right. And so doesn't that just have one number? Um. No. It has a lot size. Okay. Oh. For depends on on the width of the light. Or we're talking about in this case, we're talking about a greater than 75 foot lot. Mm hmm. In width, that's 37.5%. So a maximum coverage inside of the setbacks of 37.5? Yes. Is that the same for all those other zone districts? Except for the. So for duplex in tandem. Well, on this chart it says all s u t u r h amu districts. You know, I thought I mean, let me, uh. It's a. Question. Councilman, if you already think you know the answer to your question, you should save it to comments. If you're asking a question that you don't know the answer to, then happy to entertain. What I'm just. Saying is, how did staff come to this idea that this is this is an appropriate waiver when we have in fact, articulated whole. Rooms. Rule changes to precisely to prevent the use of the rowhouse form first stacked apartment forms and that in fact, the apartment form is a different form, entirely akin to the representation that the the applicant has already shown on the existing parcel. And so I don't understand, I'm struggling with trying to understand that, but unfortunately I'm getting I'm not getting the answers from staff that sort of give me any sort of clarity that they understand these things. And so, um. Do you, do you have a question to ask? So you said that CPD is contemplating a text amendment. How did this perceived shortcoming in the zoning code come to your attention? How did. There's this shortcoming that that there's not enough stories in an apartment form that you need another story in a permanent form in this zone district. I'm. I'm don't know that. I just know that this is. I'm not on that committee that works on the text amendments. So I just know that it is on the list of text amendments to be done. I don't know how it came to our attention. So my colleague, Councilman Flynn, noted that this is a very complex waiver that is akin to a PUD. Is that the waiver? That the waiver. Is simply a number of stories. I think the councilman was talking about the covenants being complex. I think they are also restricting. Well, so it is so is is the waiver that staff is contemplating is it a because you've said three story a lot. And as you know, none of the zone districts here have three stories. They're all 2.5 in the waiver itself. In the code allows three stories. No, it only allows a half a story. I can't point to the language, but they're my understanding of the code is that if you have a two and a half storey height limit, you're allowed that third story. So I think we need to speak purely in the code. Write the code allows two and a half stories so you can have a have a partially habitable third floor. You cannot be the entirety of the third floor. A third story would be three. Because if we were to talk the what is the what is the change in condition that you cited? For the justifying circumstances, correct? Well, the applicant cited the change in that people are demolishing their houses and building to the newer standards of two and a half storeys. I cited the likely annex changes and the changes occurring on still as changes occurring in the area. So has anything actually changed with regard to the actual structures on the three subject parcels? No. So that was one of the interesting, too. Oh, I'll mention that later. And if this. So the applicant has shown us two options. One is this option. The other one is he's just concentrating an apartment building on a single parcel that already has the existing entitlement. If that applicant had come forward, hypothetically speaking, if the applicant had come forward with the request for these waivers on that parcel only. I mean, just simply a two and a half storey waiver would then staff supported down. I, I would assume so since we're supporting it on the larger parcel. So we could. Based on the proposed text amendment that. Okay. And then the last thing is, what is the number of snacks? So adjacent to this parcel is the. Adjacent. On which side? Yeah, on the on to the north. mx2x is the number of stories allowed on that. For which form. It's the the general building form is the only allowed form in that district. On my older version of the. Okay yeah. Mix 2x2 stories 30 feet. So. So there there is an existing and again, that too has the same similar to the apartment form. It doesn't have. It's not encumbered by a maximum lot coverage requirement. No is allowed to have. So it's allowed 100% build out to its setbacks. But it is restricted to two stories uniformly the same way the apartment form had been historically in this own district for the last eight years, or actually till today for the last eight and a half years. So staff is contemplating a waiver, I mean, a text amendment to grant through two and a half storey or three. Which is it? What is the text? The moment that staff is contemplating a two and a half story text amendment or a three story text amendment? Okay. So staff is constantly a two and a half story text a minute in an area where we already have 100% building capacity and it's restricted it to stories in other similar forms. The reason why I'm asking you that is if you go back to your townhouse form. You're talking about two different zone districts. In the same. Mix versus the EMU. In the same context. So let's go back to the town townhouse for what is the maximum building heights in the townhouse for. 30 feet or 35, depending on the width of the lot. Can you double check that one for me? Because that's all I have. You know, I apologize. See. Here's one of the things I'm trying to understand here is in the staff report, it said that the purpose for the waivers is to get to the three storey height, doesn't say to get an additional half story of development entitlement, but. The 30 to 35 foot height is the same, regardless of whether it's limited to two stories or as in this in the current incarnation, or if they were to get an additional half, is that correct? So the heights are not actually changing. No, the number of feet are not changing. So it's just additional development entitlement by the additional half storey on this floor. Right. Now, there are two different townhome forms. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. There's one for the mixed use district and one for multi-unit districts. Those are the slight home changes. Yeah. So it just maybe it's because this process started before this lot homes. But I don't know that we would review this as an apartment for other than the fact that they stacked it and moved it to the front. You know, it's once again, it looks this is weird because we're sort of talking about are we we're talking about a zoning change, but we have an actual project that is then articulated by. Other things, and I'm confused. Well, that's why we try not to talk about specific projects when we're doing zoning entitlements, because things can change. Yeah. And so thank you for that. And that leads to my one question for Jason, which is the letter that was passed out is not a restriction or covenant. Do you actually have an executed covenant that could be recorded on the property if this zoning were to go? Yes, we do. Do you have a copy of that? You can actually see I. I didn't bring it with me. Is that a two party deed restriction or a single party deed restriction? Okay, Captain. It's in the proper form to be recorded. It signed. Notarized. It's ready to be recorded just by the property owner or by a second agent. I'm sorry. Is there is it, say, Cranmer Park, Hilltop Civic Association, a signatory to the deed restriction? Yes. Okay. Because that that's crucial. I'd like to see. I'd like to be certain that the owner couldn't simply remove that recorded deed restriction, but that it would require two parties to do so. Well, I can have cranmer. The Cranmer had an attorney. I mean. You have to have. Faith that they're not quite that. Naive. Yeah. That's my problem, though, is that even though these are not matters for council to actually consider in their criteria, it is sort of crucial that, you know, there are a lot of things that are being codified for support that that need to actually have some measure of law to to go to. Because once the entitlement is granted, it's the entitlement for the entire mass that you have already articulated. But now across all three parcels, not just the one. Yes. And you mentioned at the planning board something that I do agree with, that there should be more interactions with the board and the developers rather than private parties. You mentioned that to me at the Ludie meeting. I agree with you and I have a lot to say about that. About developers meeting with city council members. I mean, I essentially now it's treated as a criminal trial and I'm a defendant like I'm O.J. Simpson and I'm not allowed to talk to my city council member after I've applied. That's absurd. Okay. I'm going to just check it, make sure that we're still questions about the the thing that's in front of us. We could, for another time, talk about how we wish the world was. This is the world that we're in and we're in a public hearing in the questions section. Councilman, do you have any further questions? No further questions. Okay. Thank you. Teresa, did you have an answer to one of the questions? One of the questions was the covenants. And you have a copy of the covenants attached to Tom Hart's letter. So in the in what we've been provided. Thank you very much. Councilman Flynn. That letter. Thank you, Mr. President. And Mr. Lewiston, just a couple of follow up questions on the. There was some testimony about affordable housing that these would be affordable units. And then there was other testimony. Yeah, these and I don't. Mean affordable capital AA, but generally affordable for the neighborhood. And then we heard some testimony that the price points would be up to a half million and and more. What is your plan for the price points of these units? They'll be three in the three hundreds to five hundreds. And I yeah, I don't like the word affordable because then everyone jumps down my throat and says, it's not affordable. They're moderate. Right. Anything that's purchased. Purchased as affordable by the party to purchase. Yeah, there are holes there referring to the building, the houses behind it. Behind there. Right. Okay. And then there was you had a quote that if you think this is bad, that if you didn't get the rezoning and think you're upset now, where do you see what I'm allowed to do by law? You know, that was badly out of context, but. Okay. Well, I'm giving you the opportunity to contextualize it. Thank you. The reason I brought that up was in your option two that I'm looking at here in your architectural drawings, you have 22 units. One fewer, except 20 of them are on them are on the parcel already zoned. So your option two is based on your current zoning. And is this the one that you were? Is this what you were referring to about? Yes. I don't know how to do by law. And you spoke to this earlier. I met with these. I'm I'm it. My girlfriend is one of the owners. I mean that's everyone knows that. Most people know that. I don't. Like. Well, I. Don't I don't read the society. I'm bragging, which is I'm. Bragging because she's a tall, hot blond and I'm excited. That she is. But I will lose you a couple votes right there. The point was, I was starting to hear these people are going to have to pour money into these buildings and I wasn't going to allow that. That's insane. It's a 1957 crawlspace building. So the options were, do we sell it to the to the you know, I'm also a broker. Do we sell it to a developer? And a developer would would do this a developer wouldn't put up with I mean, who needs this this aggravation? I mean, frankly, I mean, to get called names and to be called accused of things. Mm hmm. So. Okay, so. So option two on your architectural drawings. That's what that's what you were telling me. But, I mean, someone would max it out. We've seen what happens when I mean, when developers are given free reign. I mean, I never imagined we'd have a problem convincing the neighbors that that that that this was a bad option. But, you know, Lord knows. I just wanted to hear from you what was meant by that quote. So this is there's going to be a new development on this street period. These units are going up for sale. So if if we get the rezoning, we're going to build this project. If we if we don't, we're going to probably sell to the general public. And you're probably going to get some a lot closer to option two, not for me, because I want to come back here and I don't want people to hate me and think that I'm tasteless. This is tasteless, but it's allowed to be built. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Herndon. He was president. Nate Mesereau had a question for you. I'll try to bring this back to what I thought we were actually supposed to be talking about was the zoning. So, Nate, the charge before us is we have a question of we have a current zoning and they're requesting the rezoning to go to another zoning. And that is what we should be talking about. And the reason why I'm asking this is because there have been a lot of conversations about the development. However, what they have, what they have proposes development they're not obligated to because we're creating a zoning that allows X. Now, there is a covenant in place that says you cannot go above these restrictions. But if the current proposal that they have said in front of us, they're not obligated to that. There's just obligated to whatever the zoning affords are allowed is correct? That's correct. Nathan Mr. Assistant City Attorney. Thank you for the question, Councilman. You are correct. What you're considering tonight is a rezoning and whether or not the particular zoned district that's being requested. Is. Appropriate and meets the. Criteria that's outlined in the Denver zoning code. You're not deciding on any particular project that may be proposed for the property. It's simply whether or not the rezoning is appropriate in this location. And Theresa and Joel touched base on this, but just to kind of hit a little harder, conversations about traffic are kind of futile because we don't know what the proposal is going to be because they have not gone through the site development process. That's true. It's kind of tricky to consider the traffic impacts, but this council may consider traffic if you sort of look at the rezoning holistically and what could what could be built at this location, then certainly there is going to be some traffic considerations. And the opinion that Mr. KIRWIN referred to earlier did indicate that that this council may consider traffic in certain circumstances is what the opinion says. But but it is difficult. To to know. What the project is going to be. So you kind of have to. Take take. It into consideration. And give it whatever weight you think that deserves. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Are there any other questions? That's one black. I just again, like to ask about the covenant. So. Say this. This did pass. They are immediately will go into effect. They'll be filed tomorrow morning and they go into effect. Could you come answer that of the microphone for all the people watching on TV who can't see or hear you? Thank you. Yes, they are immediately enforceable upon approval and will be recorded on the deeds. And and does that require that you or someone come down to the Kirkland Recorder's office and do that? Who files them. Let's see who files it. Yeah. The buyer. Yeah, we could. Either one of us could do it right there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. They're signed and notarized and. Okay, then, Councilman Black. Thank you. I see no other questions. I just want a quick clarification. Teresa, I know you thought you were off the hook earlier. I believe it was. Councilman Cashman was asking along the lines of scale mass heights in the neighborhood. We had one of these in my district a little while ago where there was a lot of talk of that because the existing buildings in that area are one story, but the zoning allows. And in that area, it happened to be in our very tall buildings when when we were looking at the legal criteria for rezoning. We're not looking at the form, scale and height of the buildings that are there right now. We are looking at the form, scale and height of what is allowable under the current zoning. Is that correct? Okay. CPD is looking at. Thank you very much. Okay. That concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 1346 is closed. We're going to move to comments by members of council. Each council member will have an opportunity should they choose to comment. And we're gonna start with you, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the people in the in the chambers, too. I know those seats are pretty hard. And for you to sit through that, I think I really appreciate your being here. I didn't ask a lot of any questions because I know a lot of the answers. I think that considering the traffic is really important and we have had some counts on Holly recently. I don't have them in front of me. But it is the some of the reasons why we were able to put in a new left turn signal on alameda and holly. It was why we were able to put a speed notification permit, permanent speed notification sign near the school. And it was a reason for us to put the pedestrian kind of strobe light thing at Holly and Cedar. So the city has taken into account to a great deal how the traffic has changed on Holly. I live at fifth and hudson very close to all of this and I have lived in Hilltop for about 47 years and so I have seen some changes myself since I've been living there. I remember in our neighborhood, just just a block from my house was this project to put in some stacked flats condos at Third and Holly. I will recognize those if I talk about them. There's 32 of those I learned. I thought it looks looks like there's about ten, but there are 32 of those. And excuse me for sort of waxing historical here. And I was, you know, a young mom when they went in. But 20 years ago, I'm going to guess and actually fought the fort. They're going in not because of the number of people that were coming into the neighborhood, but because we were going to lose our grocery store and our drugstore. For those who have been there a long time, like I am, that losing that was a very hard thing to do because having those kind of amenities in a neighborhood are wonderful. The ability to walk to some of the places that we can do and we have some embedded retail in this neighborhood, the Holly and Cedar Place being one of them. We used to have more of it at Third and Holly, we used to have have it in other places because when neighborhoods were built a long time ago, they had they had the opportunity that people could at least set some time during the day, not have to get in their car to go to a place they want to do, wasn't going to take cars away, but it was at least going to give some opportunities to not have to get into a car every single time. And that particular 32 flap project at Third and Holly has never really presented any particular traffic problem that that Hilltop has ever noticed or worried about . We're talking about 23 residences here at on at this part, at this project that is close to being able to walk. So that's some of the things that you want to do during the day. You wouldn't need your car like that. Gosh, there's a grocery store and a liquor store and a butcher shop and a couple of restaurants, and there are opportunities to not have to use your car every single time. When we were building Lourey and Stapleton, we knew that we had to also produce neighborhoods where people could walk to things and not get away from what we did in the sixties, which was remove all housing from all commercial, which increased the use of our cars enormously. Now we have this huge population coming into the city and if they cannot find a place to live, they move to the suburbs, which increases our traffic exponentially, exponentially, because 60% of the traffic we get in Denver is from the suburbs. Most it is the most of the traffic which we have. The more spread out we become, the more traffic we have. And so when when thinking about projects like this in a neighborhood, it's almost returning to the kinds of neighborhoods we used to build. If you take a walk through Capitol Hill and those of you have been around here a long time know there's lots of apartment buildings right next door to single family homes so that people of all walks of life would be able to live in the same place together. You do want to have the ability for young people to be able to live in a neighborhood you want to. You able to have your teachers and your nurses and your craftsmen to be able to live in in neighborhoods? The hilltop and increase more are some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city. But I'm pretty prejudice about it. But I think there are some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city and we won't build them again because the land is too valuable. The the the and the need for housing is too great. So if we're not going to build those again, how do we give people an opportunity to enjoy some of the amenities that these neighborhoods have? How do I make sure and I and I know that these are not affordable in the technical sense. But it is true that the median price of a house sold in hilltop last year and this is from the data, was $1.1 million. That was the median price of a hilltop home. Interesting. The median price of a smart home was 833,000. I would have guessed it was reverse. I would have guessed the homes and cars more would have been more expensive than the ones in Hilltop. So if you have a way to move into a home in this neighborhood for 300 to $500000, that is a lower price point in order to to move into that neighborhood. And the what we need to have is a housing stock that has is it has a variety of the kind of housing that people can possibly want to live in. In our in our cities. Because if we don't, they're going to move to the suburbs and we're traffic is going to get worse. Now in zoning. And, you know, the thing we worry about a lot about in zoning is scale. You don't want a huge behemoth building next to smaller ones. I mean, we certainly have examples of that. We had examples of it was flat homes and we decided that just isn't going to work. It just doesn't work to have smart homes. We have examples like the Darth Vader building on South Colorado Boulevard, this huge monstrosity of thing that's around all the small. It looks like some huge middle finger, if you ask me. And so we don't we want to look when they're doing zoning that it be in scale, that that it's at the size of the other buildings near it. And this is the exact same height as a with setbacks that are similar to the single family home setbacks by the covenants that are in place that if if if the if if we didn't do this if we didn't have the covenants in place that the neighborhood worked very hard on. And there's a very like, you know, Miss Bowman has left the work that they did on 50 South Colorado Boulevard. They were the neighbor worked work really hard to get covenants on there to have reached an agreement with the developer so that that one could go by. We didn't have that we wouldn't be able to ensure the scale that the covenants can help us insure for so that it doesn't look strange in the neighborhood and the process certainly asking for mediation and having neighbor neighbors get to talk to each other. Not only that, the neighbors in which neighborhood this is in, but also the neighboring neighborhood, because everybody has a feeling about it and effect on it. I think it was a very good process and certainly even a mediation. You're mediating between people who don't agree with each other. And so somebody is going to be some people are going to be happy and some people aren't. But to go through the long process of mediation about this, I, I think kudos belong to the Crowder Hilltop Association for taking that kind of time to do it. So for all of these reasons, it's not going to be popular with the people who are against this. But for all of the reasons related to a variety of housing stock, to traffic concerns, to scale, to process, I am in support of this project and I encourage my counsel for council members to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Are there other comments? Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So I want to thank Councilman Herndon for getting us back to the subject matter of right, which is the zoning and looking solely at the zoning. Why that helped me. Because the thing that I was struggling with in my questions was how did we end up what? What is the city really, truly contemplating with respect to changes in this zone district that justifying these waivers that then some how does it result in what I think is actually a pretty awesome project? If this proposal came to my neighborhood, I would be fighting like hell to get it through. I'll just be honest, but we're not getting things like this, you know, we're not getting this level of compromise or concession and sort of voluntarily. But I can't overlook the fact that, yeah, it's simply a mass and scale question about the zoning at hand. And so what I did is I appreciate the applicant bringing forth these renderings, right? Because this is what the zoning district would be approving of tonight. Not the one gray box, but the gray box, plus the blue box, plus the half story above. That's the entitlement. What we're talking about is this proposal. You can see the difference between those two. This is why I support this idea wholeheartedly. But there's nothing. The only thing that could tell me that, yes, this would happen is the actual deed restriction being ready to record on that property, which actually is not a matter for this council to even consider. I have articulated and he did it. Ludie and the applicant agreed that the Council should be able to consider a good, solid deed restriction that gets this outcome. And then that would be a justification on why you would never go here, but you would allow compromise to get here. That's actually really way, great way that the city should operate. And I have articulated to Legislative Council that we should have that rule in our rule book. And I have been told that nope. The way we already defined our waivers and conditions is adequate enough. I'm telling you tonight, this whole fight doesn't happen if we have a way to get here without enabling this. Because that's how we've done it in District one. And so you have this solution sort of I don't have that covenant. And I'm telling you right now, and this is going to probably set this thing up for litigation. If I had that covenant, I'm probably siding with this applicant because I know this isn't going to happen. But as a legislator, I have to think about, is this appropriate? And that's where I'm struggling, you know, because I would argue that, yeah, if we just look at the gray box, that entitlement exists, it's the other 60% of that lot that does not. And that other 60%. You can't develop that many square footage. That's where I was going with my comments. Mean my questions to staff there's maximum zone lot coverage of restrictions on those other two parcels to the tune of 37 to 50% depending on which which form you use. And so right now that whole half a story isn't an option in that zone district. And that's consistent with all the other I mean, the other two massive forms, general form and storefront form that are allowed in this this context in the adjacent immediate area. So I appreciate Greg KIRWIN bringing up the white law matter and then putting it in into comments here. It's in here. Thank you for having it in filing it. Not because of the question about health and safety, regarding traffic, because that's legitimate. You're adding an entire half a story. There are units that come along with that city. Sort of pretends that we don't consider density because we don't. But Plan Blueprint Denver the one that's on file, the one that applies here contemplates density all. I mean over and over and over again. So we cannot assume that a half a story is just void of people. It's going to have people. So that does have other ramifications. But what was interesting to me in that same decision was the other matter of justifying circumstances. And I'm going to call it up here and. So that was. Where? Oh, sorry. Picking through things. It reads, Finally, competent evidence exists on the record to support City Council's conclusion to justify justifying circumstances existed for the rezoning. And as noted above, the Denver Zoning Code provides that justified circumstances exist when either the land or its surrounding environs have changed or are changing again. There is no the only rezoning that occurred sort of just solidified an existing commercial development and existing non-conforming situation. Didn't change the zoning for the sake of changing the existing situation. And the neighbors in that case asserted that the land refers to the overall neighborhood itself rather than the parcel subject to rezoning. Because. Because. And but the city argued the city that's us landed that the land refers to the parcel. That's why I asked that question. Well, what's changed on the property itself? Nothing. It is still five modest homes that are affordable in this area. And yeah, I'm not naive. You look at that gray box and the entitlement that's on that gray box. Those five units are just like so many in my neighborhood are ripe for the picking. Probably why the property was bought in the first place and it will go away and you can still pack. I laid it out. You could take that same little row house structure and put two of them there and have nine. The 99 unit part nine space parking garage. So you get eight units and nine garages all in the same thing. Take the design that they have. Probably can for. To the new urban townhouse standards. So it's going to it's going to there's money to be made here. And density to come in the same product that we're looking at, just not as many of them is possible. So. So I, I go back to this this to my colleagues here. This is what you're approving, not this. That's the difference. And so I wish we had the tool. The tool isn't, unfortunately. In this letter it alludes to it, but I don't see it. And unfortunately, legally, even if I had it, I'm not supposed to use that as the justifying circumstance to approve this rezoning. So the criteria to me are not met, changing conditions, just health and safety concerns. It's not it's clearly not consistent with the adopted plans. And then the form and scale are already appropriate, even for the apartment form that is allowed on the existing parcel that is multi-family. So with that, I will be I will be voting against this rezoning. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. Thank you, all of you, for being here so late. And I particularly want to thank a few of the speakers. I didn't catch all your names, but some of you said some things that really hit home to me. Logan Mayer and Adam Ostroff and you both reminded me to be forward looking. And in another recent council hearing, I talked about advice I was given by a councilwoman who was in office in the nineties and later became chief of staff to a mayor and then director of Public Works, who reminded me. That all of. Our decisions we make our for the for the future. And so thank you for reminding me of that. And Councilwoman Sussman talked about the. Dangers of sprawl. And. You know, traffic is bad because we all get in our cars and we drive on the streets in our cars by ourselves, except for Councilman Clark, who takes his bike to work. But sprawl makes traffic bad. And so infill projects are really important. And so you both alluded to that, and I appreciate that. Additionally, housing diversity is really important in our city, and we don't want to have exclusive neighborhoods where you just have a bunch of. Large suburban houses that only a certain kind of people can live in. So thank you for remind me of that. Also, I heard all of you and. The two things I wrote down, what everyone said. There was some of you think that the housing the proposal is not affordable enough. There's a lot of discussion that could go around that. But the the number one by far and away the. Number one issue was traffic. And we all. Hear that every single day. Traffic in Denver has changed so incredibly much in the last ten years because. 100,000 people. Have moved to Denver. The metro area has grown by, I don't. Know, a million people since 1990. Everyone has a car. That's why traffic is bad and that's why we're all working on. Trying to get people to take other forms of transportation. But, you know, that's the cause of traffic. I was surprised to. Hear that four years ago, 11,000. Cars a day. Go on. Holly. I do think that is a lot of cars. I did. Calculate on my phone if you added 46. Cars because if you had 23. Apartments and each one had two cars, that is less than half a percent increase. And that that's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. I also I like this idea of of it being green. I am I like the idea that there was a compromise negotiated with the neighborhood. I think a lot of the features that you negotiated address some of the concerns we heard from people, particularly. Parking and landscaping, the. Reduced density. The alternative that could happen. I think, would be. Less consistent with the neighborhood. And I know some people expressed concern that this might set a precedent, and I don't think that that is true at all. I think our single family neighborhoods. Are very secure. This is a. Completely unique block. That has the PWD with townhomes and the commercial and just the two little single family homes. And those are the things that are the odd man out on that block. I think those two single family homes are the things that that don't fit in. So in addition to that, I do think it meets the criteria and so I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Cashman. Well, thank you, Mr. President. This is such a different world we're living in today. It's amazing. We're all seeing the same amount of change. The one thing that I heard that really rang out from me is Mark Gibson's statement. I'm looking at all the faces. I forget which one was Mark? If you're still in the house. Thank you, sir. About growth without mitigation. While I'm aware that we we're we're. We're looking at zoning category rather than a particular project. I think we need as a city to start looking at these zoning categories differently and to be doing traffic studies on what would happen if that zoning were taken to its maximum. And an approach in that direction. I believe we need to be a lot more attentive to mitigation then than we are now. And I do think we basically know what's going to be built on this site if this zoning passes. It may not be 23 units. It may be 20. I don't think those five houses are going to be there much longer. I may be wrong, but just looking at the evidence of what I watch around the city, it doesn't. The economics don't seem to reinforce the guess that it will remain single family homes. So, you know, my neighborhood is looking at neighborhood streets that are going to see somewhere between from the developer's estimate, 300 to 7 800 new units on neighborhood streets. What I figure we're looking at here is the difference between seven units. 14 units. 22 units. My tendency is to look at this as. By the way, the way I interpret the legal requirements that we're supposed to look at and I have trouble with the fact that the consistency in applying the zoning regulations is if we pass a text amendment allowing that extra half story. And I'm not convinced that the third element of health and safety is met. So I'm sitting here leaning towards not approving this rezoning. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Neal. I found this so interesting tonight because it just parallels and goes right along with what I was going through with one of my neighborhoods and one of my districts in very similar situation. Yeah, a couple of parcels asking for some rezoning from additional units and the zoning allowed for those parcels is two units less than what they're asking for, for the rezoning two units, you know. And so what can in your situation is so much better because their situation is they stay with the zoning, they're going to build nice homes, they'll fit character. You'll be fine. Your situation if you if we do know this today and not approve it, you're going to have a piece. I honestly what I'll say about this design but are apartment. Blocks. That will not fit character it will be ugly is terrible. We won't do anything to help you in the long run. And because that property is going to be developed here, you got a chance to build something so look nicer, at least in conformance to it. It may not be it may be more units, there's no question about that. But it's only on a main busy street. So I think that you have a chance to do a better with the what you see the means in the main thing. You don't want to stay within the zoning and see that other kind of alternative developed. Plus the other thing too is very similar to the other neighborhood. And guess what? Their issue big issue was traffic that this gave them the opportunity to address traffic with the city because they all rallied around traffic and safety and we'll be making improvements in that area here. You have a great opportunity to address traffic that can't be addressed by zoning. We've heard that can be addressed by that tonight, but it gives you a great opportunity to do something about Harley to make it safer. Like councilman assessment is mentioned. She's done it a little bit earlier. So I think that there's some opportunities there. So I will be voting for this tonight and knowing that it has to does meet the zoning and we can't consider the traffic. And I understand your frustration and I really do thank you for Mr.. Thank you, councilman. New Councilman Flynn Thank you, Mr. President. I know I was listening very intently to council members Espinosa and Cashman because they were touching on some of the things that concern me about the review criteria. And and I I'm concerned with what I see is perhaps an overly broad interpretation of some of them, such to the extent that there may be no rezoning application anywhere in the city that we couldn't we couldn't find a criteria here or there. If we if we sort of squint and say, well, justifying circumstances, changing circumstances here. And I think the the presentation said there are things are changing in the wider area around there that well, if you want to, you know, depending on how far you want to go and say, well, there's change over there and there's change over there, but I don't I don't see a change. I don't see changing circumstances on in the near vicinity of this block. One of the missions that we have in our plan and in Blueprint and unfortunately, we don't have a neighborhood plan here that we can that we can look to. But among the things that it says is that we can that we look for infill opportunities where they're appropriate. And I see a lot of places around Denver where they're appropriate, and I don't believe that I see that here. I also wanted to note that there was a comment and I want to differ a little bit with Councilwoman Black. There was a comment about single family neighborhoods. And I think one of the statements that was made was that the the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 sort of promoted the expansion of single family homes. I grew up in a town that had single family homes built in the teens and the twenties. And we have single we have Queen Anne's and Victorians built here in the 1800s. Single family homes have been a standard for a long time. And I think. The city needs to understand that if we don't also conserve single-family neighborhoods, we will not be a city that offers a diversity of housing forms. Density is appropriate where we have high frequency transit. I have some of those in my in my district. I have Federal Boulevard, for example, with excellent transit service. And we would welcome proposals down there. But as far as embedded in the middle of a single family neighborhood, that's to me, that's not conserving our diversity of housing forms and our single family neighborhoods. Denver has to be a city where your own where your only option, where your options to raise a family with kids are not limited to a high rise condo, but to a single family place where you put a swing set in the backyard. And I want to push back a little bit on the affordability of single family and whether that leads to segregation or not. My district is almost is very heavily single family and they're very affordable. My district is one of the areas of Denver that that still has affordable, single family units. And my district is majority minority. And we have increasing diversity. In my district, I'm very proud of that. And so I considering all that, I, I I'm going to vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I have listened to all of the input and have sort of leaned both ways based on the input. And, you know, we sit in a quasi judicial capacity here where our decision is based on the input that we get from you all at this public hearing. I know many of you have sent us emails and whatnot prior to tonight. Most of us don't look at that until this evening when the public hearing happens. But I just want to go through a couple of things. First of all, you know, large parts of of Holly are an arterial street. Some parts of Holly are more single family than other parts. Right. But at the end of this block is some commercial. I like the fact that the developer in the neighborhood worked out an agreement and that the details will be filed as a covenant on the property so that there is some assurance, regardless of who will develop the site, that that agreement holds. Still, I can remember when we did something called the Regulating Plan that was only an agreement between the developer and the neighborhood. And if the developer sold the property, guess what? That agreement didn't mean a damn thing. And so that's where this one matters. Yes, the project will generate some linkage fee funds for the amount of square footage that will be put into the development. But it's not going to be equal to the value of the units that are lost or the units that are being replaced. It just doesn't the math just doesn't work out that way. I share the concern about the justifying conditions, and we see this happen across the city over and over. And if you haven't looked at this, you all need to be paying very, very close attention to Blueprint Denver before it comes to city council, because it gets away from the verbiage of neighborhoods of stability. And my concern is that means every neighborhood is sort of up for grabs, if you will. And there is value to the single family character that we have in our residential neighborhoods. It's what people love about our city, right? We have great neighborhoods in our city. But when you look at some of them, like Jefferson Park, where Councilman Espinosa lives, that neighborhood doesn't look. Much of anything like what it used to in terms of the housing stock that is in that neighborhood, because it's pretty much changed significantly. I live in one of those neighborhoods and had I not purchased my home when I did in the Highland neighborhood, I couldn't afford to live there. So there is some value in in trying to protect our our single family neighborhoods. It doesn't mean that we don't want to see some development on the edges, which is what the old blueprint plan was all about. It was to look at how do we support development and some neighborhood services and creating more mixed use opportunities where you can have your residential with your commercial in your neighborhood, with that you can walk to without having to get in your car and drive, you know, a few miles away to access some of the services that you want. We know that growth is here and it's happening, but I'm not convinced we need to continue to do that at the expense of our residential neighborhoods. And how far is that reach where you say justifying conditions are what you use? I remember a rezoning in Councilman Lopez's district where because we have a light rail stop a few blocks away. That was used to justify going into a block that was a few blocks in from a commercial street right in the middle of a residential block to resolve. And then what happens? That domino effect. Right. I mean, I see Holly as a commercial corridor, but I also am concerned about. That that domino effect that we've seen happen in many of our neighborhoods. And it actually started in the Cherry Creek community. We've seen it in Sloan's Lake. We've seen it in Highlands. We've seen it in Jefferson Park, we've seen it in Park Hill all across the city. It's happening. And does that mean all development is bad? No, not necessarily. Because where we have density, we're getting greater services. Right. For our communities. But it's it's how we do it and ensure that bless you, that it's it's blended into our community and it's not. Having a degradation effect on the rest of the character of our neighborhood. So for all these reasons, I'm really struggling with being able to, you know, give a yes to this particular development. And part of what's what I'm struggling with is the fact that if you look at the west side of town, we're going to see well in excess of 500 units, 500 acres of development that is going to be happening basically west of I-25, west of, you know, along the federal boulevard corridor. That will stretch all the way to Councilman Flynn's district. And these are huge acres of of parcels where we're going to be seeing hundreds and hundreds of of. Square footage, thousands and millions of square feet of development. And we have to, as a city, look at the impact to our infrastructure. Can our sewer systems handle the volume of what we're going to put into these areas? Can our our our, you know, all of our utilities, our roads, our highway system, I-25, is already congested. And the plan they're doing right now with the Powell study does not go all the way to I-70, where we're going to see 43 acres at the Denver Post site alone. And that doesn't include all the rest of the sites in that same area that we've been rezoning. And we've got three of them that were just filed last week with more yet to come. So as a city council, we don't we don't dove into the details like the previous council that I served on used to, because that was delegated under the 2010 zoning change to the planning department. And the planning office gets to the planning board, gets to weigh in on some of this when it comes to them. But we don't get that level of detail. We don't get to vote on that level of detail. And I'm concerned that, you know, there's no predictability for the neighborhoods and to a large degree, there's no predictability even for the developers, because they come in, they get the form base right, the scale of what they're asking for. But then it's our planning department that gets to make the decisions on the details. And so for all these reasons, and I've been really vocal about the fact that. The way that the form based zoning works doesn't necessarily work in the best interest of our neighborhoods and the people who are planning these projects. And so for all those reasons tonight, I just am not comfortable voting for this one to move forward tonight. Thank you. Gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Right, seeing no. Other. Comments. Councilmember since community planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest signatures of the owners of at least 20% of the properties within 200 feet outside of the subject area has been met with petition signatures representing 27%. This means ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1346. Sussman, I. Black eye. Brooks Espinosa. No. Quinn, no. Gilmore Eye. Herndon Cashman. No. Kenny Lopez. No. New Ortega? No. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, with close the voting announced results. Eight eyes. Five knees. Eight eyes. Five knees. Since it needed ten affirmative votes and it only got eight then. Councilor Bill 1348 has failed. We do have two more public hearings tonight. But I will I will ask that if you are not saying for both of those, you please be quiet as you're leaving so that we can get on to those in the people who have been waiting a really long time for their chance at the microphone here. So we are going to get right into it. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1387 on the floor?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to Agreement No. 32027 with Psomas Corporation, to increase the contract amount by $206,400 for professional construction management and inspection services for the Belmont Pool Demolition and related temporary improvements, for a revised, not-to-exceed amount of $831,400, and make any amendments necessary to extend the term, and amend the scope of work within the contract amount. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0588

Thank you. I just didn't want it to be recorded. Okay. Moving on to the next item, which I believe is going to go back to the regular agenda. 17. Item 17 is a report from Parks, Recreation, Marine Department and City Manager with recommendation executed agreement with the Somers Corporation for Construction Management Services related to the Belmont Pool. Fair amount not to exceed $831,000. Can I get a motion? Councilwoman Price, you won't make the motion. Can I get the motion in a second, councilman that you want to begin? Put some comments. Can you hear on? I apologize. I wanted to ask city staff if they're available to comment on what the plans are in terms of preserving the landscaping and the trees that are there during the demolition process. Certainly, I'm going to turn this over to Tom Modica and Eric Lopez to report on how we're going to accomplish that and protect the quality of life for our neighbors. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember. Mr. City Manager. Members of the Council. These next two items refer to the demolition of the pool. As you know, we are moving forward because of the public safety impacts of having a substandard building there on that site to demolish the pool. We have done extensive designs and and plans for how to do that while mitigating the things that need to be mitigated. There is a concern about the trees that are on the parkway and the demolition process will not be affecting those trees. And we'll actually be taking some extra precautions and talking to the residents to try to protect the root systems of those trees as well. So there are, I think, three trees on the north side of the facility that are too close to the facility that that will be impacted and two small palm trees as well. But anything on the on the grass area, the old growth trees will be preserved through the demolition process. And and so with that, we're available to answer any other questions. I think there's been some some questions about birds and birds nesting. We do have a certified bird nesting survey that we've done to make sure that there are no birds nesting in those trees. And at this time there are not. Bird nesting season starts again in January. So that's why we're asking for authority to move forward with this, that we can not have impacts on on birds that would nest and trees. And that concludes my report. I just wanted to highlight that Mr. Modica has been working very closely with members of the community, including the stakeholder committee, to come up with options for what the pool is going to look like, ultimately options that will be presented to council and the public for input. But as we move through this process, I think it's very important for us to be mindful of the impacts of the demolition on the neighbors, the residents and obviously the environment that's surrounding that. So I want to thank staff for the work that they've done and make sure that we follow up with the process of the demolition with the same care that we're doing in terms of the process that will be involved in building the new facility. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to know if the demolition would take up staging or the staging would take up public parking for the pier. I know we've heard some concerns there or maybe even the nearby retailers, shops or residents. Vice Mayor, I will address that question. The the staging area for the contractor has been identified. And so in the area similar to what was used for the temporary pool, it's adjacent to the beach maintenance yard. It is on the east side of the temporary pool. So that's been identified as a temporary staging area. It may impact up to 40 parking stalls. The total amount, however, will be will be determined as soon as the contractor is on board. But there will be no more than 40 stalls temporarily impacted. Okay. Thank you. Public comment on the item. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. My, my. My name is mumbled. My name is Susan Miller. I've been a 20 year resident across from the pool and I am very concerned about old growth trees, existing Green Parkway and the old growth trees around the Belmont Plaza pool must remain intact. The green area and the old growth trees are public recreation maintained in the natural areas are important for the environment, wildlife, the residents and our future generations proper. Prior steps to demo must be included. A certified arborist being consulted by the city of Long Beach to make suggestions on what protection measures need to be taken to save the old growth trees around Belmont Plaza Pool. Contacting the State Fish and Wildlife Department to ensure correct protection measures are taken prior during the demo, during the construction and the building phases. So the wildlife and trees are not damaged or destroyed from researching online. The old growth trees have an extensive root system and digging into the greenbelt area located by Belmont Pool will damage and kill their root system. A safety parameter needs to be set up around the greenbelt trees so the heavy equipment isn't driven over the ground, compacting the soil that will kill the trees. The trees need to be tracked from the asbestos, the concrete dust covering the leaves and without the water. Since the irrigation system has been shut off or what is caused that the trees and the grass have not been watered. The grass is dead, it's totally brown and the trees are going into shock and the leaves are curling. The trees are nesting grounds for endangered birds that are protected. About two and a half years ago there was an extreme tree trimming that happened along the greenbelt and then the construction started for the temporary pool and that very much disturbed the nesting and migration of the birds in that area. The demo impact on the environment, the residents and the preschool needs to be seriously considered. Extra cost and consideration needs to be taken to protect the preschool children from the noise like jackhammers, wet sign the generators and endless equipment operating, let alone the asbestos and concrete dust impacting the environment, the wildlife, the children and the residents. The Green Parkway. In the old green growth trees are natural sound barriers, absorbing noises, saving all the green built in all the old growth trees are major concerns for the residents, the dog walkers, public recreation and must not be destroyed or removed. Measures must be taken to protect the natural areas, the wildlife and the neighborhood from noise, air, light pollution. Prior to any demo and building process of the pool, any encroachment into the existing Green Parkway and old growth trees is not acceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, mayor and city council members. It is still evening. I am Terence Anderson. I'm president of the Belmont Shore Residents Association. I've been a resident of Belmont Shore for 20 years now. I am extremely encouraged by the comments made by our third district councilwoman and by Tom Modica. I agree with the comments made by the previous speaker, Susan and I. All my notes are exactly what Susan spoke of. So I encourage you to, during the demolition process, to be mindful of not only the human residents that are around the. Area, but also. The bird wildlife that do make those trees a nesting ground and. Also for the the other. Community interests there. It's very important to us that this is done in a safe manner, and we look forward to what's coming in the future and working with the city to make sure that we have a great facility. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello again. I'm Jeff Miller. When I spoke to you earlier, the sun was still relatively high in the sky. And here it is past my bedtime now. In the future, when we have these long hearings, maybe you could bring pizzas in. I think that would that would help us. I wanted to just go one step further about this and not repeat the same comments, but to to say that what has been allowed to happen there is really shameful that green space is now a brown space and that should not have happened, but a since it has. You can correct to that. So I would like the city to restore that to what it should be there. I live a few blocks from there and I'm over there more than once a week and there are hundreds of people a day, without exaggeration, who use that space walking through the park, their bicycling, walking, their dogs, children playing, people going to the restaurants across the street and then wandering through the park area. And it should not have been allowed to to let go the way it is now. So please restore that area and see that it's preserved during the demolition. Thank you. Thank you. Concludes the public comment for the item. There is a motion on the floor. So Members, please go and cast your votes. I. Motion carries eight votes. Okay. Next item.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4225 Elati Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, mixed-use), located at 4225 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-0878

I. Madam Secretary, polls close voting in the results. 1339 Council Bill 877 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 878 on the floor? I Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 19 0878 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilman. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. The required public hearing for Council Bill 878 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening members of council on all these here from CPD to represent the staff report for the rezoning case at 4225 North LRT Street requesting from IAU oh two move to C.R. x 12. The subject property is approx is located in the District nine Globeville neighborhood and more specifically in the Fox station East Area. The proposed rezoning is to rezone from urban center neighborhood context to residential mixed use 12 storey height maximum. The subject property is approximately 25,000 square feet or just over a half acre. The rezoning is to allow for redevelopment of the site. The existing zoning on the site as IAU oh two, which is our light industrial complex, which uses FDR as a maximum way of measuring form intensity. And you oh two as a billboard use overlay. No, billboard is currently on the site. The surrounding area is primarily zoned IAU oh two, but there is some CRCs directly to the east as well as CMCs 20 and CMS eight to the west. The existing land use on the site is office and industrial uses and the surrounding uses are industrial multi-unit, some residential office and vacant parking type uses. The subject. Property is shown on the lower right hand corner and the top right hand corner shows the property across the street. And as you can see, the primary character is industrial, low scale uses. The process here today. I'm sorry. It looks like we have an old PowerPoint on here. Ludi that was in August and the public hearing is tonight. In terms of public comments, we have receded, received a letter of support from the Globeville Civic Partners United Action. You can and those are both included in your staff report as well as a letter of support from the property owner at 4320 North LRT Street. The rezoning review criteria are illustrated here and there are five in which I will go through. The first of which is consistency with the adopted plan. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies and comprehensive plan. Specific strategies consistent with this rezoning are equitable, inclusive and affordable goal. One Strategy to increase the development of housing units close to transit and in mixed use developments, as well as the following to create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for individuals as well as trade as well as families. Excuse me. The proposed rezoning will enable for mixed use infill development that allows for new housing near the 41st and Fox station at an intensity that is consistent with the dense, walkable mixed use neighborhoods around transit. Explicitly expressed in this plan. With regard to Blueprint Denver, it provides guidance on the future neighborhood context and identifies the as urban center, which is characterized by high intensity residential uses as well as some significant residential and employment uses. Development typically contains a substantial mix of uses with good street activation as well as connectivity. The future place types as identified as high residential, which is intended to accommodate a high mix of uses, including many large scale multi-unit residential uses as well as some commercial uses. LRT Street is identified as a designated local, and Fox Street is a mixed use collector. Found one block over the site, is close to the new station platform at 41st and Fox, and there are additional bike and pedestrian connections along Inka Street connecting down to downtown. Per the blueprint growth strategy. The site is within a high residential area and these sites are anticipated to accommodate 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. And the proposed map amendment will see our ex 12 will focus residential mixed youth growth growth near transit station and an appropriate context which is intended for a growth of this kind. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with blueprint done over the Forty-firsts and Fox stationary. A plan was adopted in 2009 and established a diverse, transit supportive, sustainable urban center for the station. The subject site is mapped as urban residential, recommending maximum building heights ranging from 2 to 12 stories. Urban residential is intended to accommodate primarily residential uses, but allow for a noteworthy number of complementary commercial uses. Some of the infrastructure recommendations of this plan have not yet been completed as noted previously, and the city has adopted rules and regulations this past November to apply to any development in this area that requires a site development plan . The rules and regulations establish a vehicle trip capacity in the area that allocate the remaining trips as the projects are submitted and then built. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 2014, and it reinforces the vision established at the 41st and Fox station for a diverse transit supportive urban center at the station area. The subject site is mapped as urban residential, which is intended to accommodate higher density, primarily residential uses with complementary commercial uses. It is also map to the area of change and therefore it is an area where it is desirable to channel growth. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations. Additionally, the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans, as well as facilitating increased housing density through a mix of uses which has been linked to several positive health impacts. The justifying circumstances for this area is changed or changed condition. The staff report details physical changes in the area, including the 41st and Fox station, opening the pedestrian bridge, connecting to the west and the English Street multi-use path as well as some nearby development as well as redevelopment occurring. The rezoning would recognize the changed area character of the area as it transitions to a transit oriented development and finally, consistency with neighborhood context, district purpose and intent. The requested Crux 12 is consistent with the neighborhood context description, its own district purpose as well as intent. As noted before, while the subject site is not immediately adjacent to an arterial as it is located on anchor, Fox Street is immediately one block over and the site as a whole is served by arterials and is also established within a transit station. Allowing for other multimodal connections with that staff recommends approval, finding that all the review criteria have been met. That concludes my staff report and the applicant is here as well and is signed up to speak. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Andy Blanding. Hi. My name is Andy blaming my wife and I own blaming dirt work. That is an excavation company that excavate basements and we do sewer and water installs and repairs. We've been in business 26 years and we've been on that site 20 years. The property is about two blocks away from the Fox Street light rail station. We have a metal building on the property that's 1000 square feet we use for an office and an attached garage that we use for storage. We also use the property dump trucks, trailers and tractors. I noticed that last November. We noticed that a rezoning was taking place around us. So I, I thought that we should start doing that. So I enlisted the help of Steve Farris here to help me with the zoning process. We started work with the pre application conference in February and have been encouraged by city staff and others to complete the process, including unanimous support from the Planning Board in August. That said, the main reason I'm rezoning is I'd like to have the property ready to sell when it's time for me to retire. Steve and I met with city staff, community groups and neighbors, and all were supportive of the rezoning. I'm one of the smaller landowners planning for rezoning and it looks like the bigger properties are being resolved, and I hope that I'm going to be rezoning also. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Steve Farris. Good evening, counsel people. I reside in Denver. Steve Faris. As Andy noted, this rezoning is a significant facet of his retirement plan. He's worked on this since February. We've, as you know, reached out to a lot of neighbors. We also found early on that there was a lot of consistency with all of the city plans, as was referenced in their earlier rezoning you just looked at tonight. And I do think there's a lot of good reasons, but I've heard some inklings that some people felt this rezoning is different than the other one you just heard . And I just want to kind of make it clear that this is Andy's only property. The prior rezonings are was by people who own several different parcels have also re zoned other parcels in upper fox. In the meantime, this is Andy's only site and he is looking forward to seeing this come to fruition. It's a smaller site. It's more likely to be combined with another site in the future. He supports any infrastructure and affordable housing requirements that are out there. There's are looking we're watching those and I think Chris Nevitt and Karen Good are doing a great job. I hope they do some innovative and new things that'll help this area achieve its infrastructure goals. And finally, I guess we just want to state that this is a great area for rezoning. It's an opportunity where redevelopment can be a force for good. There's that train station there deserves more higher density. It's a five minute ride to downtown and a five minute walk from most sites up there. So rezoning facilitates that, and it's great for the city to have that done. With that in mind, I just hope if you're considering anything negative about this, I'll be happy to answer any questions we've counted or 11 or 12 other rezonings up here that have been approved and we hope are in that list tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm represented for Denver Homicide Law. Black Stocks. A Movement for self-defense. Positive Action. Commitment for Social Change. Universal African Peoples Organization and Unity Party. Colorado. We are actually in favor of this. I just wanted to know what the AMA level was going to be for the residential mix you see at this property. And also, if you did a traffic study to determine whether or not Foch Street is going to be able to accommodate all of this new development, all this traffic that is coming through this thoroughfare. So if you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council on this item? Catholic America. Thank you. So, Mr. Blending, if you can come forward. If. So you're you're wanting to do this as part of your retirement plan, but do you have any specific plans for this site if you're successful getting it rezone tonight other than selling it? No, my my plan would be to sell it. I'm not I'm not a developer. Okay. Are you looking at doing that in the immediate future or. You know what I would think in the next year or two. Okay. Um, I want to ask Chris now if you wouldn't mind coming back. This particular application made reference to the trip generation study. And what I didn't clarify earlier was when you anticipate that the study will be completed so that we have some clarity on what options are available to the property owners in this area that want to develop. So again, Chris Nevett, city's toady manager. The the next step study is what I'm talking about. Sorry. Right. So that the next step study will not is not a traffic analysis of like what the capacity of the existing infrastructure is or necessarily a detailed analysis of what additional capacity will be gained by new infrastructure investments. The the the rules and regulations have established as a, as a matter of record that Public Works believes that the capacity of the existing roadways is 25,000 trips in 2023. We sort of set a five year, you know, let's let's have these rules and regs in place for five years. Five years hence will be 2023. And in 2023, we'll do a re analysis of what the roadway capacity is and how much of that capacity is being used. But the next step study won't be doing those those calculations. So clarify then specifically for my colleagues what the next step study is doing. Sure. I will drag my colleague Karen good up again. She's the project manager for the next step study and she can answer any detailed questions. I'm trying to get to the connection between. Yeah. What's been developed and how many troops will be in the area to, you know, how we solve the problem of the fact that we've got one intersection to get traffic through into this site. We have no CDOT commitment at this point in time unless you have some new information to revisit looking at that intersection. And that's critical to moving traffic both into North Denver and into this 41st and Fox area. So help me with that. And then I've got one last question. Okay. Let me just toss this out here. The in some ways, the the the next step study can even be independent of of these rezonings. We have a station area plan that anticipates considerable density and we have a roadway capacity that cannot accommodate the kind of density that we've planned for now in many places in the city , we do a station area plan or a small area plan, and then we come back with a next step study to sort of drill down on what are the infrastructure moves specifically that the, the, the the station area plan might call for. And the station area plan did call for additional capacity into this area to accommodate development, but wasn't very specific. The next step study is doing precisely that is figuring out what are the infrastructure moves that can be made to add roadway capacity and multimodal capacity to this area to support the development that the plan anticipates. But for the detail, I'm handing it to my colleague, Karen. Good. Karen Good Denver Public Works. So the easiest way to think about the next step study might be taking. As Chris said, it's that next step of that stationary, a plan it's looking at. Okay, here are the big picture. High level ideas in the stationary plan. What can we really do? How much is it going to cost? We in a plan, you're looking at a 50,000 foot level where we're the 10,000, 5000 foot level. Now, I'm saying, okay, well, we looked at connections to the west. Where could those be? How could they work? How much might they cost? Who could contribute to those and those connections? At the north end of the station, we're looking both at a connection to the West or a connection to the North. But either way, at that north end of the station to augment the 44th connection, we're only looking at the connection onto the 45th Main Street as having supported bike and pad, not additional vehicular capacity. So that's important to know. But there are two ins and outs to the stationary, not just one. We also have sat down with CDOT. They're open to conversations. They don't have any funding and you would need to go through a federal process to get any changes to the interchange, whether that and we are looking at some different things. You can you can look online, lots of fun stuff. We had a public meeting. We were looking at possible changes to the signals to how the interchange works from a layout standpoint and signaling standpoint to even roundabouts. So we're just, again, high level, not saying any of these are the right solution, but let's look at what. The. What the Delhi train might include and then picking and choosing what actually will work in collaboration, obviously with the community members and property owners and businesses in the area. Does that hit your questions? It it helps. So now I'm going to go to, if I may, I have one last question. Good. Mr. President, to in Elise, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So given the fact that we only have 5000 trips left of the 25,000 available based on what's been assigned to other projects, and that really includes only like three or four of the sites that have come in for rezoning. And we've already done close to a dozen that have been brought before City Council. So what happens to the sites that are already resold or are in the pipeline to be resolved when all the trips have already been allotted and there are no trips left for any of the ones that didn't get in line fast enough to get any of those trips assigned to their development. Yeah, if there were no more trips allowed. And so it was before the time that we revisited those trip counts, then they would not be able to move forward at the time of site development plan. They would not be able to develop at all. Generally speaking, I mean, they might have a few trips that they're currently using from their existing site, so they might have a small delta, but generally if they don't have the trips, then they might be limited in their development capacity. So let me ask this question in a different way than. I understand anybody has a right to try to rezone their property. But if. The reality is that we have maxed out what can happen in this area because of the way that we're calculating trips. Has CPD. Basically not allowed any new ones coming in because I don't want us to be putting the city in a situation where we're giving everybody the impression that they can build to the maximum height that the zoning potentially allows, but yet the amount of trips is going to significantly cap what people can do. And we all know that if you can't if you can't park a project, you can't finance a project. Banks won't finance projects without parking. So that's why I'm asking the question. Just trying to understand whether or not CPD is continuing to allow applications to keep coming through the door. Knowing the challenges we have with this specific geographical area of the city. And water comes up, can we just ask one clarifying question? When you say applications, do you mean rezoning applications or. Yes. Great man. Answer the answer to that. Thank you. Good evening, Sergio Walter with community planning development. So I wanted to answer this one just because it's a kind of big picture question how somebody thinks about rezonings in this area. The rules and regulations are tied to site development plan, and part of that is because it's at that time that we know enough about the project to be able to know how many trips to allocate. So right now, in most of the rezoning applications before, you would allow for a wide variety of projects to happen. They can have very different trip counts. And also that trip count can vary depending on very specific things about, for example, team strategies they might do to reduce trips . So so far as you know, and that's why there's the situation that we have now, our approach has been anybody who wants to come in and submit an application can do so. We are talking about no because we're aware of how constrained this area is and the fact that there are a lot of rezonings that have already been approved. We don't know what might happen on those sites. They might not develop at all and they wouldn't take any chips. They might develop and take a certain amount of trips. If they build one type of project, another amount of trips, if they build another type. But going forward, we're looking for ways to better connect the trip, count to the rezoning stage rather than just at site development plan. And that would remove the disconnect that's happening right now, where you don't get to how many trips are available until you come in for site development plan. So we'd like and that's the reason why the rezonings are happening, because the rules and regs aren't connected to the rezonings and the rezonings have to be evaluated by the adopted plan that's in place. But going forward, for any future applications that you see, we're looking to do a better tie between a rezoning and how many trips are left at that time. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Counsel comes from Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a question for analysts if you could come. So if you could go to slide or in your slide deck to slide 11. So on slide 11, if you read bullet point six and eight, I just I just want to bring this to everyone's attention. So it talks about environmentally resilient goal, promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. And I just have to say that I feel like that's inaccurate to have that bullet point on this slide deck, considering that we're having a whole entire discussion about next step studies and considering having rules and regulations. I don't know anywhere else in the city and county of Denver that have rules and regulations on parking. So I just have to say that I don't agree with that. Kathleen, I just want to remind you, we're in questions. Our comments. You are you get this is a question. Okay. And then I just want to say that number eight, it says environmentally resilient, focused growth by transit stations along oh, no, it was a different one encourage mixed use communities where it can it basically it's talking about medium capacity transit corridors. So can you tell me is this just like. Is this just like you put this in every presentation, the same the same bullet points, or is this presentation specifically for this rezoning? So does this slide look different and different rezoning or is this boilerplate? The slide does modify based off of rezonings, and while there are still many infrastructure gaps, it's also not greenfield development. So we already have a street network in place and some infrastructure connectivity. So while there are many infrastructure gaps, it's getting at trying to incentivize redevelopment of areas as opposed to just going out and developing greenfield development . So that's why that bullet point was included. The last went on there focus on growth by transit stations because this isn't a transportation, it's also a and high and medium capacity transit. So because it's intended to capture all kind of transit rich areas, whether it's a transit station such as these or potentially areas along Colfax, we found that to be applicable and consistent. But I can certainly see your perspective and we can evaluate those a little bit more closely. I also just do want to take the opportunity to clarify that the rules and regulations do not talk about parking specifically. They are focused on trip generations of automobiles. Okay, so then I have another question. Chris never can you come. So for the rules and regulations that are in this area, can you talk to me about the process? Because are those adopted by city council or who adopts those rules and regulations? So the rules and regulations that you guys have authorized public works, CPD, other agencies to adopt rules and regulations consistent with the Denver Revised Municipal Code. And so the process in this case was public works and CPD together develop these rules and regulations went through the prescribed public participation process. I can't remember how many meetings we had, but you know, you're required to do things and post it for a certain amount of time. I wish I had that at the top of my head, but we made sure that we obeyed all those procedural rules and then they are adopted by the manager of Public Works and the manager of CPD. Okay. Thank you. And I have one question for the applicant or the owner. Not the applicant, but the owner. Yes. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for being here this evening. So you worked and owned this business, your this property for 20 years, correct? Yeah. I've been on the property for 20 years. Okay. Are you aware of the next step study? Were you aware of these rules and regulations and these trips that are that we're talking about? Have you been part of that process? I have been I've been to two or three meetings regarding this. And and. And you had input. So knowing that you had these rules and regulations and these trip counts, you knew that potentially, depending on how you sell this, that this will impact your potential development because there's only so many trips in this area. You know, I don't I don't quite understand how this is going to work. Again, I don't know when I'm selling it. I mean, I don't have any offers on the table right now. So I kind of think I'm going to go with the flow. I mean, if if if I decide to retire in five years, you know, I mean, this it seems to me that this area, I think, is 127 acres. It's going to develop. I mean, we have my my warehouse is a dump. I mean, it it's not it's not a very nice place. It can be nicer. So this I think this area is going to develop into a really cool thing. And if it's in five years or ten years or 15 years, that's that's my expectation that I could sell it next week. And somebody made me a great offer, but I'm not ready to retire, so I'm going to continue on with what I'm doing. And if I if if you approve the rezoning it, it may come to fruition in ten years, for all I know. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. So, as we heard Mr. Neavitt about I just want to talk about the trip count and what happens. So right now, there's about 5000 trips available, is that correct? I want to make sure I'm listening correctly. I'm checking my own listening skills. Again, to be clear, public works has established total capacity of roughly 25,000 trips. It's about half full. So that leaves 12,500 trips left. And then, as per the rules and regulations, projects have come in for concept. Had their concept approved in their concept, we require them to calculate how many trips they will need or how many trips they'll generate. We also require them to do a transportation demand management plan. So how are you going to drive down the number of trips your project will generate and then so that people don't have to rush through the development process thinking that somebody is going to, you know, come in ahead and steal their trips. We say you can once you've gotten through concept, through this process, you've reserved those trips and you can move through the the site development plan process in a methodical way. So it's it's that process that has now eaten up, if you will, about half of the remaining trips. And so there's 5000 trips that are just loose out there. And roughly 6500 have been allocated to a project or two projects. But those projects aren't constructed there. They haven't even completed the site development plan process. They've simply gone through the next step, been able to have trips allocated to them. And so that's the status of those trips there. They're currently assigned to those projects. But those projects are not yet constructed. So 12 and a half thousand trips have been constructed. Is that right? Or where? 12,000. Again, these are rough numbers. I'm just trying to get their math pros on the end of it. Prefer exact numbers, but I'm just kidding. Roughly 12,000 are being used today. The existing uses. He's eating up some trips. I don't know how many, but. So existing users, there's still roughly 12,000 remaining. And of those 12,000, about 6500 have been assigned to projects. Okay. So there's 5000 loose and. There are enough properties that there are there's more land available than trips. Correct. And so what happens when the trip count goes to zero? We will no longer approve site development plans. So our our goal is to make sure that this area is not overwhelmed by vehicle trips from new development. So we we do not want to approve projects. So, yes, you can go ahead and build your project and that produces trips that then bring the limited roadway capacity to a halt. It would be, I mean, bad for people living there, bad for people living around it and critically bad for emergency services. So. Okay. So if nothing. So in some ways, this is kind of a gold rush. I mean, you've you've kind of limited the gold rush a bit because you've said we're going to reserve some spots as you go through the development process. But but so in some ways, there's an advantage to people who are informed to the political process. I guess when you created this process where the were the owners of the properties in this area, were they informed that there was a limited amount of trips available? So everyone knows so well. I mean. Well, I mean, everyone is notified. Everyone has been notified. Right. So we we mailed out to all the property owners. We had email list. So we tried to reach everybody we could. We we had community meetings. So we did our level best to make sure that every property owner was informed and had an opportunity to weigh in. I mean, we took a lot of, you know, community input into the rules and regs and tried to make clear all along that, that, that. And I think Mr. Blanding knows this, that his entitlement is not an entitlement to build a project and produce new trips if there are no trips left. Our goal is through the next step study and actually constructing in increased capacity would be to make that ceiling higher and to drive development in the direction of more multimodal service. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll ask a question and whoever wants to answer. I feel like the skies have opened and there's this is first time I think I've heard CPD or Public Works acknowledge that there's a limit to how many cars we can move on certain road systems. And I think this is brilliant and I think it's a great approach. And the way I understand it is you're hoping to increase access to that area somewhere down the road. Well, you know, whether it's at the mousetrap or cross side 25 and some or whatever, and I think that's brilliant. I'm just wondering if the plan is to employ this in other parts of the city. To look at areas and and say that. Yeah. I mean, what I'm hearing is we have the capacity to make these judgments. A control. Don't fight over me, kids. Councilman. This is we're stretching a little bit from this zoning and this hearing that we're still in an open public hearing. So if we get a very quick answer to this and maybe we can take this to a committee or something where we could talk citywide as a tool. But just in this hearing, since this isn't really relevant to this site, very quick answer or. Short and sweet. Make it more relevant, but you get the point. Thank you, sir. So that's something that in other areas that are constraints such as this we would likely look into. But this is a rather unique geography that is significantly more constrained than almost any other location in the city. But it is relevant. Will continue to look at this as a pilot, to see how it works and how we can improve it in the future and move on from there. And I would agree that it's particularly constrained, but I think the hundreds of people who call my office every year think the whole city is particularly constrained. Thank you for your latitude misstatement. Thank you, gentlemen. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. Just so I'm clear, the proposal before us does not equate parking spaces because we're not talking about a site development plan. Right. Okay. Thank you. For everybody watching on TV. That was a yes answer to that. Correct? All right. Okay. See. Zero connotation to trips or reserving any trips. It's simply this is really just about the zoning trip to that trip. Capacity and reserving of trips would happen through the development review process. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 878 is closed. Are there comments from members of council on this issue? Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to make a quick comment. When this came through at committee, I had concern that a lot of property owners would not understand this, these trips and what this meant. And I was very strategic in asking this property owner if he understood what is his potential is. And he clearly said no. And I think that obviously he's smart. He has ran a business for 20 years. But when you're talking about development, it's hard to understand, like what you can do in 12 stories and the type of projects that go on there. So, Steve, I think it's your job to advise your client that as these big projects come in the queue, there is an Excel spreadsheet that I found the other day by having a meeting with Karen and and Chris and them explaining it to me probably more times than they probably wanted to, but they took the time. That's how I got it. That actually counts the trips, and it's a public document and you go to the 41st and Fox next state next step study and it's going to be updated hopefully monthly with how many trips. And I think that is going to in the next year, it's going to go down and it's we're going to see it at really low numbers in the next few in the near future. And so my concern is just coming from a very small family background. My my father owned Lacazette's Northwest Denver. He was very involved in politics. But when it came to him building his own new restaurant, we had problems with parking spaces because as smart as my father was building its family empire and advising people in politics, he could not understand why he could not build the two Mali factory that he wanted and he didn't need the parking spaces because the actually the retail's really smart and we wanted a bigger toy factory and it's all numbers. And so I just wanted to convey to CPD in Public Works again that we're going to have to peel back another layer of the onion and really talk to these property owners and do different type of outreach than we're accustomed to because this will impact I would hate to have someone who has had a building here for 20 years. They built their whole empire on it, come in here and not understand what this trip count means. So I know I'm beating a dead horse. I know I've said it. But this is really important because it's on the other side of my council district and I've been watching this area and I'm afraid that we have all this public investment in this station area. Stop that will go unutilized if we're not smart and strategic with this area, including the area on sunny side because it's landlocked as well. So thank you for your work. Thank you for acknowledging it needed a next step study. Thank you for. Your work on the globe. I'm no stormwater plan and thank you for taking your time to brief me like three times on this area so that I can understand it in a different way. So then I can be a conduit for you as well and talk about this in a different way. Maybe people understand it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I also appreciate the work that CPD and Public Works have been doing, trying to look at this issue. As we started seeing more and more applications for this area. I just kept saying, we can't keep doing this without talking about the infrastructure. And this is part of the problem of having changed the way that zoning is done in this city. We don't get to see any of this stuff on the front end. And it's important for the property owners, for the neighborhoods, for other people to know how some of these things are getting worked out. When you consider the fact that there are only 5000 trips approximately left for this area. And it does not include the 43 acre Denver Post site. And there are still others who have come through the pipeline, applied and gotten their rezonings approved by this body, who may not be able to move forward to proceed to the process of getting their project approved by CPD. And and I'm concerned about what that means for the city. That we're we're continuing to move people through this pipeline. They're assuming they can build. And and yet when they get to the stage where they're ready to, you know, say, okay, I've put pencil to paper, I've spent money on an architect. We've looked at, you know, exactly what we can do on this site. And now you're going to be told no. That's part of the the the change that I think as a body we need to make in our zoning process that go back to city council. Looking at the details that we used to see in projects that came before us, it was very common to have renderings, which meant a developer had to spend some money on the front end or a property owner to change the zoning of their site. We had general information on how many parking spaces, how many units were going to be put on the site. Typically, there was a traffic study done. We see none of that, especially with big sites. And this when you start looking at this area for me, I'm looking at the cumulative impact to this area of the city by having raised these questions with CPD about what are we doing in addressing the infrastructure issues. We're going to have this same conversation as we get ready to start seeing all these projects along I-25 impacting the West Side neighborhoods where we're not talking about how we're addressing gentrification and displacement. But to get back specifically to this site, I am concerned that. We're we're approving people to move through this process, to then learn that they're they're going to be met by a stumbling block and and rightfully so. And I appreciate the the the fact that we are looking at the drainage, and I'm concerned that we will not have caught doing anything with that interchange, which is critical to traffic moving through and into this area. I drive that regularly. I live in this neighborhood. And and it it's a nightmare today. Before we add all the development into this area and all you have to do is go drive down. I don't remember if it's Arkansas port or which one is on the east side of the river. It's Arkansas. Where we've built, we have approved developers to come in and build new high density development close to two Todd sites. And there's parking back to back on both sides of the road and there's a parking garage in that project. But we you know, and so this is the the the tough balance we're trying to find in this city between how do we encourage people to look at alternative modes of transportation. And how do we look at development in the city. And part of the answer is making damn sure. We're looking at first mile, last mile connections that move people around the city so that we're not just saying, Oh, you can't have as many parking spaces, therefore people aren't going to come with cars until we have the right connectivity in the city. People are still going to drive their damn cars. And so that's part of the the the rep we keep bumping into in terms of how do we solve this issue, not just in this area but across the city as we're trying to figure out, you know, the right solutions as we keep growing as a city because if we keep growing the way we have been and all we're doing is adding more cars to our roads, we're just adding to the congestion and the nightmare and the brain damage that people are already sick of dealing with in the city. So I, I cannot support this one tonight. I do see this one different than the one that came forward before because that's existing development. That's I don't see that changing any time in the near and immediate future. You know, it's serving youth in our community who who go to our our school, our downtown campus. But for me, this boils down to health, safety and welfare. And that by not really having some of this stuff worked out, knowing the next step study won't be done for some time, knowing we're not going to have 3825 Fox and Park Avenue redone before all this development comes into this area. And I think as a city, we need to be talking about a moratorium on no new zones in this area until we figure this stuff out on the front end. You know, yes, we want more housing and we want it next to Todd. But we can't do it in a vacuum without addressing the infrastructure issues on the front end. So that's why I'm going to be a no vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. When we were inaugurated on July 15th, we had an interview actually in that corner right there, the five new council people. And one of the questions that that we were asked was, what do you see the biggest issue facing Denver today? And three of my colleagues said affordability, which I think is absolutely an appropriate answer. I gave the really nerdy answer of the relationship between land use and transit infrastructure. What I meant by that is kind of what we're talking about today, as in we have development that's happening to the city, but it's not happening and it happening in a way that that has development. Really consider the area around it. You know, how do people get there? How do people get away? And, you know, the people in District ten are all complaining about traffic. I mean, the few people who aren't complaining about traffic are people who aren't using cards, cars at all and and are really not using our city. You know what? Anyway, what I'm. What I'm getting at is that. We have a lot of people who live in District ten and we have a lot of cool things that people want to see in District ten. And so we're really struggling in District ten and Denver's perfect ten about all the traffic on sixth, eighth, 12th, 13th, Colfax, Colorado University, York Spear. All of those are in Park Avenue. All of them are in ten. And we're getting a lot of regional traffic. And and and people are concerned about their children or their grandchildren. They're trying to, you know, teach their kids how to ride a bike and follow the American dream. And that's been really difficult for for us as an as a as a struggle in that people want to visit all the cool stuff in District ten. But, um, but then, you know, how do we balance that with the people who are living there now or have lived in, say, Congress Park for 60 years? Fact Someone who had my seat. My predecessors. Predecessors, predecessor lived in Congress, has lived in Congress Park for more than 60 years. And so he's seen the growth in the in the city. And I want to thank Mr. Nevett and the and the the administration for coming up with creative solutions that that help us address transit. I'm not sure you're doing it all by yourself, but you are doing it all by yourself. Okay. Well, good bye. So certainly it's it's it's important. It's really critical for us to think about how do we how do we balance land use and transit infrastructure. And I home and I've said this many times I'll say it again. I am I would love to be part of the Denver that breaks Denver's dependance on cars. And and so I just I want to put that out there because this is this is part of the certainly we've got the zoning rezoning conversation here. But this is this is just one example of of something that's really eating at our city. And we've got to we've got to address it. You know, we might well, obviously, we'll have a very small way to address it tonight with this vote. But but we've got to address it going forward so that we can have people still enjoy their own neighborhoods and not worry about all the traffic coming through or or frankly, come up with options to single occupant vehicles, I think is really the better solution. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Carl. Sometimes. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I worry about traffic as much as anybody on council, but my understanding is that no matter what we do with this property, we're not affecting the traffic. There's a set number of trips for this property, and the only way Mr. Blanding gets trips on his property is if his project develops rapidly or his whoever ends up owning his property develops site plans quickly enough that there's some trips left. And if not, then his retirement's going to be a little more lean than he might have expected. To me, it feels clear that I hope the number that public works and CPD have arrived that is accurate, that this road system can handle 25,000 trips more or less. But that is the number. And whether we give Mr. Blanding his rezoning or not, I don't see how that changes it. If at some point we have another rail line running along I-70 and down I-25 or some other solution to open up more trips, then there's more trips going to be generated , whether it's the old Denver Post site, Mr. Blandings site, or whatever else we do there. So I'm. I don't see a reason why I wouldn't approve this this evening. So thank you. And again, since we're in comments now, you're in the right direction, but it needs to spread. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Seeing no other comments, I will just add, I think this is you know, this one is a fascinating part of town. And to go through these conversations that were going through on it, I think really forces conversations that I do believe that Councilman Cashman is on to something. Even though I was trying to push him off of that conversation right now, I really think that he is on to something about how we look at and do this and that. You know, from a rezoning standpoint, I think that this meets the criteria. Unlike other parts of town where we meet the criteria and there are small parcels and then there's no promise that there ought to be traffic studies or any of those kind of impact studies. Here is a place where we have something that meets the rezoning but also lives within this world where we have to figure those things out. And I think that it puts the pressure for making sure that that infrastructure gets better on all the people who are going to want to develop, because now they have an entitled right to do development, but only if we can find a way to fund infrastructure that adds to a trip count. And I think it's a very interesting way to look at how do we manage some of the problems that we're having when we have this disconnect between, hey, here's the plan and here's the area that is right for development. So that is not happening on top of our historic neighborhoods and in ways that are inappropriate. But we also have this massive infrastructure gap that we have to solve. And it's not just one big developer like Gates or like Laredo, where we can build some of those tools in its lots of different parcels. And this is kind of I see this as a way where we can start to have that pressure that's driving that pointed in the right direction instead of just pointing in a pressure for rezoning. It's going to be pointed and hey, it's been rezoning, but you can't build it until we fix this. And all of a sudden, getting owners to work together to fund infrastructure in the way that a master developer out of Loreto or a Gates funds infrastructure, I think is going to be key as we continue to try to build a city that does have the density, that supports a better transportation, multimodal transportation system, that where we build a city that has the kind of housing that has less of an impact on our environment as we combat climate change and has the kind of development that provides more housing, bigger housing supply as we grapple with affordability and attainability and our. So I think this is really exciting. I will continue this conversation beyond this site and really interested to see how this continues to take shape in the site. And if we do have the pressure points in the right place to really get the outcomes that we're looking for. But for tonight, I believe that this does meet the criteria and I will be a yes vote. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye for an. Eye. Gilmore. Eye. Herndon. I Heights. Cashman. Cannick I. Ortega. Know. Sandoval, I swear I. Torres. All right. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please call the voting and know the results. One need to have eyes.

Office of City Auditor request for an extension for filing a report relating to Seattle Department of Transportation Surveillance Technology Usage on License Plate Reader (LPR) technology and a report on Closed Circuit Television Traffic Cameras (CCTV) technology.

SeattleCityCouncil_08162021_CF 314482

Agenda Item one quick vote 314482. Office of City Auditor Request for an extension for filing a report relating to Serial Department of Transportation, surveillance technology usage and license plate reader technology. And the report on closed circuit television. Traffic Cameras. Technology. I moved to approve clerk file 314482 Is there a second second? It's been moved in to approve the clerk file and to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson, who is the sponsor of the quick file. As a council president. Our city's Transportation Utilities Committee has three clerk files on today's agenda, all related to technology. Clerk files 314 40 2483 and 484. These clerk files accept the updated schedules for our Seattle Information Technology Department and from our city auditor to give them the time needed to finish the review of various surveillance technologies. The theme here is the need to provide more time due to delays lingering from the COVID pandemic. A Seattle and our city auditor already provided advance notice to us about the need for these extensions. And these three clerk files were on the Introduction Calendar, published online August six. This first clerk filed 314 42 is the request from our city auditor for more time for just two technologies from our Seattle Department of Transportation, the license plate readers, and the closed circuit cameras that assist with traffic management. This is justified because our city auditor's office has been short staffed this past year, and they recently completed similar reports on the same two transportation technologies. I concur with our city auditor's extension request and ask my colleagues to approve it by accepting this third file. Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the quick file? Hearing no additional comments. Please call a vote on the approval of the clerk file. Russ Heather, I. Peterson. I. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez I. Lewis yes. And Council President Gonzalez. High. Seven in favor and unopposed. The motion carries and the quick file is approved. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

A RESOLUTION designating the Mount Baker McClellan Street Redevelopment Opportunity Zone pursuant to RCW 70.105D.150(1) and making findings in support of such designation.

SeattleCityCouncil_02072017_Res 31731

Just once, if there are no further comments on that particular bill or clerk file, we're going to move on to our next agenda item. I don't see anyone in hands going up, so a lot of shredded exigent item into the record, please. Agenda item three Resolution 317 31 Designating Mt. Baker McClellan Street Redevelopment Opportunity Zone Pursuant to RTW 7.105. 150 and making findings in support of such designation, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted. You just. Thank you. This. This legislation. Councilmember. Please. As you exit. Please exit by way of midway. Where you. Council President Harrell. I just want to register my objection to council members who want staff disrupting our meeting. But anyway, this legislation designates five parcels owned by the Mount Baker Housing Association as a redevelopment opportunity zone. This designation allows Mount Baker Housing Association to be eligible for State Department of Energy grants for the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater on these particular properties once the remediation is complete. Mount Baker Housing Association plans to build approximately 150 units of affordable housing in a mixed use retail and commercial building near the Mount Baker McClellan Light Rail Station. Redevelopment of this area supports the city's planning goals in Mount Baker, consistent with transit oriented development, more housing choices and equitable development. The committee recommends adoption of the resolution. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments about this resolution? I'd like to say a few words about, I think, Councilmember Burgess for his leadership and for the Committee for Pat, for drafting in passing this resolution. This is a great, great piece of collaboration between the city of Seattle, the Department of Ecology, and the Mount Baker Housing Association. As the chair said, it should be reduced when construction and redevelopment begins, which is still a couple of years away. 2 to 4 years away, 150 new affordable housing units will be three blocks from within the Mount Baker light rail station. And there should be no displacements of existing tenants in Mount Baker village. And that becomes a critical piece of what we're trying to do here. My parents actually lived within a couple of blocks of this area for over 30 years, and so I'm quite familiar with it and have walked this area several times and there are significant contamination issues. Eric Pettigrew, our representative in the 37th, has been a strong supporter of this project and helped the Mount Baker Housing Association secure funding from ecology. And for that we want to thank him. We also realize that all PCD, Michelle Chen and others have done an outstanding job in community outreach. They contacted the Mount Baker Community Club, the Mount Baker Hub Business Association, the Rainier Valley Chamber of Commerce across, and many other groups and individuals who are concerned about this area. So I look forward to this project. I think it can be a phenomenal project. We will deal with the issue of displacement to make sure there is none or we've minimized that and we're working to keep that that area a diverse and vibrant community. So for that, I thank you and look forward to supporting it. Any further comments about the resolution? All those in favor of the resolution vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted in Charles Senate. Please read the next agenda items four through ten into the record.

AN ORDINANCE relating to imposing a tax on engaging in the business of being a short-term rental operator; adding a new Chapter 5.54, Short-Term Rental Tax, to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_11132017_CB 119083

Thanks very much. So please read the next agenda item, which I believe will be number three because we referred number two. Correct. So please read agenda item number three. Very part of the Affordable Housing Terrorism Finance Committee. Agenda item three Council 1190 83 relating to imposing a tax on engaging in the business of being a short term rental operator. Adding a new Chapter 5.54 Short term rental tax to this year on a speaker and amending sections five point 30.0 ten 5.30 .063 55.0 ten. 5.40 5.0. 45.40 5.0. 60.1 50.1. 65.2 20 and point 230. Salem Speaker The committee recommends will pass as amended. Thank you very much. And Councilman Johnson, before you introduce this legislation. I do have central staff, Ali, panicky sort of in cue in case we have any questions on what passing the tax piece without the regulatory piece could sort of mean in case there's need for clarification, she's in she's in queue if we need her. And Councilman Johnson, you have the floor. So so we have I think everybody has a pretty good understanding of the best piece of legislation in front of us, which is it allows for the city of Seattle to tax short term rentals and sets forward a pathway for which the Facilities and Services Department would set up the collection process for taxing short term rentals. What we have in front of us are two amendments to the legislation, and if you'll permit me. Council President I'll just speak briefly to each of those amendments and then take questions from them and then maybe move each of those amendments in order, and then we'll move the base legislation. Sounds perfect. Amendment number three, and I'm just going to read it out loud because again, some of these issues are pretty late. Breaking would basically set up a circumstance to allow the city to work with the convention center should they be successful in advocation and advocating in Olympia to collect a short term rental tax. So the language as proposed would change section 11 of the bill, which adds the words the Washington Zoo, Convention Center and Public Facilities District to the list of potential local jurisdictions that could be collecting a short term rental tax and then changes the language to say that in the event any short term rental tax is imposed by any such jurisdiction and the jurisdiction imposing such tax enters into a legally binding agreement with the city to provide the city proceeds equivalent to the city's collections from tax authorized. Under this ordinance, the city may commit in such agreement with the other jurisdiction to spend to suspend collection of the city's tax for the duration of the term of such agreement. That's a lot of legal language, but let me boil it down for my colleagues. If the convention center, the county, the state of Washington or any of those three bodies were to start a collection of attacks on short term rentals, this allows the city to negotiate directly with that entity, allows us to eliminate the , uh, the process that the city would go through to set up a regulatory arm to collect that revenue and enter into an agreement with that body, which would at that point then be collecting the revenue to dispense the revenue that we would have otherwise collected directly to the city of Seattle. So I'm going to give you a hypothetical. If we were to vote on this today and we were to set up a circumstance where we're going to collect $8 million a year starting in 2019, and the convention center were successful in advocating in Olympia to apply a short term rental tax to the convention center. We would this language gives us the ability to set up an analytical agreement with the convention center, to have them collect the tax and pass $8 million over to the city of Seattle to be used as we see fit. So this gives us a framework to continue to negotiate with those folks who are eyeing short term revenue, short term rental revenue for other purposes other than the Equitable Development Initiative and affordable housing bond payments, as we've talked about in the next amendment. Very good. Let me answer questions on that amendment. Should there be any? I'll refer to that as amendment number. Amendment number three. Councilmember O'Brien. Councilmember Johnson. I want to clarify one aspect to see if it's a clarification or if there's a distinction here. If we. And to be clear, I'll be bringing amendment number two, which we skipped over. But if we were to pass to change the the tax from a flat $10 to an eight in a $14, depending if it were. A partial unit or an entire unit. The my intent on this amendment, number three, is that we would continue to collect whatever we would be entitled to under that tax structure. So if the number of units in the city grows, that we would be negotiating with the state or the convention center to get whatever that is . The distinction I'm making is if we projected this may collect, as you mentioned, $8 million, but it turns out it actually collects $11 million because there's more units than we thought that we would continue to collect whatever that was on the dollar basis as opposed to setting some sort of lump sum amount that we would get. So part of the reason I was hoping this would go back in committee is I think that this language does need a little bit of additional time to be able to answer that question. But I would ask that the council president suspend the rules and allow a penalty for and central staff to answer that question. I can't guarantee you that it is getting what you're asking, Councilmember O'Brien. But Ali may be able to shed more light on the topic. And maybe Will Ali's coming up if bend the rules. Let's suspend the rules. If there's no objection, Ali, you could set a chair, your comfort zone there to table. We won't put you in the middle there. And you know and as you get just one sec. Ali, as you get comfortable, do you need the question repeated at all or did you were you following Councilman O'Brien's question ? I I'll ask a clarifying question on top of X and may kind of be moot our back and forth. Councilmember Johnson, I read this. This whole section, frankly, is not necessary. It feels like more intent language. If we didn't pass this, I assume we could continue to negotiate with them. And this doesn't bind us to I mean, we would have to pass new legislation to implement any sort of agreement to waive it. So I guess my high level question and I'm okay with the intent language, I just wanted to clarify my personal intent on this. Is this really just intent language or does this bind us to any sort of outcome? Good afternoon. Council President Harrell, Councilmembers Members, Energy Council, central staff. You are both correct, but yes, it is not binding the future council or the current council to any specific action. It is expressing the current council's intent that there is an expectation that there will be revenue generated for the city's use through this tax. If another jurisdiction imposes a tax on the industry, then the expectation is that there would be an agreement that the city would receive the equivalent amount. It is not binding. It would require a decision to be made to suspend the tax or to take the tax out of the code. It would also it's also silent on exactly what the revenue expectation is, in part because I've talked with many of you about it's a little bit of a moving target. Okay. Councilmember Herbold. It's reassuring that the language is not binding. But I want to speak to my concern that should we pass this amendment, I think it might actually go counter to what would be best for the city of Seattle, which would be that we would continue to collect the tax in addition to whatever tax the state levied, and we would pay the state for their portion of of the tax, much like I believe we do with the be an O tax. Rather than ending our tax and ending our structure. I think it would be better should the State enact a similar tax for us to continue to collect it all and pay them their portion. So I'm not comfortable with this language as written and I am comfortable knowing even if it should pass, that it's that it's not binding. But I don't think I'll be supporting this amendment. Um, Councilmember Johnson did suggest, again, a need for clarification. I care. Okay. Councilman Johnson did suggest a need for fine tuning this language again because of this kind of issue. But I guess we won't revote that at least now. Comes from O'Brien. I think you want to respond to cuts from her comment. Yeah. I think Section 11 is in the underlying legislation as came out of committee previously. Correct. And what we're talking about is adding the language that's in the double blue underline and striking the language that struck out. And I think the amendment as proposed, Councilmember Johnson, I think, improves the intent language for me, because I talk specifically about the city being made whole by whatever other jurisdiction. I would also be comfortable, completely striking Section 11 and just talking about our intent if that day ever comes to pass when we get there. I don't know if it would be in order to strike Section 11, because I don't know that that amendment is before us and that may require a suspending of the rules. So let's. So you would be supportive of Councilmember Johnson's amendment number three, however. Correct. And then we'll just put a placeholder on where we strike Section 11. Well, I don't have enough. Sorry. Yeah, Amendment three is an amendment to section 11. So. So it. Failed. You wouldn't be opposed to completely. Correct. Eliminating section 11. I stated my intent publicly about making us whole and how I would expect that. Just so it's out there in the ether, so that when we get to this point or if we get to this point, I will be continue to argue that perspective. I believe the language is vague enough that it's hard to tell what specifically it is, but I just wanted to clarify my intent and given that I'm happy to support the language. Councilmember Johnson, I know what your intent is on that. If you wanted to say it or not. But my objective here is if there is a way for us to reduce the regulatory costs to us, which has been identified time and again by my colleagues as a very high burden, a set of costs for this project has ranged almost to the $5 million mark. This amendment allows for us the opportunity to potentially consider reducing some of those administrative costs by entering into into local agreements with other jurisdictions who may be able to just collect the tax and then pass the revenue on to us without the added significant set up costs or annualized costs. On the revenue collection side, we will have, I would anticipate an annual cost on the regulatory side, but this would reduce some of the expectations about money that we could spend on the revenue regulation side if this were to pass and other things were to happen outside of our control in Olympia in another place. So I will I will be voting for this. Okay. Councilmember Herbold, we'll close debate. On this amendment. Just a clarifying question, because it more has been revealed that I that I understood with the original Section 11. So you're saying that this the intent of this amendment relates to a new tax that would go into potentially that the state would enact that would go into effect before we have set up the short term rental tax as contemplated by this legislation. So it would be to avoid set up costs, correct? It's not. What I would fear is we'd already have a system set up collecting and we would disband that in favor of a system that the that the the state would set up. And the majority of our costs are associated with the upfront set of costs. So this doesn't deal with the after the fact. It's a it's more focused on, again, the set of. Costs before it goes into effect. That's my expectation. But certainly it would give us the flexibility if something came up after we had already set up a structure to work with other jurisdictions on interlocal agreements. That helps. Thank you. Councilman Johnson. I would suggest we just vote on this particular amendment as opposed I know you wanted to talk them all through, but let's just. So I'd move adoption of Amendment three to countable 119083. Okay. All those in favor of amendment number three as described by Councilmember Johnson. Please vote I. I oppose. Please vote no. Okay. The Amendment three is passed. I apologize. Council President. I didn't realize that other members were going to be bringing forward earlier amendments. I had decided not to bring forward Amendment One. I'd like to defer back to Councilmember O'Brien. I didn't realize I was jumping the line. And if he wants to talk about Amendment two, I would happily defer to him in Amendment two. So we don't have to go in numerical order. But it'd be nice if if we know which. Ones are exclusive. I guess that's the issue. And if they're not, we can proceed either way. Do you want to go back and do one or two? Well, I think amendment and I don't I would defer to Ali Banerjee from Central Staffs for guidance and counsel on this as I read amendments to and Amendment four. They're both intended to achieve a similar outcome, but they have different thresholds associated with them. So I would consider those to be mutually exclusive amendments. So maybe it's best if we talk about them both and then allow members to vote depending on where their conscience lies on those two amendments. Okay. So do I have that accurately, Ms.. Banerjee. Yeah. So just to maybe restate Amendment two, they're they're basically they're very similar amendments. Amendment two, which is the would modify the tax rate from a flat $10 per night as it was in the bill that came out of committee to a tiered rate, $14 for an entire unit and $8 per night for a private or shared room. Amendment four would is almost entirely the same, except the rate would be $8 for a private room and $12 for an entire unit rather than $14. Okay. Description of how the intent on how the revenue was spent is this. Okay. So the maker of Amendment two, which is 14 and eight, comes from a bribe. Would you like to speak to that? Yeah, sure. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to move amendment to the second. I'll move it. Keep it alive. I'll second it. Thank you, Council President. So I'll just repeat what Ali said. This would, instead of a flat $10, this would have a $14 per night charge for entire units and $8 for a private or shared room. This would increase our projected revenue by $1,000,000 over the base legislation. Again, these are our projections, but the base legislation, as predicted, would generate about $6 million a year. This would move that to about $7 million a year, I believe, compared to amendment number four. I have the numbers right, which is the eight and $12. This is about $700,000 a year more than that amendment. I believe that the additional revenue, the first 5 million going to the Equitable Development Initiative and the anti displacement investments we've talked about there are important may also need to be paying for the regulatory fees out of this and having a $7 million revenue will make me more comfortable that we'll actually have at least $5 million to invest in actual development on an annual basis going forward. Okay. Although we have. So in order to keep the conversation like we have emotion in a second, but the amendment number four is close to a length, which is less money. So let's have a chat about that one as well. So council members are fully informed of which one they want to vote for. When you get to that customer back, do you have a question? I do. And this is directed to Councilmember O'Brien. Maybe I've got an older. Sheet here in front of me, but it appears that two has been deleted and that your name has been. Added to Amendment four. Was there some discussion there. That I missed or we re raising something that sort of last week when. We were voting on all of this today? My intent was to do that in support of the other set of amendments. But now that they've been bifurcated and we're moving forward on the tax alone today, but not the regulatory bill, I'm going to go back and support my amendment number two, which was the original. Was there some $2 for a. Platform fee that was included in one of. These? And that's on the regulatory side. Okay. And so that would come up on that piece of legislation. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about amendment number four, which is the $12 for the entire unit, $8 per room. And who's the maker of that amendment? Maybe he or she could speak to that. So that that one is me as well. And the the reason why I was hoping to have the regulatory and revenue discussions together is because, as Councilmember O'Brien just stated, there is a question on the table about a regulatory fee associated with it and then also questions about the boundaries. So when you draw boundaries differently on where the regulations apply, that has an impact on the amount of money that you raise depending on the levels of the fees. So, you know, while I concur with you, Councilmember O'Brien, that there is a $700,000 difference between amendment to an amendment four, that number could change either for the positive or for the negative, depending on where we land with the geography, about where the regulations end of applying as the bill was being discussed in committee not only was other first to discuss both the revenue approach, but I was also the first to bring forward an idea that would set up per night charge at different tiers and a both amendment to an amendment for set up a structure that allows for an individual who's renting a room down the hall to pay less in a per night charge than an individual who's renting out their entire unit. Whether that is an entire home or an entire condo unit or however however, we we've determined that and we define both the guest room and the entire dwelling unit in the legislation, amendments that are in front of us, the $12 per night rental fee for the dwelling units and the $8 per night rental fee for each guest room was consistent with what we thought would be the objective of about a $7 million net proceeds based on the number of nights. So we were trying to continue to make this option not just affordable for families who are choosing to use short term rentals as an option for them when they come into town, either for vacations or or for many of those folks that we heard in public testimony here and in previous meetings for longer term stays as they come to our hospitals and medical clinics, but felt like the 12 and eight approach met our revenue goals of $7 million, while also keeping the option more affordable for those families who are choosing to use short term rentals when they come to town. Thank you, Katherine Johnson. So we have two exclusive amendments, one at $14. For the entire unit and $8 per room and the other one is 12 and eight. Are there any further questions we've heard? Councilmember I've got. A question. Because. I do. And this goes back to the $14 per night. If we look at it and consider an $8. Tax and. Whether this is Councilmember Johnson or Councilmember O'Brien. For one. Room and you consider. A whole home. It strikes me that just per square footage, it makes. More sense to ask for a higher tax. For. The entire unit. But I'd like to know, how did you. Arrive at these numbers? Are they are they akin to what a hotel motel tax would be paying at this point? I know that we're we're juggling fees. Versus tax, but if either of you could help explain how we went from 12 to 14 or whether it was a compromise. So the base legislation again was ten. And so the the I agree with the theory of having two different tiers for a partial unit versus an entire unit. Trying to make it comparable to the hotels is something that I think well, that I was trying to do. It's a little challenging because we are using flat rates as opposed to percentages because of the tax authority we have. And so there are entire units that are over $1,000 a night in their entire units that are a lot smaller. And obviously within the hotel world, there's a whole range of hotels. So trying to make a comparison, then comparing a hotel room to a five bedroom house is another tough comparison. So I don't think there's a real science around the comparison, but I think kind of effort was made. I'll just add while I have the microphone that, you know, the central staff analysis on Amendment four is that that would raise 6.3 million, not 7 million, which is why I'm going back to my amendment number two, to get us to the full 7 million. Councilmember Johnson and I have worked on the spreadsheet and so we can play with a bunch of assumptions and I will acknowledge that our data has is not perfect. The platforms haven't handed over their databases of what exactly is happening. So we are operating in a world of some assumptions and we hope in the next few months we'll get more information. But that's not going to come in the next few weeks. I don't believe there's also an open question as to as we go to collect this, what percentage of the taxes will be accurate, able to collect , what percentage of compliance will there be? And I think as IFRS works this out, how they set up the tax, that's kind of an open question. I feel much more comfortable with the $2 additional on the entire units to have a little more revenue to give us a little more buffer zone. And if the end of the day we have a few extra dollars for either anti displacement work or affordable housing, that's not a bad thing in my mind. Yeah. Okay. I think we're ready to vote on these comes from Johnson you on closing the debate. Yeah, if I may. I mean, I think that we're not far off from each other, which is why there was discussion about a compromise language at Amendment four. But generally, I think I'll be voting no on Amendment two and be asking my colleagues to support Amendment Fourth Amendment to were to fail, because I do think it achieves a closer parity to what the hotel motel taxes are are paying. And it also has the tiered approach with I, which I think is a recognition that there is a real difference between those folks who are renting a room down the hall and those folks who are renting an entire unit. And it also, I do believe, because I think that the numbers are closer, as Councilmember O'Brien said, we played around with Ali's Excel spreadsheet, get us to the same policy objective of raising in the neighborhood of about $7 million, depending on where we land in terms of both compliance and the number of nights that are rented. So I'll be asking my colleagues to vote no on the amendment in front of us right now with the knowledge that if it were to fail, I would bring Back Forward Amendment four and ask you to support that in just a moment. So just one last clarification. But it's still eight per room either way, whether it's two or four, and it's just the. Difference of $2 between the. Amendment two and four. That's my. Okay, okay. Printer house. Okay. Are we clear? So I'm going to vote on we're going to vote on amendment amendment number two, which is the 14 and eight breakdown. Are we clear on that? Yeah, it's been already moved in second. And all those in favor of Amendment two, please say I and raise your hand, I. All those opposed to Amendment two, please say no and raise your hand. No. Okay. This was. Yes. So 5 to 4. Amendment two passes. Okay. So we won't vote on Amendment four since they are exclusive. Are there any other amendments to the base legislation? No, not that I'm aware of. Mr. Newton, did I miss an amendment in the memo? No, that's all. I just ask for 5 minutes to go print the correct version of the bill prior to that. Okay. So I'm just noting that for the clerks. So she needs more time to prepare it such that I could sign it. Can I then proceed with other agenda items, or do we have to look at each other for a couple of minutes? Okay. So we're going to showcase. So. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to call for the vote and then I'll sign it when it's ready. Okay. So all those in favor of the. We we we already voted on the amendment. Number two. We are we that passed an amendment. Number three passed. So now we're going to vote on the entire bill as amended. Mr. President. And we're going to do a roll just just one sector and we're going to do a roll call. Okay. So please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Her bill. Hi, Johnson. Right. Juarez. O'Brien. I saw what I shot. Harris. Tally I. Gonzalez, i. President Harrell. I. Nine in favor and unopposed. Okay. The bill passed and the chair will sign it upon the new language that will be presented to me in a few minutes. Okay. Okay. Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.

A bill for an ordinance designating the Howard Berkeley Park Chapel as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for the Howard Berkeley Park Chapel, located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-30-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07272020_20-0648

And if there's no objections, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please be back in your seats by 720, please. Hello. We have one public hearing tonight. 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 when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one in your microphone. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name. Note that you're available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. If for some reason we lose you during your speaking time, please log back in and raise your hand and our staff will try to get you back in the queue if possible. 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. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put Council Bill 648 on the floor for passage, please? I move that councilor bill 20 dash 0648 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Can we get a second, please? Thank you. Thank you. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 648 is open. May we have the staff report, please? Hear me? Yes. So this is my name is Karen with Landmark Preservation, with community planning and Development. And this is 44, 43, 45 West 46th Avenue Landmark Designation Application. It's located in Council District one at the corner of Tennyson and 46th Avenue. And the applicant is Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval and the owners is Ben and he will be on the line in a moment. So some of you may be familiar. This came through and you guys saw it over the course of the last year. In the spring of 2019, a demolition application was submitted for this property. After the notice was posted, members of the community submitted a designation application as it went through the course of LPC and City Council processes. There were a large number of discussions between the community members, the developer and the property owner. Through the course of those discussions, there was an agreement where the property was sold to a preservation minded buyer. They are planning on reusing the property and are then going to look at redeveloping the rest of the site. The property boundary is noted in red on the left here and so the property is close to the property at the rear in the side, but encompasses the front lawn area on 46th and along Tennyson. This is the first property that's coming through to you as a designation under the new criteria. So the requirements in order for a property to be designated is that the application must be complete. The structure must maintain its integrity. The structure must be 30 years of age or of exceptional importance to fit it. Younger than that, the structure must meet at least three out of ten criteria, and during the deliberation, the OPC must consider the structures historic context. For this particular property. It meets five out of the ten criteria and we'll go through each of those first and has a direct association with a significant historic event or historical development of the city. This is a direct association with the historical development of the city. Howards Mortuary started in 1917 and it became one of the most successful and longest lasting mortuaries in the city. It was operated as a small family family funeral home. Throughout the time, they emphasized that they had longevity and ties to the community with their slogans that emphasized Denver's heritage as it over the time they began to expand their services to include a variety of different options and services as they grew and provided more services. They also wanted to expand their locations, and when they were looking to expand, they looked at the suburbs to the north of Denver. They were initially in downtown Denver. And so there was a substantial amount of growth in Denver after World War Two within Denver proper, as well as the metro regions. And they found that the Berkeley area was underserved. And so Robert J. Howard, who was the son of the founder and the head of the mortuary, provided a quote to The Denver Post that they look to the north in Denver as the best fit for the Berkeley Park site expansion. And so the site and the location of this particular property is directly tied to the development and growth of Denver. Second, this property is embodying the distinctive. Characteristics of the. Architectural style or type. In this case, it's a type which is the funeral and mortuary type. It's not one that you guys typically see. So we wanted to provide a little bit of what are the character defining features of that. So funeral and mortuary types tend to be 1 to 2 stories in height. They're often located in residential neighborhoods, so they're designed to fit in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. They're designed to accommodate at home, accommodate hearses. So there's pushchairs or large garages. And then they typically have a mix of specialized uses that would only be needed for a funeral home, such as viewing rooms, storage areas and casket sale rooms. The property at 4345 West 46th has many of those character defining features, with a height being both one and two stories that is architecturally distinguished with the chapel. There's report reposing or slumber room, a display room, a variety of garages and a couple of pushchairs. And so it meets the criteria of having the distinctive, physical, distinctive, visible characteristics of a type. It is also a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. It was designed by J. Roger of Music, who is a well-known Denver architect. He works solo as well as as well as with others. He's most known for working with his brother in music and music. They designed a variety of different properties, a couple of which are Denver landmarks, and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The First Baptist Church in the Webster Elementary School. He also had a partnership with Charles Cordingley, where he actually designed a chapel for it in Lakewood that was used similarly for funerals and weddings. It has been demolished. He also worked with Howard to do the Howard's Hampton Memorial Estate. So he worked with the Howard family and did their memorial estate as well as designing this chapel for them. Music emphasized the importance of the Berkeley Chapel in his career. In an interview when he was asked to select one of his top of his four top five works in the 1950s and 1960s, he identified this as one of his most important designs. And so it's a significant property. As the architect himself said, it was one of his most important works over two decades period. And so the Landmark Preservation Commission and staff found that it is a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. It is also represents an established and familiar feature of a neighborhood, community or contemporary city. Due to its prominent location and physical characteristics. So it's located at the intersection of 46th and Tennyson. And this is an area that is a kind of where the commercial and the civic areas in this area meet. It was advertised as being at the entrance to Berkeley Park, which you can see in the background of those photos . And it's very prominent placement at the corner. This large building size, the materials make it a focal point of the community and an orienting visual feature. And so it was established and familiar feature of the neighborhood. And finally, it promotes the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics are rare. So this has a variety of distinctive physical, physical characteristics. So it has the Gothic and Tudor arches, the portrait of Portico in the Berkshires, the stained glass and leaded glass windows, including the rose window in the chapel. The exceptional terracotta ornamentation, which I have photos to show in a moment, mean the really the substantial sides. So all of these are very distinctive physical characteristics and they are also very rare for the Berkeley neighborhood and for postwar construction. So staff in the LPC found that it met this criteria as well. And here's some images of the physical characteristics and the terracotta. These photos also demonstrate that the property has a good integrity. Overall, the property maintains a very high degree of integrity. You can see on the bottom what was a rendering of it when it was constructed in what it looks like today. There have been very minimal alterations. The clay tiled roof was replaced a couple of years ago after a hailstorm destroyed it. And then the decorative terracotta, if you noted in the photo before, is painted red. It was originally historically blue. But overall, the building retains good integrity and the commission found that it maintains its integrity. And finally, when the ABC was considering it, it looked at the historic context and noted that it had been constructed as part of postwar growth and strongly relates to Denver's rapid expansion and suburban development after World War Two. If you look at the chart at the bottom, they'll tell us red lines. Note the growth of the city in the 1950s. And there's there is this extraordinary growth on this chapel was constructed. So the LPC considered that historic context when reviewing the criteria. Community Planning and development received. I received letters of support, one from a community member and then five from organizations or community groups, all in support of the designation application. And so CPD staff and the Preservation Commission recommend approval of the property over 30 years of age and meets at least three criteria. It retains its integrity and the LPC considered its historic context. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Thank you, Cara. For that report. Tonight, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 200648. And we have three individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker is Ben Gerhart. Hello? Can everybody hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Ben. All right, great. Thanks. My name is Ben Gearhart. I'm a resident of the Berkeley neighborhood at 3931 Julian Street. Also here with my business partner, Charles Moore. And we're really excited about this day. We want to thank City Councilwoman Sandoval. We want to thank city council, historic Berkeley Regis and also historic Denver and the residents of the Berkeley neighborhood. It's been quite the journey to get to where we are today. And I thought that this was a great opportunity to let everybody know a little bit about the programing of the chapel. As everybody had told us that it was almost impossible to program a mortuary that was specifically designed to be a mortuary. And we identified a great tenant and redemption church. And Christ is here with us tonight. And just to show you guys a little bit of their setup. They've got their heavy equipment and. Their pews social distanced and have been holding service here since March. We also have found another tenant who's a montessori school, and that person will be signing the lease in the near future and the rest of the space will be used as event space for weddings, an amenity for the community and other corporate events. With the parking lot over the summer. We've hosted a summer concert series and our first event was about two and a half, three weeks ago, and that was the Garth Brooks Drive-In event, which was fantastic. And we have about 5 to 6 more events, including a farmer's market for the parking lot through the summer. But again, I just want to thank everybody for the opportunity to speak and I'll leave it open any questions. And thank you. All right. Thank you, Ben. Next up, we have Thomas Simmons. And we're going to need you, Thomas, to raise your hand in the attendees so we can get you in to our panelists. Okay. I. I see. We see your picture. Up there, so. Okay. Well, we're going to go on to the next speaker and he Levinsky is our next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of. Historic Denver and a resident of. Denver. Our offices are at 14th and Ogden Street and just wanted to participate tonight to offer my support for the designation of the Howard Mortuary and echo what Ben said in expressing gratitude to Councilwoman Sandoval for her help in facilitating the negotiations and discussion that went on among the community members and the property owner last year and demonstrated that with a little bit of. Time and that opportunity to talk. Things out, there are great resolutions. And ways to save historic buildings and still. Accommodate new development. I also want to thank Ben and Chuck immensely for stepping forward and taking this project on. They've been great partners on other historic buildings in our city, including the award winning Essex apartment conversion and Capitol Hill. So we're really excited to see what will happen with the building moving forward. And excited to have another mid-century modern, although it's a revival style. So people may not realize at first glance that. It is from the mid-century era. We don't have too many of those. And so looking forward to helping to share that story. And in closing, I want to thank the community members as well and the leaders from historic Berkeley Regis for. Their patience and their perseverance. In trying to find a win win outcome for this, as well as to the property owner who was also patient and agreed to a few extensions to help make this possible. So thank you so much. Looking forward to seeing the outcome here and. That Ben and Chuck will be able to use the preservation. Incentives that we have in Colorado. To make this. A successful community space. So thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Annie. And we have Thomas Simmons in the queue, so go ahead, Thomas. Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. I'm showing you the interior of the chapel, I hope. It's just your name. So I don't think your video is up or working. Well, anyway, I'll go ahead. There we go. Okay. There we go. So this is the interior of the chapel bin. Showed you a little bit of the chapel. The chapel does have a hand crafted plaster ceiling with the ribs there. Also, you're seeing some of the people that helped on the the application in terms of supporting it. Last year, more than 800 people signed a petition supporting the application of the chapel and a number of other people contributed to a Go Fund Me enterprise. We engaged in the facility, facilitated discussions that was described by Ben, and it reached a successful conclusion in a remarkably short period of time. New owners took possession in February, and they preceded this promise to proceed with a Denver landmark application. I think Kerry did a very good job of summarizing the reasons that this building is significant. I met five of the ten criteria. This is one of the first ones under the new landmark criteria, and we're very happy that it worked as well as it did. I would emphasize the significance of this building as a mid-century mortuary type. It's not the, if you remember, Six Feet Under Fisher and Sons. This is not that type of mortuary. This is a mid-century mortuary, a very large footprint, a very specialized building, and reflects the evolution of the funeral industry in the mid 20th century. The other thing, and I think the pictures show back here, really reflected the amazing terracotta used in this building. This is one of the last projects in Denver, one of the last big projects of the Denver Terracotta Company, one of the big terracotta manufacturers in the country. And it was very lavishly adorned with terracotta. From the columns to the arcades to the friezes, to the gable faces. It's a really nice display of terracotta in this part of town. Finally, in undertaking this project, a number of people came forward expressing their memories of the building. It was a very difficult time saying goodbye to a loved one, but this was a place where they could do it with dignity and they remember it very fondly. The relationship between the mortuary and the people of the neighborhood and this whole part of Denver. So we urge you to approve the application, and we'll be here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flint. I thank you. Kara, I wonder if Kara could answer a question about the boundaries of the designation, which seem to just hug the contours of the building and leave out the remainder of the total two acre property. Are there any plans for the portion that's left out of the designation and how does the designation affect what can be done with the remaining net of the two acres? Yes. So the boundary was drawn pretty tightly around the rear and back of the property. There weren't as many character defining features there to allow for the flexibility of re-use of the rest of the area. And in order to get sort of that win win of allowing someone to be able to pay the pay to buy it and then be able to recoup the costs, it was a way to allow for the re-use. Since it was only a parking lot, it did not have a lot of character defining features, didn't contribute significantly to the to the property. And so by excluding that it allows for the redevelopment of it. On why also preserving the most important part of the property. So it was intentionally drawn and they worked with us to find a boundary. It's about, I believe, five feet off the back of the building so that they can do what they want without actually impacting and touching the building. Okay. And maybe I don't know if Councilwoman Sandoval also would like to to speak to this, but does the designation of the structure have any control over the use of the rest of the property so that the rest, whatever happens off the off the designated area does not detract from from the designated property. Thanking Councilman Flynn, I will ask that the owners, Ben and Charles. I know you and I have all talked about the impacts of the MAX three zoning that we are allowed to use. Could you talk about what your idea and the architecture and what you would like to see on that surrounding area because it does not have to go through designing a you. I'll a firm call. Yeah. We have been. Yeah, I'm. I'm here. Can everybody hear me? You know, our focus right now is to really program the chapel and to get the event space and the Montessori school built out. We have looked at development around the chapel from anything from senior affordable housing to affordable housing to. Conservation and just leaving it as open space to potentially a community pool that serves the community to the townhome development. We've looked at every option out there and at this point we have other projects in our pipeline and other historic preservation projects in that Midwest that we're just focusing on. So I can't really answer that question from a design review perspective. I think Landmark would be the one to comment on that. However, everything that we do develop, we obviously are going to be as tasteful and use the materials that are as close to a design review that they could get from a landmark perspective. So we're residents of the community and want to see quality product. And this is a legacy piece of real estate that we're going to hold in our portfolio for a long time. Thank you. So maybe, Carol, if you could if you could wrap that up, the, uh, and the designation of the, of the mortuary does not have any controlling influence over the design of the rest of the property. Yes, that is correct. And that's why the boundary was drawn that way, which allowed for redevelopment. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate Ben, I appreciate your your explanation of the whole range of obviously a wide range of potential uses for redevelopment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. You know the questions from council. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash 20648 is close. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So, as my colleagues have learned this year, I asked your support to vote this down a couple of times as it came forward to us hoping to work on this agreement that's here in front of you. So for those of you who may not know my little story, we all got elected on June 4th, the new five of us, 2019, I became councilman elect and I got a phone call June 6th about this property and the. Demo permit and the fact that it meant a certificate of non historic status it was eligible to get landmark. So I worked with then Councilman Espinosa and we hosted a meeting at a school not far from there. And unbeknownst to me, it was packed. It was hot. It was in July, right before I got sworn in. The air conditioning was going on. And I knew immediately right then we were going to have a tough road. Coble was the potential buyer, and they were slated for what had looked like some flat homes that were not well received in northwest Denver. So the history quickly, we just put in a file. I filed a non owner. Designation. Application? And I asked. I met with Coble several times and I asked them if they would go willingly to mediation. And I said, Sometimes you just need a mediator. Sometimes you need a therapist to mediate between parties that cannot talk. I mean, they literally said that I think sometimes you need couples counseling. This is like that. You can't hear each other because there's a lot of high emotion. And so we facilitated Steve Charbonneau facilitated several meeting and they were very contentious. It was hard. And they came up with a resolution that if we found a buyer, they would let go of their contract. And I will give a shout out to Ben and Charles. That contract was one of the most tricky contracts I have ever seen, and they still went through with the project. So we are now here and this is the first landmark of its kind to come, of its kind to come under the new ordinance. So on behalf of the community, I decided to become the applicant. Do you see, you know, there's an $850 fee associated with a non owner historic designation and that was all raised by a Go Fund Me account. So I don't remember how many donations were made, but tons of donations were made enough, enough and more, and then some to cover the $850 fee. So this was not just. This was not just a. The historic Berkeley Regis. And there is not just the historic Berkeley Regis. A part of this, that this was a larger community. So this meat, as we just talked about the new criteria, this is the first application under the new criteria. So it's a little bit fuzzy and I think it meets the new criteria and on its merits and also in the new criteria, there's a pie in that apple in that period right now for non owner historic designations that I know. Councilman Black, you worked on this ordinance. I know Cabinet Council members worked on this and this is the first time that this was used even before it was in ordinance. So if you are any of you have questions about how that process worked. Feel free to reach out to me and I can give you the rundown of how it worked and wins and losses. So with that, I just really would like to. I really think my community, Big Tom and Laurie, thank everyone from the Berkeley Religious United neighbors even though they are not they're not mentioned it's the our now and it's an honor to fulfill my role as a county council person and vote on something that definitely meets the criteria and is also a first of its kind by using the past period to come out with a better negotiation. So with that, I would miss the support of all my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I also have, in some ways, a special place for this. This rezoning and his historic designation. And because, as as my colleague, Councilmember Sandoval had mentioned, we were just starting when when this rezoning was kicked off. And also Tom's Diner, which was in District ten. And and that that was a firestorm. Tom's Diner made national news. We got emails from all over the nation, some beyond actually talking about Tom's Diner and the that actually the idea of someone being able to take his property without his permission. Speaking of the eminent domain conversation that we had earlier tonight, but it's I'm really excited and I want to thank Councilmember Saint of All for all her hard work. I want to thank historic Denver and the property owner and so many other people for for what obviously took a lot longer than Tom's. Diner. Fight. But but appears to be obviously a far more amicable solution for for the property owner, for the neighbors and the community around it. And and and it appears that there's some really good uses that are coming out of it as well. So I want to thank everyone for for measuring twice and cutting once. So I also will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, for your hard work and your for your support. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Thank you so much, Madam President. I don't I just want to give my kudos as well to the folks involved and really proud to see this conversation go from something that I recognized as something that community in northwest Denver was really going to dig in their heels about. And what emerged, I think, was a councilwoman who could really mediate and listen and apply what she knew about land use in the city. And it was a really incredible thing to watch that took place over the last year. So I really just want to praise all those who came into this with open minds and wanting to arrive at an agreeable place. And for the fact that. There are preservation minded developers and reminding community that that exists. So just thanks to all involved in including the community in the area knows that these things really can come out conciliatory for all involved. So thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call. Then the. I. Sawyer. I. As I like I say tobacco. I. Twin. Herndon. I have. I. Passion. I can change. Sorry, I. Comedian. I'm. I see her in muted, but I didn't hear her. I didn't either. I think she might be frozen. You know. Let's circle back around. Well, Madam President, your last. I. Did we want to see about Councilwoman Kimmich? Okay. I think she's frozen, so. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. All right, ten eyes. And Councilwoman, can each just let me know that unfortunately, she dropped off out of the meeting, so that wasn't intentional at all. So congratulations, Councilwoman Sandoval, on the success of this, your mediation, and congratulations to your community as well. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, August 24th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 610, changing the zoning classification of 14000 and 14422. East Andrews Drive 144081441914421. East Elk Drive a required public hearing on Council Bill 621 Changing the zoning classification for 4901 Green Court and required public hearing on Council Bill 622 Changing the

Adoption of a Resolution Submitting to the Voters an Ordinance Entitled “McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure” at the Special Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019; and Consider Authoring a Direct and Possible Rebuttal Argument. (City Manager 2100)

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6350

An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation. City Attorney. Is that okay with you? Sure. Do you want to combine them? You can. Okay. So just for the public's no knowledge, we are. Do the rest of the rest of the council agree with that? It's fine. Okay. So just in case anybody who's out there wants to comment on either item. 60. Or 66 is submitting a resolution, the McKay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure to the voters and six e is a resolution to submit an ordinance, a competing ordinance, if you will, entitled the Carrying Alameda Act that proposes that voters confirm what the city already did as far as approving this use at this location. So anyone who wants to speak out on 60 or 60, please fill out a speaker slip. Douglas. Okay. Okay. All right. So. Um, city. Do you want to just walk us through? Sure. So, basically six d the fiscal responsibility measure is similar to what was done with the alameda beltline. And as the city attorney explained earlier, it compels the attorney to file that suit to make the determination about if it's taking and then figure out a way to pay for it prior to implementation of the initiative. And so this is supplemental to just try and find the funding stream that is going to be needed if taking the next one is the project that was approved by the Council on December 4th and the reasoning that went with that for the facility and it places that as a competing measure. And so similar to what happened in 2012 with the rent or 2014 with the rent ordinance that the renters had brought forward, the city put its own rent law that it had adopted to allow the voters to kind of choose between the two. So it would be similar to that. And whichever of if both passed, whichever of the two receive the higher vote would go into effect. And I think basically you have the same choices here. You've got to look at the ballot question and then you've got to talk about authoring the argument. Okay. Any clarifying questions for our city? SO, Mr.. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Actually, a question of the city clerk. So. This open space, fiscal responsibility, the six D item. I mean, can we just do that on our own if it passes? Or do we need voter approval to direct the city attorney as this describes? Well, well. Well, what would happen is if the voters approved this particular measure, then as part of that, then the the voters essentially would have said, city attorney, go file an action to find out whether or not there was a take in and what the value is. Right. But my question was, do do we need that voter approval in order to make that direction? I mean, hypothetically, if it passes, could this council give the same direction after the election is certified? Yes. I mean, you could do that without having it. It's simply just I think the staff sense of it was that it sort of complemented what was being there in front of the voters. So they knew the voters would know that if they if they passed the other measure, there was a mechanism in place to determine what the value or if the owner would have to be compensated. Without that, they might then they may have a different feeling about whether or not they should approve or not that measure. Okay. I mean, the other option is that that is fleshed out during the campaign and the ballot arguments and so on. I think one thing that might be in your favor is just if you take this to the voters in you could say the voters approved this this funding requirement, a mechanism that might be stronger than just the council doing it. I mean, I think that was what was done with the ballot line in order to, you know, let the voters make the full disclosure. I. That's a good point, that courts if it were challenged in terms of this process, the court would presumably give a little greater weight to what the voters approved than what maybe a council had done. Thank you. Okay. So Councilmember Vela so. Just to be clear. And there were a couple couple questions that were were asked, but. What we would be authorized or what we would be putting forward is just that there be some sort of court action. Correct. The voters authorize a future election, essentially, that that we would be authorizing putting a ballot initiative forward potentially for funding . Right. That's part of this. Where you would be you would be putting forth. If the voters were to approve this, then we would move ahead to approve the act. Approve the previous agenda item that we just discussed. You know, the voters say the voters approved that. Yes. And then they also approved this in conjunction with it. Then there would be a process to move ahead to find out if there was if there was a taking and if there was a taking the value. And then also then there would be a a process that would have to be determined in terms of coming up with a funding source and how that would be. It would depend on if there was going to be a bond measure, then obviously that would take some council action to put that on the ballot, etc.. My concern is we just heard about all the issues with WW and everything else that if what we're thinking about is potentially going the route of requiring some sort of bond measure to fund it, that we say the words bond measure, why would we not say that? Why wouldn't we put that specifically in here? Well, it wouldn't because you could fund it from a source other than bond measure. In other words, you could use general fund money or development impact fees or so. So here's my concern with that. What we just heard was essentially that we, the voters voted on WW and we the voters thought that it was going to be spent on this and that. And I guess my I understand that it leaves it open, but I think rather than leaving it open, at least on my end, I would I would. My question is why it is impossible impossible to be as clear as possible. So could we, for instance, just say that what would be required is going to court? Figure out if it's a taking and then going through this bond process, basically. Could we narrow it so that it isn't coming from general funds or it isn't coming from other other sources? So that the the only source of funds would be through a bond measure. Correct. You could do that. The concern that I think that I would have is that if that bond measure wasn't passed and it would it would generally take a two thirds vote to do that, then that sort of leaves the funding up in the air. And the question is, have you limited yourself too much in terms of where that funding source should come from? And would that would that make the complementary measure subject to an additional legal challenge? Because there wasn't. There was such just one source of funding at that funding was contingent on the voters. It becomes somewhat problematic in terms of knowing that there's going to be a funding source. If you leave yourself some flexibility and options. It's certainly going to the voters would probably be the preferred method. But there might be other options available too. And I don't know that you'd want to necessarily limit yourself by this measure to only one source of funding. Mr. Asked The question that I would ask is if we were to approve this proposed ballot measure and limit the funding source only to a bond or whatever, and it didn't pass, would we be placing the city in legal jeopardy if we were faced with a taking or some other action? Well, I think that would that would be a concern is that you have now sort of put yourself into a box and then that box wasn't opened. Then what's going to happen next? You know, the property owners are going to say general funds have to be used instead of some other source. So that would be my concern of limiting yourself to one funding source in the measure. So. Councilman Brody. Thanks. But this is just really related to possible compensation to the owner. It's not, you know. We wouldn't be forced to spend money to turn it into a park or maintain it or do whatever. Correct. This is simply the to purchase the property. Assuming there was a taking the whole issue about the development of it in in some fashion is a whole separate issue. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? We do have a couple of public speakers, Doug Biggs. Thank you very much. First off, thank you for combining the two items so that you don't have to hear from me twice more tonight. Appreciate that. And just a follow up to something Councilmember Desai said. I will not Catsimatidis I did not take me up on my offer to meet with him prior to this meeting so I could fill him in on the on the history of this project. Also, probably didn't take a look at the lease that was enclosed in the documentation with this, which very clearly lays out the penalties we have to pay if this project goes beyond two years. Yes. Delaying this is going to cost us. Very clearly it's going to cost us. With regard to the ballot measures, the additional ballot measures, I will say in our perception, I think 60 or the cost impact study is or cost protection initiative is flawed. I think you run the risk of if it doesn't pass, then and as you said, if it does pass, then that'll give more credence to going for a to a lawsuit. But if it doesn't pass, it's going to give less credence to a lawsuit and perhaps impact your ability to do that. Determined if there's a taking. I think it's confusing to voters. I mean, I think the difference between this and Jean Sweeney is Jean Sweeney. That was a grassroots effort that was highly popular. This is paid for signatures on an initiative that doesn't have the grassroots strength, doesn't have any of the environmental groups supporting it. It's not something the community wants. So clearly, they're not going to vote for them to pay for it themselves. Also, in addition to this, I do think this is clearly this is not about parks. We all know that this is about homeless. And I think it's time that this community make an affirmation in favor of serving the homeless. And that's why I support the Carrying Alameda Act as the companion ordinance in this. Thank you. And our next speaker is Jeffrey RIDDIFORD. Madam Mayor, council people and everyone here I live on. My name is Geoffrey Bernard. I live on Central Avenue and I look right down Mackay Avenue. I have a Bay View somewhat. The concerns of the of the of the two people. In opposition to the. Seniors. Project. They seemed possible, but not probable. They talk about the the ambulance, you know, activity and and just total chaos is the impression that I got. What I understand about the project is that it is a it's a support based project to offer people who are on the edge of being possibly homeless . So to help them stay housed financially. Financial help and mental help. Physical help and access to. Just resources that just keep people on track, so to speak, in life. I went to the Alameda Caring Act morgue recently and I pointed out one of the five resource reports that I think was from the government woman And then I looked at another one that was 99 pages. So I scrolled and scroll and scroll and came up with a floor plan. I mean, a plan of the of 3.65 acre lot. It showed that one of the major buildings right next to Neptune Gardens was going to be demolished and then built into some medical help facility. And then the three of the buildings, which are just about the right size to subdivide into. Appropriate sized housing for older people and. And it just seems like a it seems like a no brainer. You've got a whole bunch of people out here that have a program. They've they've got a limited amount of commission. They've got funding. If people are willing to help and I think the island as a whole is willing to help the not in my backyard influence I find the most disappointing. Because. You that that feeling. Shows that people don't care about other people. And if more people cared about other people, things would be a whole lot better. Thank you for my time. Thank you. Okay. So. I think it's worth having the discussion of not only what should be in a fiscal responsibility measure, but whether we do indeed want to put that on the ballot. Does anyone want to weigh in one way or the other? Councilmember Vela I have concerns about putting. I found the wording to be. Difficult to follow. I think as a concept, I think it's very nuanced and I have concerns about putting it on the ballot because I think it detracts from the larger question at hand, which is, you know, which is the question that we're going to be working on revising for the for the other measures. So I also think that since we do have the ability to give the direction to our legal counsel to to do just this. My question is, can we give that direction now? Like, could we could we say in the instance that that other measure passes and that way it's been notice to the public, we can refer to it in our ballot arguments, we can refer to it in campaign material, and we can say that that this is the process that will be followed based off of council ordinance. So I hesitate to add things to the ballot that we can do through an act of council direction. And I think that this is one of those times that I think the council can can make that informed decision and give that direction, and we can give that notice to voters in a timely fashion. Thank you. Anyone want to weigh in on that? I like that idea. I mean, I asked the question but didn't think about doing it like preemptively. So I'd be supportive of that. But I don't I don't really want to put this fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot. Anyone else? Vice Mayor. Councilmember. They saw. For me, I think I would lean on just not putting this on the ballot. And I guess I would like to hear a little bit more about what we gain by giving that direction tonight. I think it almost opens up the well, we can vote for it. They'll figure it out in court later. Kind of argument. I would personally, if I had my druthers, I think I put the carrying Alameda act on there and I think it's I'm comfortable that our coverage, the conversation our community should have is do we want to take care of the people we say we want to take care of? Or do we want to pretend we're going to knock down 11 buildings and open space in a place in a functioning commercial, federal commercial area for for many, many years? I think in that I think that's the cleanest to use. Councilmember de sucks up really the most straightforward conversation we can have with the community. We can give that direction, but I'm open to it. I just don't quite understand why we would get what we gain by getting that giving that direction now. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, any thoughts? No. Since I don't support a for a special election, I think it's for for me, the issues. So you're neutral on this or. Oh, well, I won't put words in your mouth. Okay. No. Okay. No. So I. You so I, you know, in thinking this over, I know it's. Well, we're we're doing a special election, so these would be all the measures there are. But I still do think that giving voters three measures to consider could be complicated and could be confusing. And I do I'm very much supportive of the Kerry Alameda Act language. And I think to the vice mayor's point that we we do want to take it to the voters, to the community to say, you know, here's the problem we face. Do you want to help solve it or not? So, um, I would, I would be supportive of, of again, I thought Councilmember Vella made a very good point that, um, she's hesitant to go to the voters with an action that the council could approve or could, could give direction to. So I think in this case, less is more. And we can be simple and straightforward with the measures we do put on the ballot. But that's assuming that someone wants to make a motion not to go forward with the, uh, fiscal responsibility measure. I do have a question. I. Councilmember De Saag had said that since he's not supportive of the April special election. But I think whether or not the special election is in April or it's a question put in November, we still have to decide as a council. So I don't think that I do think whether we take that vote tonight or at another time. I would like to hear from all my colleagues about their thoughts on potentially how we would go about funding this. So perhaps tonight isn't the night for that question. But I would I would like to hear from everybody on that, because it's a concern that I have. Relative to the carrying Alameda language. I guess my question is, are aren't these questions that we could tie in to a valid argument specific to the first measure that that we voted to put on the April 9th, 2019 special election? And because I think they go hand in hand again, I worry about confusing voters. And are we. You know, we're asking them a negative and one and then a positive in the other. And I, I just worry about that. So to continue the discussion, my feeling about that is a good question. I think that it's important to let the voters know the action that the city council has already approved and and to spell it out. I think that having the two measures side by side gives a clearer choice that I think maybe not all voters get all the way down to the ballot arguments as hard as we're going to work on it and going to be standing. But the but they will presumably read the measures before them. And I, I, I like the way that it was worded and spelled out because I thought the language told the story. That's not to say that we can't, you know, do a little wordsmithing if we feel it's necessary. But I'm inclined to. Keep both on the ballot. That's my opinion. Those are your thoughts. So all three. Of the I, I did say earlier and that the fiscal responsibility measure, I think could add confusion. But I like the the the match, you know, the two. So let me try. Emotions, if it gets anywhere. If it doesn't, we'll do something else. So I would vote to not a motion that we don't put the McKay Avenue open space fiscal responsibility measure on the ballot and that we instead direct the city attorney as the. As the wording of that proposed ballot initiative directs. So if it passes, then we would authorize the city attorney to do that same thing that the ballot initiative would. Okay? Sure. Are we? You can do something separate on the carry on. Me too. I didn't even speak on that one yet, so. Oh, yes. Okay. So. So we have a motion second. I'll second it. But I do want to hear from the city attorney. As I understood the motion. The motion is not to put on the. You get what is called the other. The other, the. Second. Resolution. That the council would give direction or the council's direction would be as part of that motion that if the citizens initiative passes, then the city attorney's is to is to file the action in court. Within a six month period to determine whether or not there was a taking and to determine the value, etc., as the bee and the other resolution would have provided. That's the gist of what the Council member already said. And I think the reason I made that motion. Yes, correct. The reason I made that motion because I think it would give the writers of the ballot argument, you know, another possible angle to approach it with if they chose to. And then we don't really have done it because that's within our purview. So it didn't seem to me worth, you know, spending that time and possibly confusion, you know, for something that we have within our authority. I'm vice mayor. That's what it's a again, I'm I'm unclear why we are what we think we're getting from this. I understand the were giving this direction but to me the the the the. Proposed ballot language was the the importance of the fiscal responsibility ballot language. Was that it that the voters would say don't enacted until the money is found? Right. And so the direction was given in order to figure out how much money it was so that there would be. You know, is it a taking and how much is it going to cost us before that kicks in? To me, giving this direction now just feels like we're giving direction for some work. But. I'm not quite sure what we're getting and why we're making it now rather than in four months. Five months, once we know the. The results of the. So to respond to your question, also good question, by the way, people good discussions tonight. I, I don't think they're mutually exclusive propositions that we can give direction to the city attorney now and perhaps also fold in information about the costs, in argument, in opposition. To the to the measure or, you know, somewhere in what we're still going to draft. So I am sure it's because I'm jetlagged. I'm not I just am not understanding maybe what is being proposed. It sounds like we're basically saying if this thing passes, the city attorney should then go to court and figure out how much it's going to cost us. And are we, you know, in our we liable in terms of taking. Councilmember Bill, I. Think my concern would just be it would be another item that we have to then agenda is have another set of discussions on post election, which I do think again one of the questions before voters that's going to be discussed is where is the money going to be coming from? And that's the question that has come up more than once. And so, you know, I think it's prudent to say, look, we counsel. Would like to know one if this is taken. And two, you know. If it is a taking, what what are the costs going to be? And then how are we going to go about funding those costs? I think it just outlines for the public what the process would be, which sounds like that would be the process that we would follow anyways. Passes, I guess my whole thing is why put off the inevitable when we look right now? Because it's already agenda. And while I appreciate that something similar to what is proposed in item six D was done with the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. I think there are also some distinguishing characteristics or not. They are not the same situations. Okay. So I do believe we have emotion and. It's someone I. Suck. And I'm happy to hear more from the vice mayor about the concerns or perhaps the city attorney could weigh in about what we would potentially lose or gain from from giving that direction tonight. I just my concern is if we've already agenda is that why not give the direction it then gives that that power to you to take that action otherwise have to agenda. In the event that that measure passes. This is actually an interesting question. Has that question been agenda? What was agenda ized was should we ask the voters to give us and I'm not trying to be problematic often you said that I'm not sure that we did. Agenda is giving me. Direction and so maybe some legal action. We can't vote on that tonight. Or maybe there's a special meeting on January ten. Just quickly. Please. What I recall of the Jean Sweeney initiative was that Jean Sweeney, her great credit ad, obviously found that pass that large parcel and then went about the process of declaring it an open space area and out of an abundance of caution, what the city council had done. I believe this is what happened was the city council said that the Jean Sweeney initiative would not be enacted until and unless funding revenue sources were found. I believe that's that's how it went. So this whole discussion about taking or not then becomes. Well. And and I would just add that that is one of the features that distinguishes this item from from Jeanne Sweeney. Unless. Yeah, exactly. Unless the railroad wanted to make a ticking clock, but that wasn't what. It was about doing. Yeah, but they lost. But they. Lost. They lost, right. Because because, you know. Before they caught. Contract. So but I do think that the the noticing issue is a valid one. So it's a valid point. I mean, I think I think one could reasonably argue that it's within the ambit of of the of the measure. And certainly the idea that the city attorney would be given direction to do something. But you're right, there's a distinction between the voters doing it and the council doing it. And in light of the fact you're going to come back on the 10th anyway, why don't we just play it safe and just sort of add that as a separate agenda item? You could take action tonight not to put the Fiscal Responsibility Act, if that's the council direction, but we will defer the issue about giving direction to the city attorney. And then the other measure passes and to the 10th. And that way you have more time to think about whether the vice mayor's issues are should be followed or or not. Okay. QUESTION Councilmember Thank. You, Madam Chair. I mean, I'm okay with that, but I'm still I mean, I don't see how we resolve the agenda using notice thing by just kicking it to the 11th or the 10th or whatever it is. Well, I think you were talking about adding a brand new agenda item to a continued meeting, which has already been noticed. So. Well, we'll, we'll, we'll put it on as a special, a special meeting item. On the 15th. Oh, on the 10th. Oh, okay. All right. That's okay. We will just do that. I mean, if we're if that's our concern, then we need to make sure we. Do it right. We do it right and not, you know, like. Try to squeeze around all into a square peg or something. Councilmember Square peg. Whatever we go. Through, through the chair, if I could suggest to the maker of the motion a possible amendment, which would be to actually move this item to the 15th, because I think that that would allow it to actually be. Properly agenda. I feel better with that. I would feel more comfortable. All right, so I'll revise the motion to continue. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. I didn't call on. They call it in, as they call it, revise the motion to not put it on the ballot. And then agenda is actually giving this direction to the city attorney at the special meeting on the fifth. Which would be noticed with. 1715 making it. The 15th. So does that work? Okay. It's again. It's past the deadline to call the election, but you're not calling an election. So since you're giving direction, it doesn't have to be done by chance. Right. That wasn't my question. It's that the agenda goes out tomorrow. Will you be meeting? Could be next Tuesday with seven. So instead of going out tomorrow for the regular meeting 12 days in advance, it would go out in a special meeting for that same date of 15 foot, which is seven days advance. Yes. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't. I'm sorry. It doesn't solve the problem. I notice it. But if everyone feels more comfortable, I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. So. So we have the motion to continue this item. Yes. To a special meeting on January 15th. It's been moved and seconded all in. I opposed. Abstain. All right. So we have four yes votes. One abstention. The motion passes. Now. We still need to. Resolves this carrying Alameda act. And so we have numerous speakers. Correct? No more. OC. Council members. What are your thoughts? I don't have much more to add on this one. I know that there were some comments, but just since I think technically we're supposed to make motions and then discuss them, I would propose a motion to to put on the ballot the Korean Alameda Act. And as we did with the first item, to ask the subcommittee if they are willing to look at the language to make sure that that and bring that back to our special meeting on the 10th floor for final approval. Yes. ACCOMANDO We just got rid of one. Ballot and and also to craft the the arguments. For people, I'm sorry. And also to craft the arguments for that particular initiative. And I'm going to look to the city attorney's office to help us with some initial framework that we can work from. Correct some. For the question could live the legal requirements of the ballot question. The advice on that. It's similar to what we did on the sales tax measure is what I'm what I'm suggesting with that. Point of clarification. So the. The belt is 75 words has to be done by Thursday at the ballot argument doesn't have to be done until the following Wednesday. It's do the following. Right. Well, okay. So we would do that on the 15th is right. I thought you. Said the ballot question on the 10th ballot. We could do so. That would be the same timing I would propose. I'm sensing some reticence from your fellow subcommittee member taking on too much. I don't. And and another councilmember, Dave Saag, has kind of expressed a interest in staying away from this a little bit. I don't know if Councilmember Odie would be willing, but I'd be happy to find some time to work with somebody. And he thought he was going to duck being on a subcommittee, but it would really only be one. Change is how I'm going to vote on it. I'm fine. Yeah. Well, that's a fair question. That's. I mean, if that's okay with the mayor, I'm fine with that. Okay. So then for the subcommittee on the Carrying Alameda Act to be myself and Councilmember Odie. Oh, is it or that that's. Why you are me and John. I am afraid if you would like it. But you're trying to spread the spread the word for. It could be, you. Know, I think we're going to let council member Vela that that's good. We've we've we've divided up nicely. Okay. All right. So we've got so the ballot question and the arguments will be drafted by the subcommittee of the vice vice mayor. That's why I didn't. Councilmember Odie, is that under. That motion, which hasn't been seconded yet? Well, I just want to get into the motion, but. Okay, so it's been moved right here. Have a second. I'll second that so we can discuss it. Okay. And further discussion. During. Then why did. I'm sorry. I didn't want to comment on this because I didn't talk about it earlier. You know, we've heard some, you know, folks up here talking about how they've gone around the city recently and talked to a lot of voters. I did the same thing. I talked to a couple thousand people. And, you know, besides people speeding down their streets and their kids at risk of getting hit, the one thing that came up spontaneously after that was this. People would ask me, what do you feel about the homeless center? I mean, and they would ask you in a way like, you know, you have to answer because I'm not going to tell you how I feel. So you have to be honest with them and tell them. And to a one, none of the people I talked to were opposed. So I know that's you know, it's not scientific, you know, it's anecdotal, you know, but, you know, we were out there talking to people about the things that that they were concerned about. And this is an issue that people are concerned about. And I go back to the thing we said before. This is about Alameda carrying. So we can talk about that and we can say this is a value proposition that we have. This is a value as a city and our city can do better. So I, I think this is something we need to put on the ballot. We need to make sure the voters understand that this is a clear choice between having these services which are desperately needed and not having them. I think my my colleague, the vice mayor was very eloquent, said a very stronger than I probably ever would have. But I appreciated those comments because it's true. This is what this is about. This is about are we going to serve our most vulnerable people or are we not? And I think we need to give people a clear choice. And to me, this gives them a clear choice and they know what side they're voting on and if they're going to stand with the values that we share or they're not. So I will be voting for it. Right. Even though I got assigned to work. Yeah. Okay. With me. Okay. So we. We have a. A Motion Council member. It. And I do, you know, I think. I don't disagree with the proposition of that's being put forward. I actually agree very much with question B putting forward to voters. I think my concern is just this appearance that the council and part of why I didn't want to be involved in drafting it is we are drafting the arguments to the other measure. And so I think it's it's very important to segregate the two things and separate them so that there isn't an. Oh. Trying to use voters. I don't think that that's the goal of this council and also that whatever we're putting forward relative to the ballot question that we would also be drafting for the other measure is balanced and fair. So that that I just wanted to explain my reasoning for that. Good point. Thank you. In addition to the work. You know, good, very good plan. The fine art of saying no is something to cultivate. Further discussion. Council member and. I will vote no on this because you know, I'm all for a November 2020 election. But even when the project proponent, Mr. Biggs, came up and and made his discussions, my takeaway from his discussions were mainly barbs aimed at me rather than getting to the heart of the question that I raised earlier, which was I did not hear and I continue not to hear specific. Look wording from him that saying that if this is held in November 2020 that he would lose logic funding. So I, so I, I'm not at this point I'm not convinced I that by that argument I heard, you know, maybe people up here saying it. So I still believe that the superior decision is November 2020 when it comes to elections. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Can I just clarify in question? I mean, I know we are voting to put this on the April election, but you would support it if we were running the last one on the April. And this one on the November. You know, this all related to the previous one, which is April 19th over there. There are intimate there. They're intimately related. So. I guess I'm trying to understand just to see if we can if there's anything we can address. Is there is there something about what's being proposed that you have a concern with or literally the timing of it and because it's associated with the timing of the other? Well, it's the three issues. One was that, you know, you had 6000 residents saying that they want they want to have this to put to a vote, which we are doing. But from what I might take away from the leadership of that organization is they were fine with the November 2020. Yeah. Parallel to that, I did not hear a compelling evidence that that said that the project will crater if it is held in November 2020. So that's why even on this matter, because it was intimately related to item six, the to me it makes sense that it would be consistent. I should vote no. Okay. Thank you. With all due respect. No. That's fine. Okay. Anything further? All right, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Okay, so the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. Um. Um. Oh, wow. That's true. You're going to go home the same night we arrived. Um. We have next on the agenda. We have city manager communications. No communications. No, no communications. You say. Okay. And then we have oral communications, not agenda. No additional speakers, none. And any council referrals this evening. Negative. Okay. None. And so. Okay. So item ten is Council Communications. Council members can address any matter not in the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings. Who wants to start on my right. Whilst because I put this item, this council compact that the MTC put together. I wanted to share it with the public in case they weren't aware of it. I will be doing a referral to direct staff to come back and report on solutions that we can do.

A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of 15th Avenue South from South Nevada Street to South Columbian Way as “Alan Sugiyama Way.”

SeattleCityCouncil_07232018_Res 31827

The Report of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee Agenda Item one Resolution 318 27 providing an honorary designation of 15th Avenue. South from South Nevada Street to South. Columbian Way as Alan Sega Yama Way, the committee recommends the resolution be. Adopted. Thank you very much. It's absolutely my honor to present the legislation before you. Resolution 31827. And I want to thank all of these community activists and leaders for their heartfelt testimony. A little background about Mr. Sugiyama, who we are honoring today. He was regionally and nationally respected for his integrity, as you heard, his courage and his tireless commitment to our community and in particular to our youth. I was a lifelong resident, a community activist and educator living over 40 years in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. He was a Seattle native, a Garfield High School Bulldog alum, a Seattle Central and YouTube alum. He was founder, as you heard, of the Asian Student Union Unions at Seattle Central College and the University of Washington. He founded the Asian Family Affair newspaper in 1972, and as described in 1989, he was the first Asian-American elected to the Seattle school board, where he served two terms and advocated for equity and fairness and honorably served as the president of the school board from 1990 to 1998. In 1979, as a scribe he founded in this town is the Center for Career Alternatives that an organization provided free education and employment and career training for disadvantaged adults and youths in King and Snohomish counties and served as its director for over 30 years. He had so many accounts, accomplishments and and actually changed lives and successfully turned high risk youth towards high demand occupations. You heard testimony in that regard and did it in an innovative way and certainly always with love in his heart. From a personal note, you know, I know now for decades and decades and what we heard so much about what he did when he was alive and as many people that I've unfortunately lost over the years, I learned about as much about him in his life as I did when he was dealing with battling his illness. Still fought, still courageous, still inspirational, and still funny and loving. And that was an owl that we so loved and so respected. So again, I'd like to thank all of the community members. I actually was given a list of names to to thank, but that's always a dirty, dangerous journey to go down. So I'll just say thank you all that. I have many names and many people who should be thanked. And we'll have a celebration after our legislative hearing this afternoon. Another personal note. When I first decided to run for office, I sat down with Al. And not only was he a friend and a supporter, but he gave me some very significant advice about being of an Asian heritage and sort of the things we learn from our parents and our grandparents about how one conducts himself, how one behaves, how one stay strong. And we talked about that up until his later years. And so he was a friend, a mentor, as many described. And we will miss him and we will continue to honor him because in honoring him, we truly honor the best in ourselves. So thank you very much. Would anyone else like to question. Before I call for the roll call on the. Or rather, the passage of resolution with any one else. Like to say any words. I don't want to deprive you. Councilmember Bagshaw. And thank you to the community for coming today and for really leading this effort. I got to know Al in 2009. It was the first time that we met and he was very helpful, supportive to me when I decided to run for office, and I appreciate it very much. His commitment to youth and the good work and looking for alternatives. He was one of the first people I had talked to about what do we do? How can we bring you that are in our community into a space where they can actually flourish? And avoiding having to get into trouble and get into jail. But to find those options. And I just want you to know how much I deeply respect him and the love that he had for your community. Thank you. Councilman Back show any further comments before we close debate? We're good. Okay. Those in favor of adopting this resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to this. The motion carries a resolution adopted and the chair will gladly sign. Such an item into the record.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Office of Grants and Local Services for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program for the El Dorado Duck Pond Restoration Project; if awarded, accept an amount up to $3,000,000 for completion of the El Dorado Duck Pond Restoration Project; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the project. (District 4)

LongBeachCC_04122022_22-0413

Motion carries. Thank you. Number 23, please. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works recommendation to adopt a resolution to submit a grant application for the Land and Water Conservation Fund program for the El Dorado Duck Pond Restoration Project. It follows the motion in second. Any public comment? No public comment. Members, please. Councilman Mongo. Did we have a staff report on this? We have one, if you'd like one. Maybe a short staff report. This is a pretty big project and we're really, really proud of the work that Public works and Parks and Rec have done. The escalating costs due to inflation have really burdened this program. But I want to appreciate both Parks and Rec director Dennis and Eric Lopez for their continued commitment to the wildlife rest, the wildlife preservation at the center, and the additional resourcefulness that they have had to find to make this a reality. I look forward to the presentation. Thank you. Eric, if you can briefly go through the report. Thank you, Tom. Uh, vice mayor, members of the city council where we are here. To provide a brief update of the Duck Pond project. The project will include a lot of different improvements to improve water quality, ecological function and end the habitat by restoring the pond liner, enlarging the wetlands and four bay, removing invasive species and replanting with California natives. The scope of work includes draining down the pond, removal of sediments. Some are a lot of size demolition, a lot of old concrete that needs to be replaced. Utility relocations. Construction of the new for being wetlands areas. Replacement of pumping and filtration systems. And we will do the landscaping and a lot of accessibility improvements in the area as well. We have a partner at the Long Beach Water Department that's providing funding, support and support with pursuing additional grant opportunities, and we want to thank them for that support as well. The big one of our one of the big parts of our project is to be able to take water from the pond, treat it, filter it, and then re-use it to help irrigate the adjacent golf course. That will also help reduce our dependance on potable water for irrigation purposes, which is another huge benefit of the project. The the the actual construction will be impactful. We will have we will need to relocate existing wildlife, both native and non-native. There will be temporary impacts, but the long term benefits will outweigh those temporary impacts. And we are working closely with our team biologists, with our community partners, with our different department partners to ensure we do this as carefully as possible, and also in coordination with our folks at Fish and Wildlife who are permitting the project. Our did permit the project and who will be part of the process as we go through this. Our funding, our total project costs are estimated at 9 million. We are currently seeking authorization to pursue another grant for a total of $3 million. The different funding sources that are contributing to the project include Missouri Measure W grant funding, general capital funds and a water department contribution. Our timeline. We are on pause right now because of nesting. We were trying to get a head start, but we noticed nesting activities on site. So we stopped. We paused. We worked with our regulatory agency partners and we are waiting to be able to continue construction later this year. The target to restart is September and our target to complete the project is November of 2023. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you. Councilman Schubert on. Thank you. So I don't know if you covered it. So the construction will likely start this September and take just over a year to complete. Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I think this is a really important time to show our our appreciation for staff. This is this just isn't a replacement project. When I was elected, we talked about the pond needs to be fixed. And fixing the pond as it is is one thing. We're substantially changing the way that the pond functions and serves the residents and the ability for it to be a real environmental impact to our community by restoring reclaimed water during the day. I also think it's a great opportunity to plug. As a kid, I've always gone to the duck pond and now here I am in my forties and we're finally restoring it. But as a kid, I didn't know that you shouldn't feed bread to the ducks, because when you do that, you're really ruining the liner and all the components of the pond. And so no matter what pond, you're out within the city of Long Beach. And I see Councilman Austin looking at me. He's really passionate about pond pumps as I am. We have to keep those pond pumps functioning and we need to ensure that parents know not to feed the ducks anything but duck food. So thank you for everyone for their participation in this project. We're really excited to get it started and I look forward to it being followed through to completion by the new council member over the Duck Pond Councilmember Supernova. But I'll be standing there and supporting all the way along. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sabrina. Thank you. As we were speaking, just got an email from Jill Brennan, who I know from years ago on the Sustainable City Commission. And she's asking questions of an article that just appeared in the grunion. And her question is, what is public works expertize on bird issues and whatnot? So I think I'd like to mention. That oversight. Is being provided here by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. So if you'd like to comment and I add to that, I think that's an important issue we need to put out there. Absolutely, Councilman. And we also have a project biologist from Alassane Associates as part of the team that has relationships with the state agencies and that will help with some of that coordination. So our team does have expertize with wildlife and bird management through the project biologists from LSA Associates. And Mr. Lopez, what person what amount of money is being spent for wildlife preservation and support? I don't think people know how expensive it is to preserve the wildlife and how much the city of Long Beach cares about the birds and ducks. Swans? Yeah, Councilwoman, it's actually substantial. I don't have the exact figure, but a big part of the budget involves wildlife. Not just monitoring, but also the relocation cause. I would need to get that to you. I remember being surprised it was such a large number, but relocating turtles and ducks and swans and fish and all of that is very, very expensive. So people often come to the council and say, you don't do enough for the animals and the birds. This is a huge amount of money that we're spending to support the wildlife. And I appreciate the number of advocates that have come forward and appreciated that. And I think it's important for the community to know. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I'd like to just say I'm thrilled to see this this item come forward as chair of the Budget Oversight Committee. The duck pond issue seems to come up year after year. And I applaud my colleague, council member Mungo, now superstar, for their advocacy on this. Obviously, I have a duck pond in a great District eight chair park. But that kind of begs the question in terms of, you know, how many times do we really have in the city and what are we learning from El Dorado that we can apply in other areas of the city and other scenarios? Council And that's a great question. Not to duck the essence of the question, but we do have a number of bodies of water in our parks and we really see this project as a tremendous opportunity. Once the duck pond, as it's known reopens, is to reeducate our community. We're also in discussions with a lot of neighbors who care about the duck pond to create a friends of the Duck Pond organization and have docents that would be scheduled, particularly on weekends, to give guided tours, point out the different wildlife that does inhabit the area. And I know Animal Care Services has been working with public works to help address the relocation of there's quite a number of water turtles in the duck pond, I think over 500. So we'll be relocating some of those into other bodies of water in Eldorado Park. But there's also the opportunity for individuals that might want to adopt a turtle. So that will be available also. And Councilman, if I may, to just add to that, we do consider this an innovative project. It is something new and different, and we are looking forward to learning from it so that we can use this as a model potentially for other areas of the city where we have similar issues. So Measure W and other grant funding out there is available to do these types of creative, creative projects. So I just wanted to highlight that as well. Thank you. And I have been a councilmember in the district for, you know, almost ten years. I can tell you that the maintenance a lot of folks don't don't know what it requires to to maintain a pond and keep it, I would say, clean or even the algae levels, you know, maintain. But the pumps, it's the maintenance is ongoing. And then some of the things that you find inside of those those ponds at some point are can be quite alarming. And so, you know, it's almost like I feel like we almost need need to have somebody, you know, monitoring these ponds, you know, 24 seven to ensure that, you know, the ducks are being, you know, not being fed things that they shouldn't be fed, which I know is not realistic. But signage and more public education around how we manage these ponds, I think is very, very important. But happy to see this this item come forward and look forward to the restoration. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? No public comment on this. All right. Members, please cast your vote. Motion is carried. All right. So now we have our ending public comment. Any member of the public like to address the council? We have one. Dave Shukla. Please make your way to the front. Yeah. Good evening. Good to see you all again after our annual ritual of exotic fossil fuel machines driving around in circles. Um, I have some comments on agenda item number 21, which I can email you, but specific to last week's, uh, meeting. It was kind of disheartening to hear that we'd need yet another study session on surf after the first one was so uninformative. Uh, it read more like a, uh, like an argument for for why, uh, the city should try and lobby against the A.B., uh, 1873, I think it is. Rather than dealing with the realities of not only organics diversion, but the fact that a lot of cities may just not kind of pursue the credits since they have other obligations to their own population. So the economics of the facility, in addition to the fact that it's aging, creaky, um, and less toxic sludge, is good for us . I mean, I don't know why we want to breathe in things like dioxins, um, along with all the other cumulative impacts in that site, uh, on the air as well as on the soil and water. Um, you know, facilities kind of, uh, kind of like a white elephant, you know, it's, it's something that had made sense and does make sense from a certain point of view for a certain group of people, but not for the entire city, let alone for how to deal with waste, especially nutritive. Nutritive, waste. Uh, used in compost. I'd like to see a realistic plan now that there are green beans in certain, you know, for certain restaurants already, I'd like to see a realistic plan for green beans. Uh, for for residents. Um, you know, I'd like to see more soil, not oil myself. Thank you. Thank you. That satisfies public comment. Thank you for attending. This meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to request City Council to adopt support positions for Propositions 15, 16, 17, 18, and 25 on the November 3, 2020 ballot.

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0932

Thank you. Now, let's go ahead and move on to some other items. We will do 23 and then. And then the rest should go rather quickly. So why don't we go ahead and do 23 and then we'll go back and do all the rest. 23. Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Chair of the State Legislation Committee. Recommendation to request City Council to adopt support positions for Propositions 15, 16, 17, 18 and 25 on the November 3rd, 2020 ballot. Thank you. I have a motion in a second. I think there's a staff report on this item. So, Councilor Richardson, should we hear the staff report? Absolutely. All right, Mr. Monica. Thank you, Kevin Jackson and Tyler Kerley. We'll give the staff report. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'd like to give a high level overview of the State Legislation Committee's recommendation from the September 3rd meeting to support Propositions 15, 16, 17, 18 and 25. Let me. Move the slide. So these propositions consider the issues of split rural taxation, affirmative action, voting rights for people on parole, voting rights for 17 year olds, and the cash bail system. Proposition 15 is commonly referred to as the Split Roll Initiative, and if approved by voters, it would implement a different tax structure for most commercial and industrial properties worth more than $3 million, leading to increased revenues for local governments and education. If voted down, these properties would continue to be taxed based on the existing system. The current property tax system ties taxable value to original purchase price and annual increases are capped. Properties are reassessed when there is a change in ownership or new construction. The initiative would begin in 2022 and be phased in over a three year period for properties that are occupied by a majority of small California businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Split rule would further exclude agricultural properties and does not apply if the property owner has $3 million or less worth of commercial land and buildings in California. Most owners of commercial land and buildings worth more than $3 million, would pay higher property taxes. Yeah. The state estimates split rule would increase property taxes for local governments in education between six and a half billion and 11 and a half billion annually. And that would be split 6040 among local governments and education. So for the city, we estimate a range between one and 1.3 million and 3 million, according to different estimate approaches . So we really are working based on the best information that's available without an official methodology beyond the State's estimate. So if we take the statewide estimate and the city's current assessed valuation based on our share of overall property taxes, we estimate between 1.3 and 2.4 million annually. And if we further estimate the city's current tax values and their potential reassessed value under the initiative, we could expect closer to 3 million. The third estimate of 32 million is from the Schools and Communities First Campaign sponsoring the proposition. But their methodology is unclear and likely overestimated because we don't know how they account for the exemptions in the initiative. It also appears to include the portion that would go to education and by comparison, the county's estimate for their general fund revenue increase is 394 million, which is significantly lower as well compared to the campaign's estimate for the county of 1.3 billion. So there are a number of uncertainties with these estimates. And it's, as I mentioned, based on the best information we have, all three of these approaches assume Long Beach will continue to receive an amount proportional to its current share of revenues under the existing tax structure. But that might change through reassessment. Furthermore, exemptions are not just based on a single jurisdiction but rather are statewide, so it's difficult to accurately estimate what exemptions apply locally and last. The timeline of implementation and revenue generation is also unclear due to the administrative work that would be required to reassess properties. The L.A. County assessor estimates it will take 5 to 10 years to get to full implementation. Proposition 16 asks voters whether to repeal Proposition 209 from 1996 and allow for the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in decisions related to public employment, education and contracting, state and local government entities would still have to comply with federal law, which establishes a right to equal protection and limits consideration of characteristics as one of several factors not the decisive factor in decisions. Repealing 209 Proposition 2a9 would permit state and local governments to change current policies or programs. Therefore, the measure would not have direct fiscal effect unless the Council chose to change procurement and hiring practices and practices. Proposition 17 would amend the state constitution to grant individuals on parole for felony convictions the right to vote in California. The state estimates that Proposition 17 could cost counties hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare voting information and resources for roughly 40,000 current parolees. The Los Angeles County clerk reports that this proposition could have minor impacts on county operations. The county public defender supports restoring voting rights for people who have completed prison sentences. The proposition could have a minimal cost increase to the city clerk's office related to revising voting materials and ensuring they are distributed to additional eligible voters. Proposition 18 would authorize eligible 17 year olds who are U.S. citizens and California residents to vote in a special or primary election if they will be at least 18 years old. By the next general election. The state estimates the proposition could require one time costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for infrastructure and Labor to update existing voter registration systems. The proposition would have minimal implications for city operations, as the majority of the cost burden would fall on counties for the development and processing of additional voting materials. And last we have Proposition 25, which would uphold Senate Bill ten of 2018 and change the existing cash bail system to a risk based system. A no vote on Proposition 25 would repeal SB ten, thereby retaining the current cash bail system. So in August 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB ten into law, and it was slated to go into effect in October 2019. If upheld through Proposition eight and Proposition 25, SB ten one reform current bill laws implementing a new pretrial detention and release system based on public safety and flight risk instead of cash bail risk would be assessed based on the likelihood of an individual not appearing in court and the likelihood of an individual committing a new crime if released. The risk based assessment would be determined by the Court in consultation with stakeholders, considering the following factors. Low risk individuals would be released for certain misdemeanors. Medium risk individuals could be released or provided supervised release with conditions necessary to ensure public safety and the person's return to court or courts could do a review to determine whether to detain those individuals until arraignment. And third, high risk individuals would not be granted release for serious or violent crimes. The state estimates that Proposition 25 could cost the state and local governments in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on how the system is implemented. And some of the state costs could be reduced by local programs that are directed towards assisting detainees and reducing recidivism. But this remains unclear at this point. The state estimates that county jail costs could also decrease by tens of millions of dollars annually from less crowded jails. And the direct impacts of this proposition to the city are also unclear. Counties would be responsible for implementing the transition from the current cash bail system to a risk assessment system. The implementation of SB ten would have a direct impact on the county jail system and would require significant changes to pretrial release operations. With that, I conclude my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, as the patient stated, our state legislation committee had a meeting. We received a staff report on each of these and had a healthy level of discussion on each of these. And we make recommend we recommend to the City Council that we take positions of support on these matters. Most of our justification are a couple of things. One, Proposition 16, 17, 18 and 25 are really about how they align with the work that we've done over the last few months with with our reconciliation process, thinking about the way systems have operated, perhaps disenfranchized populations, and that that's something that we want to be able to acknowledge and be and be support of and support efforts to sort of change course there. More specifically, Proposition 16, which is it repeals Prop 209 and allows for decisions and and procurement and targeting based on race and gender and other tactics across institutions, from educational institutions to public agencies like cities and counties. You can do things like set targets for procurement, set targets for hiring, and other things that used to be a program that worked really well in California and and based on Prop 209 was eliminated. And since then, we've seen dramatic, dramatic economic impacts and greater segregation. And so this is an opportunity for Long Beach to take a position in support. And we have stories like that on every single one of these from restoring voting rights and other and sort of other things. Proposition 15, Schools and communities first, this really was has bubbled up from our local community. Our local community has really been very, very vocal vocally supporting this. We know that the way that local government and schools are structured and funded, there needs to be some reform to it. We are we are structured in a way that it's a you know, it's very entrepreneurial. And what we've seen is with the pandemic, when sales tax goes away and it goes away and all those things go away, we are still responsible for providing services. So I think this is in alignment with reforming the way that local government is financed. So all of these things, these are you know, these are big issues. And we know that there are people on on all sides of these issues who may have some expertize or a specific concern about one or the other. But I think the good news is we're a big, diverse city and this is a big opportunity. And, you know, it's a big opportunity for us to do this. But, you know, one way or the other, it's ultimately up to the voters. So the way the city council goes, the way individuals support or talk about this in the community that belongs on the outside, I think is important for the public to know that the city is not. Once we take this position, we're not spending any of our local tax dollars or local proceeds advocating a position one way or the other. This is us taking a position of support those campaigns can use, can do whatever they want to do. But internally, we're not using any resources to advocate one position or the other. So I support all five of these. I came out of our committee and I strongly encourage the city council to consider a yes vote. Thank you. Councilor Maria Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And I think Councilmember Richardson was on target with every comment that he made on every one of these propositions. In regards to Proposition 16, especially, I have a history with that one. Back in 1996, I was marching and protesting to oh nine at that time. So let it pass. But what these propositions do on the ballot is basically address what we all know to be systemic racism. And I think that putting these in the bill and if it passed, would be doing a big test and eliminating systemic racism from from our Constitution. So I support these items. And I think that if we could get the support of our colleagues in the city council as well. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Thank you to the committee for bringing these forward. I think these are all common sense propositions that really help the city not only balance the budget, but also ensure that every constituent has an access point to participate in their local democracy. Obviously, the voting age is something we've talked a lot about in the city of Long Beach. I think it makes a lot of sense to have that begin at 17 for the primary. I think Prop 15 is something that. Is long. Overdue and the way that it's presented today is well balanced and measured. And I would also say, including being able to allow people to vote that that might have already been spent time incarcerated is really critical to ensure that we are not further perpetuating structural racism as it might exist in our justice system. So I wholeheartedly support this and agree this is just the city going on record, being able to show our support for these items that will benefit all of our constituents in the city of Long Beach. So great work. Thank you, Councilmember Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate my council colleagues bringing this item forward. I'm going to be voting no on this. I've already taken a personal position unrelated to the city council as a whole on some of these. In fact, just yesterday I had an interview with some Polish students regarding my support for Propositions 15 and 16. So I've been pretty responsive in regards to my position on those two specific ones. This particular item has a very broad grouping of propositions in it, and at least one of them, Proposition 25 related to bail, has really changed a lot since that proposition was written. Well, the proposition hasn't changed, but the status of Bail House in regards to a Supreme Court ruling on the topic about two weeks ago, that really has changed the framework of our practical application of bail in the criminal justice system to accommodate for a lot of the things that are listed in Proposition 25. But above and beyond that, I think that this particular item calls for the council to weigh in on several diverse propositions together. In my opinion, these are voter issues which local government bodies probably should not be in the business of advocacy on their state election issues. And it's really best left to the proponents of the initiatives, in my opinion, to advocate for the items. But having said that, I do appreciate that being forward brought forward, and I appreciate the discussion tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm also a member of the State Lands Committee. Unfortunately, I was not able to be at the meeting when these items were adopted. But I do think it is important for me to lend my voice to, at least to these issues that I believe and will impact the city of Long Beach should they pass. And and and I think each and every one of them are are relevant to to the discussion today in policy today that I will, again, like I said, impact and say in support of these items. And I understand that they're going to be pros and cons on both sides of this issue. But we have to look at where California is, where our state is today. Some of these these are at least a couple of these propositions seek to undo or. Or modify laws or change drastically change laws that have been on the books, some for 40 years, some for the last 20 years. And I can tell you that, you know, in terms of my involvement, you know, in in local government and in civic affairs, you know, one for one was was a very instrumental in getting me involved. And that was certainly of Prop 16 that is before us here today of, I do think, conversations around racial equity. You know, prior to 1996, affirmative action was an equity tool that sought to really balance affordability. So I do think from from educational institutions of, you know, job access, that is a very, very important proposition. And I know Prop 15 is one that is going to be debated pretty significantly over the next several weeks. But, you know, again, this was a a tax initiative that was put in place in 1978. I was ten years old at that time, and California was in a much different place. It was a much different state. And when we talk about equity and opportunity moving forward, these these are these these two particular initiatives, I think are very, very important for us to look at. And I think the conversation and debate is already moving forward, but I will be voting in support about the state legislature recommendations. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any further comment on these? Yes. Our first speakers, Jennifer Hing. I can. Yes. Hi, Mary. Hi. Dear Mayor Garcia and Long Beach council members Bobby Hughes deserve and support, care or support and care that allows them to overcome challenges, live full lives and thrive. You deserve to live, work and play in a community that provides dedicated investments and resources that allow them to reach their full potential. Youth across California are working every day to create healthy, whole communities where they can imagine and help build futures for us all. To My Girls in Action, Californians for Justice and Invest in Youth Coalition are here in support of the council's endorsement for profit teen, also known as schools and teachers. Our young people are leading the fight to ensure corporations pay their fair share of taxes. We have an exciting opportunity to double our impact with our local measure a ballot initiative that holds oil industry accountable to pay their fair share in taxes. These two ballot measures work in parallel to support an equitable and just future for our communities. U.S. corporations double and triple their profits during a global health crisis at the expense of low income, working class people and essential workers. While our communities suffer. When corporations pay outdated 1940 commercial property tax rates, they profit and our community loses. Cheating their way through tax loopholes is a form of divestment from our public education system. We need city leaders to support us and hold corporations accountable. Today, young people are often young people who are not of age to vote are doing their part this election season. They are on the ground, hosting voter education events and are mobilizing new voters and community members on issues that impact their future. We need to value their work and ensure their voices are heard. You're asking city leaders to do your part and support issues like Prop 15 that invest in youth. Voting yes on 15 would bring $12 billion for new schools and communities to increase resources and support for youth and their families. With an estimated 49.7 million coming to Long Beach, reinvesting in rebuilding public education and creating a public education system that reflects our communities, takes all of us leading together. Millions of students in California attend a school with police officers, but no counselor or nurse. Those communities are facing big gaps now in meeting the health and wellness needs of students in the era of COVID, including Long Beach. Long Beach needs to commit to investing in youth and endorsed property. It is a step in the right direction and will pave the way for more equitable and just funding that centers our highest needs , youth and community members. This crisis is causing you to be bold and courageously alongside our youth leaders. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Patrick Swimmer. Wow. Well, it doesn't work. Patrick Swimmer. Yeah. Hello, Mayor Darcy and council members, thank you for the time to speak tonight. My name is Patrick Schwimmer and I'm speaking on behalf of the Long Beach Young Democrats. Our organization has endorsed all of these propositions and we urge the city to do the same. These five propositions can have an incredible impact on achieving the parity and equity we all want to see in the city. That has been the focus over these budget conversations the last few months. However, in addition to supporting these propositions, I also urge the city to take proactive steps to ensure that if passed, they will achieve their desired effects and avoid any unintended consequences. For example, Prop 15 would help provide crucially needed resources to our underfunded education system. However, the city must be sure to develop assistance resources for small businesses who are already experiencing hardships due to the pandemic, particularly those with triple net leases who will see their overhead skyrocket. Prop 16 would give the city the tool of affirmative action back to bring new economic opportunities to disadvantaged communities. But that will only be helpful to full review of the city's practices, particularly with contractors, to ensure the tool will be used effectively. But 17 and 18 would enfranchise many members of our community, but will be useless without effective outreach to ensure everyone who has been enfranchised understands their renewed rights. And Prop 25 would do away with the incredibly harmful cash bail system that has plagued lower income communities and communities of color for generations. But the city must work proactively with the state and county to ensure that the new risk assessment tools do not simply perpetuate discrimination under a different name. These five impact propositions can have an incredible impact on a city, but we need to take the steps necessary to ensure that they do only good and no harm. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Troy Peters. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Please begin. Okay. You remember Garcia and Long Beach council members? My name is Troy Peters and I am a youth ambassador for the city's Youth Strategic Plan and a youth empowerment coach for our exciting new ballot measure us. I am here as a I'm also here as a youth ambassador for the Investing Youth Coalition. I'm here to support and invest your endorsement on Prop 15. School should be a positive place to learn and a community resource that leads to opportunities and success. Despite being one of the wealthiest states. California ranks 39 out of 50 in education spending. And in 2016, 7000 students attending the U.S. reported being homeless. Things will get worse if we do not act now. We hope when we hold wealthy corporations accountable to pay their fair share in commercial property taxes, we secure revenue for our schools, communities, and for our schools and communities that have struggled through decades of deep investment. Great schools bring value to our communities, protect teachers, students and schools from corporate greed. By endorsing Prop 15, schools across the state closed down in response to the spread of COVID 19. Students and families lost access to schools as critical hubs of community resources. This current crisis shines a new light on the complicated, overlapping reasons that California public schools have yet to live up to their promise of providing equal education for all, especially for students of color, English language learners, LGBTQ students, rural students and low income students. COVID 19 also presents a new opportunity for students, their families and educators to become architects and a new path forward. Now more than ever, we must build a network of public schools that are beacons of light and provide hope, opportunity and pathways to health and success. This is an exciting opportunity to reverse a longstanding pattern of divestment from our schools and communities. We hope you will join us in endorsing Prop 15. Thank you very much. And thank you at roll call vote, please. District one. I district to. I'm district three. Nay district for. District four. District five. I. District five. Nay, they confirm. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. District six. Or. District seven? District eight. By. District nine. All right. Just before is a name. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. And, Vice Mayor, stay away from the next item. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Item six. Item six. Item six. Just one moment. Report from City Clerk recommendation to receive and file a presentation from the Los Angeles Registrar Recorder County Clerk relative to the November 3rd, 2020. General Municipal Elections Citywide. A Vice Mayor here to assist us with the presenting information on the November general election is Monica Flores, government and legislative affairs manager for the

Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Alameda Municipal Power’s Smart Meter Program, Including Opting Out, City Manager Voting, Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation, Maintenance and Inspection. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)

AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4968

Oh, and we have about seven speakers on this. You want to speak to a referral or introduce it? Um, you know, I think at least I'll speak for how this came about for me. And I've spoken with staff and also members of the public, but I think that there's you know, there's been a lot of conversation and questions being raised about different things. And my intent is really to allow for council to have a conversation because of the Brown Act, we can't all speak on these issues. So to be able to speak about the issues and the concerns being raised to also review. With staff, the concerns that have been raised and then, you know, see how we want to move forward on it and within the confines of the city charter and and also clarify just who has authority for what. Because I think that part of it is people don't know who to speak to and what the extent of our authority is. And that has been something that has been frustrating to me as a council member, but also I know to members of the public and and to staff. And I just want to add, I want to thank Vice Mayor Lee Avella for working with me on this. And the community has expressed concerns for a long time. And I wanted to bring the referral because there seems to be a disconnect between the communications that come to council members and myself on this issue and what is happening with AMP and AMP. As much as it's not as much as it's not the city. It is, in fact, the city. So people know we have our own utility for a reason. We want better service, not the same. We want better. If we were going to offer the same or worse or fewer options, we wouldn't need AMP, my opinion. So I think it is important that our utility be responsive to us and it seems like we've got not necessarily the communication or the response that I would like. So that was part of it. And then part of it is that our city manager is a voting member on the Privy Council is not. So my other part of this goes to is there a way for council to give any feedback? Is it possible to have the city manager report to us and regards to upcoming issues that she will be asked to vote on and get any feedback? Is that does there have to be a firewall between us so that we're getting emails, we're trying to find out what's happening? And yet she's part of the group that's voting unanimously, as my understanding, to, in fact, support AMP's policy. So that goes to, you know, to figure out what we can do. And this is similar to what the vice mayor is saying. Who has the authority? What authority does council have on this when we're trying to be responsive to our community and it's like super like not it seems impossible. So that's why I wanted to do the referral. I was very happy to work with vice mayor on this. Likewise. Thank you. And so then I'm going to go ahead and let the speakers and I want to give you all honestly and opportunities to speak here, too, so that we can figure out how we're moving forward. So I appreciate you all coming out here tonight and staying so late because that goes to show we know it's important. Christopher Raby, Shelby Sheehan and someone said in time to her and then Lisa Zapata. Hi. I'm Christopher Raby, Alameda, a native resident father of two. And I'm here tonight to inform you about the serious threats to public health and safety caused by AMP Smart Meter program and why it must be stopped. As you may know, smart meters transmit wireless information about your electric usage to AMP, but you may not be aware of as the hundreds of scientific studies that show significant adverse health effects with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwaves currently approved and used in wireless communication. This research has also demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF, including single and double stranded DNA breaks, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress, protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumors. Many scientists, researchers, public health officials and agencies conclude that EMF standards established by the FCC are outdated, as they are based only on the heat effects and not biological effects of non-ionizing EMF microwave radiation, which are scientifically, scientifically demonstrated at levels hundreds of times less than current safety exposure limits, and thus current standards are inadequate to protect public health. In 2011, the World Health Organization designated wireless communications as a possible carcinogen. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics asked for a reassessment of exposure to RF limits and policies that protect children's health throughout their lifetimes and reflect current use patterns. In 2014, the California Medical Association adopted a resolution to reevaluate wireless standards, coming to the conclusion that existing public safety limits for microwave MF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect human health. Smart meters emit RF radiation much more frequently than the 1700 times per day AMP claims. Independent testing has shown that a single smart meter emits RF radiation between 9000 and 190,000 times per day. When you put five or more smart meters together, it results in a continuous stream of pulsed RF radiation 24 seven that can be detected more than 20 feet away and travels through walls and points to put a bank of 13 of these meters on the outside of my kids bedroom wall within six feet of their beds. This will transmit RF between 117,002.4 million times a day and expose my children to a constant stream of RF radiation anytime in their room. Essentially microwaving them while they sleep or play or whatever they're doing in there. Since the current opt out plan has no option for people in my situation. I have asked the Public Utility Board to make an exemption to their opt out policy. So if one person wants to opt out in a multi-unit building, the whole bank can be analog meters with no fee. It's been two months. I still haven't heard from them. I have, however, received a $125 opt out fee on my latest electric bill, which is, by the way, is wrongful use of force or fear and fits the legal definition of extortion as defined in the California Penal Code, Section 518. Aside from these issues, smart meters are also known to raise bills, explode and catch fire, and they violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution as they are unwarranted surveillance devices. In light of this information, I ask that you do anything within your power to stop amp smart meter program and to work towards the long term goal of the complete and permanent removal of all smart meters within the city of Alameda. Thank you. Thank you very much. Shelby. And she someone to chime to her. So she gets up to 6 minutes. Thank you. Oh, hi. So some of what Chris said, I'll be saying as well, and expanding on a little bit and making some recommendation. And I think Julie saw me at the last meeting. And if you can speak clearly into the memory. Okay. Okay. So just let me start. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and for taking the time to consider our concerns about the Smart Reading Program in Alameda. My name is Shelby Sheehan. I am an all nighter resident. My background is in public health. I have a master's science from UCLA in Environmental Health, and I'm a doctoral candidate in environmental science and engineering. I'm here to express my concerns about the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation from smart meters and the compulsory smart meter installation program currently underway in Alameda. I previously submitted a letter to all of you about this issue. In it, I include references and additional links to support the statements I'm making before you tonight. I would like to use this time to summarize that information and reiterate my recommendations for the Council to give to AMP regarding the Smart Meter program. Please feel free to use my letter as a starting point and I respectfully request that you continue to do further reading to educate yourself more fully about smart meters and M-F radiation health concerns. My first recommendation is for a complete moratorium on meter installations. 5757 other counties or cities in California have already done this. For example, Marin County, the cities of Piedmont Local, Richmond local as well, Santa Phil and Sebastopol, among others. These moratoriums were adopted to protect health, safety and welfare of the residents. Alameda should follow suit. Make no mistake, this is a huge health and safety issue. Smart meters constantly emit EMF radiation that interferes with a biological functions and makes people sick. As Chris said, for example, it can cause significant acute problems such as debilitating fatigue and severe neurological issues, worsening of mental health disorders, neuropathy, and tonight, among others . Just as important, MF radiation can cause cancer. This fact is recognized by many prestigious and well-known organizations, including who that Chris mentioned and a multitude of scientific and academic organizations. All recognize the acute health effects and cancer risk from units. Most vulnerable are those that already have health problems or other sensitive populations. Included on that list are people with multiple sclerosis, autism, children, and those with cancer, just to name a few. Sensitive populations. So what is the risk associated with iems from smart meters? It is common knowledge that cell phone use, among other things, should be limited to do it due to an increased risk of cancer from EMF radiation. For example, the manufacturers say that the radiation from a smart meter is minimal, equivalent to that of a cell phone. But in real life, there's overwhelming evidence of a much greater risk. In fact, Dr. Dietrich Heart, who is an M.D. and a Ph.D. and an expert in MF Radiation, calls MF Illness the health crisis of our time. Many experts in report after report and study after study, including those published in peer reviewed journals, which is the highest scientific standard there is as well. Laypeople who videotaped the levels of radiation from smart meters in actual use demonstrate that the risk is much higher than industry states. Based on real life data. The actual risk of cancer from smart meters is 100 times that of a single cell phone. That is two orders of magnitude. It's clearly a significant risk, especially for sensitive populations and should be alarming to us all. Therefore, a moratorium on smart meter installations is warranted unless and until the known health risks are addressed. My second recommendation. With or without a moratorium is about the opt out. As Chris said presently, you can opt out of getting a meter, but it costs $125 initially and then $10 a month after that, which is prohibitive to a lot of families and discriminatory and illegal in my opinion. Furthermore, the ability to opt out sunsets after two years, which means after after two years, you can't opt out anymore. They take that right away from you and they are going to force a smart meter on you. But. And it's absolutely unacceptable given the known health risk concerns. Therefore, my second one, my second recommendation is to eliminate the opt out charge as well as a sunset clause. My third recommendation is about the issues in multifamily units. Again, I'm I'm marrying what Chris said in multifamily units. One could have five, ten, 20 or more smart meters, all constantly emitting huge amounts of EMF radiation, causing an incredible increased health risk associated with so many in one place. Many are place right outside bedrooms, a role. Children are sleeping. No one should be forced to have their children exposed to such high amounts of radiation. Therefore, because of the aforementioned known health concerns, I recommend a rule that if one resident of a multifamily unit wants to opt out, then the entire building must be exempted from all smart meter installations. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to put the health and safety of Alameda residents as the top priority by directing AMP to one halt further installations of smart meters until safety can be established to eliminate the opt out cost and the sunset clause. And three discontinue installations on multifamily units if even one resident opposes them. Thank you. Thank you. This is the Potter. And then Gabby Dolphin, another Curtis. I am. They've said a lot of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll just go on with my personal points. I've been a resident in Alameda since 2002. I was really surprised to find out that there was no way that I was going to have to pay to opt out of something that clearly has health hazards and is. Is it trespassing technology? It really. I just felt bullied into having to pay. I can't afford this opt out fee and I shouldn't have to afford this opt out fee. As a single mom, it's just ridiculous. And it's appalling. So as well. Personally, I am immunocompromised. My son. I don't want him playing by that. Technology. It's right in the children's area. My husband has passed away from cancer. This is something that clearly has health hazards and should not be. It should be with caution that we. We. Take this technology and it seems like it's being forced upon us. And I. I just really resent that. And I. Love Alameda. I love. Living here. And I've even considered moving away. And I don't want to do that. I really enjoy this community that we have. I believe that there should not be an opt out fee, that this is extortion and it. I've already sent notices of liability to Nicholas. Michael Picker and Barbara Lee and Senator Feinstein. And I am going to go forward with this. If I continue to feel like I'm being bullied into something that clearly is hazardous and is illegal. So I would hope that you could put a moratorium on this. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Gabby Dolphin. Gabby Donovan once again, High City Council, August body and mayor. What's being said here is really pertinent at this time. I don't have a specific statement about smart metering. I want to say, though, that I have been working with AMP and Pub for a while, a few months and the pub board and AMP have they've really looked to change, to open up, to be more available to the community. And for that I'm really, really grateful and I really think Nico's over there because he's new here and he's stepped into not a minefield, but good lord, we're a new community to him and times are changing. We've got a lot of serious issues. But my concern again has to do with the structure of communication in the governance of this municipality. And if I were to take a huge step back and look at the large picture, we have the pub board, big business, and sitting on the pub board is our city manager and I'm only using concepts, not names. This is not about UGL, it's about roles. City managers. We've got big business in bed with our government. And and the reason I bring that up is that I feel there's a real difficulty penetrating through pub and amp in so difficult. I don't even know what questions to ask. So what I did was I submitted a four year request to AMP and they very graciously gave the information I requested. But the idea being that it should have been available to me and it should be communicable and not communicable, that's a disease. But to communicate about it, but to know beforehand what's going on with AMP, I honestly don't feel that these people are coming to you for help. But what I understand when I read the city charter and I did when I first started talking to Frank about looking at the climate change thing again, I interpreted it to be mean. See that the city council had far more weight and influence because you are our elected officials and you carry our word to staff and to pub and that's not happening. What happens is they listen, listen, listen, listen. Nice, good idea. And boom, we go straight forward with street smart meters or. I can understand the joy, but I don't see any joy in the fact that AMP is going to be a huge new revenue stream with this new killer technology business that's going in. And I do believe I saw a little bit of glee that, you know, there's going to be a big revenue stream open up because they're going to be taking electricity. What about solar? What about wind? What about geothermal? I didn't hear any talk about that alternate energy. We have a huge business coming in that's going to suck up energy was the word used. So my concern is. I know we're constrained by our charter, but surely we can give more thought to it on how we communicate and how we open up about this issue, in particular energy, the changing energy landscape, the desires, desires of the people of Alameda. And having pub and amp work with us. Not well, you know. Thanks. Thank you. Heather Curtis and then Nancy Gordon. And if you want to speak on some time, please submit your slip. Morning. And there, Curtis, that quite morning. I've been a native here for 50 years, and I cannot be as articulate as these wonderful people have. But I have grave concerns, not only about well, mostly about the health effects, whipped, sorry, surveillance and the gathering and selling of my personal data. I've heard some people say now that big data is the new big oil. Chairman former Chairman Wheeler, there's a video going around saying, you know, we're going to roll out the 5G. It's going to make us billions. We don't care who regulates it. No scientific studies being done. So we've got huge issues with this. Hacking vulnerabilities, fires, especially increasing during power surges, inaccurate billing issues, and again, the 29 sun set for the opt out. I can also not afford the opt out fee. I paid over $500 for three years to puny to keep a smart meter off of my home. At which point, after three years, emails were released between the PGA executives and the PUC, showing that they were very much aware of the liability and health problems with smart meters and they had to quit charging us for them. That's all available on stop smart meters dot org. So I should not be forced to put a dangerous device in my home. Not on it, because this technology and frequencies are coming into my home or have to pay an opt out fee to prevent one from being installed. We also do not want I do not want any, am I? Meters. Which is what they're substituting advanced meters in some cities and regions saying that they're are not smart meters, but they really are as dangerous. And just a little bit about me. I have an older flip phone, which I only use for emergencies. No cell phone, my cable and for my computers and my phone is hard wired. I haven't ever had wi fi in my home and I even got rid of my microwave once I started doing my own research in due diligence on how dangerous these technologies are . So and I think at this point, I hope if 5G is rolling out, this will become an agenda item because that's much worse than what we've got now. So I respectfully request that you, as my representatives require amp. AMP you be to do your due diligence by reviewing all of the independent studies that are out there. We can't rely on industry. They're covering all of this up and they're very much aware of the health dangers of this wi fi, smart meters, all of them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nancy. I hope you do the right thing. And she's our last speaker on this item. Thank you, mayor and council members. Yeah. I would also like you and I corroborate what they say. I agree. And I'm a Spanish major, so I don't know all that scientific stuff. However, about eight years ago, when my two oldest granddaughters were little, they're ten and eight now. I attended I happened to get a call from a former flight attendant friend of mine and she said, you've got to go to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and listen to these experts about EMF and damage. So I went and after that I signed up for the Commonwealth Club and I had a lot of information. These are people from not only the United States but in Europe and I believe it. I gave the notes to my son and his wife, but I believe that in France they were forbidding cell phones for kids under 12. I mean, there are developing brains and things like that. I probably already have fried my brain with cell phones and wireless and everything like that. And sometimes I can feel I used to be able to feel pains going through my head if I had my phone and that was even with a landline starting. But some of us have businesses where we can't really avoid all that. It's supposed to make it easier. But there was a lot of information. And now it's coming out on the Web sites that people have mentioned and that they've given you and their letters. I'm unsure of how it invades privacy. Again, that's not my field of expertize at all, but I trust the people who've done the research. I also watched a very informative video of a retired and highly experienced and respected fire chief about the Northern California fires and references to smart meters. It's is pretty bizarre and kind of scary. Very scary. And now we've got new fires. I'm just wondering if there's a relationship between the drones and. Smart meters. Who knows? I did hear about from my body worker who on Grand Street. She's a doctor. She gave me the Web site for special plugs that I can plug in. Is supposed to kind of neutralize EMFs in my house. I mean, I can't test it myself, but I'm starting to plug in me, and I give it to my son in his family. Let's see this supposed to filter out some of that. I mean. I'm probably older than. About everybody in this room. And when I was a kid, my parents kept saying, Nancy, don't sit so close to the TV. And then I used to stare at the microwave. I like to watch stuff happening until I heard, Oh, that's not so cool to do. So some things we learn. By accident. Other things we learn by like don't put Tupperware, don't heat your stuff in Tupperware in the microwave. I mean. So far I'm still alive, so kick in and try to kick the smart meters off my property. I happened to go out my front door and here was a guy from AMP. And anyway, I don't want to get the opt out fee. A lot of assumptions are being made and. Their health hazards up the ying yang. I don't want our young people to. Have the repercussions of all this going on. And I think it is big business and reminds me of the competition with Comcast days. Thank you. Thank you very much. She was our last speaker. So there's a referral. Um, did any council members want to make comments or. And yes, Niko Pro is here too, if you want to ask questions or he can maybe answer some of the. Did you want to share any information? Good evening again, Madam Mayor. Council members. A couple of things I wanted to just touch upon specifically related to the sunset provision, which are current rules and regulations specify that everyone has to have a smart meter starting in 2019. We have an item going to the board for our Monday meeting to lift that provision. It's actually been something we've been talking about for a couple of months. We're going to bring it to the board around January, February, in light of the concerns have been expressed. We brought it forward. We're also going to be including a low income provision in there as well. I will say that speaking to this and some of the other provisions about the charges as a municipal utility, we are subject to different rules and laws than P.G. and he is we have to provide the service at cost. So even though there's a perception that the cost might be significant, we are really constrained in terms of our flexibility to make adjustments to those charges. Regarding the city charter provisions, I would turn to the attorneys to address that. I will say that, you know, there is this process to to approve the smart meter program was a long process starting way back in 2012. It really picked up steam around 2014, 2015, 2016 with multiple items going towards the PUC discussions. Not specifically focused on this issue, but it did come up. We did do our due diligence. We go out and we talk to other utilities. We're not the first one doing this. There's currently about 90 million meters out there right now and growing, probably covering about 70% of the utilities out there. Everybody in Alameda has a smart gas meter currently. So we're we're not really at the leading edge of this. But, you know, we do recognize some of the concerns are Web page has included information on this. We did update some of the information with much more detailed analysis that some of the speakers did touch upon. But as far as the emissions associated with the meters, these meters meet all standards and we go by the standards. If there are some changes based on new scientific developments. We do monitor those and we will make adjustments accordingly. So we're very proactive about that. But so far, the regulatory agencies, the FCC, there have been no no new standards that have been promulgated. And as far as the testing goes, our meters remain well below the regulatory standards. I have a question. We heard about a more moratorium in other cities. Are you familiar with other cities adopting a moratorium on these? I'm not very familiar with with other cities adopting moratoriums. Okay. And you did say that there's going to be apparently some low income discount or something. Could you say specifically what that is? Our current low income discount is about 25%. Exactly 25%. We went to the Peavey. A couple of months ago to change the eligibility requirements because we felt that the income levels weren't keeping up with the pace of of how expensive it is in the Bay Area. So that captured more customers. And certainly anybody who meets those eligibility requirements will also be able to take advantage of that discount as it applies to the opt out fee. So is that already occurring? So people can go on the website and get the information about the income levels? Are is that already there? The income levels are available. The item is going to the pub on Mondays. So this part is also going to the p this part. Okay. I don't understand that. Okay. Right. All right. A member. Just a science question, because I wasn't a Spanish major, but I was not into science. So we did this referral on like city Wi-Fi. And then the one woman's comment about how everything she has is hard wired and no Wi-Fi and so on. I mean, I don't know what what is the difference in like I guess what is the word a mission if we had a city Wi-Fi versus what what these smart meters are emitting? I mean, is it the same? Is it more? Is it less? I mean, maybe if you don't know, you don't know. And that's perfectly understandable. But just curious. I mean, we I can't speak to that. I don't know what the what the emissions levels would be for a city wi fi. I mean, we do know that based on the testing that's been done, you know, these are far more of an issue than our smart meters. And there's other things out there as well. I mean, there's cell towers, there's microwaves, there's a lot of different contributing factors. So when we go out and we do our testing or analysis, we try to do it in as clean environment as possible in light of the fact that everybody has wireless routers in their houses, they have cellphones, they have the microwaves. There's it's really ubiquitous. So it's very difficult to kind of and I think in that particular issue, you'll run into the same situation because there will be interference from many different sources as well. So it'll be hard to tell exactly what that number would be for a a citywide wireless system. Okay. Thank you. So. So this is a referral. So they want to hear. From. Madam Mayor, if it's Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen could also address the issues about the the difference in legalities with the pubs authority in the City Council. Thank you. Good evening. Members of the city council, Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney. I wanted to address the jurisdictional question about what council's authority is with regard to the Electric Utility Council's authority is very limited. And in fact, the charter in Article 12 gives the pub exclusive jurisdiction to manage the utility, to control and operate the utility, determine what services will be provided and how those services will be provided. That the Public Utilities Board in this area supersedes the Council. The council can't direct the Public Utilities Board on how to operate or implement its policies. The Council's role with regard to the Public Utilities Board is limited to appointing the members who who serve on the Public Utilities Board. But as far as the policy decisions made by the Public Utilities Board in the area of smart meters, the council does not have a role. Individual council members, just like any other member of the public, certainly could have the right to come to a public utilities board meeting and express their concerns. But the charter's very clear on this issue that that the people of the city of Alameda, when they passed that charter provision, gave the pub exclusive authority to manage the utility. And I'll also address the the issue of the city manager's authority in this regard. Before we move on, could council give feedback? Without giving direction. Is there a way for us to weigh in at all? I think the council could weigh in as individual members, but the council as a body could not pass a resolution or enact legislation basically directing POB to take specific action or even commenting on what what the council thinks that as a body the pub should take with regard to a particular matter, because that would constitute interference in the authority granted to pub by the voters. Okay. So is there a mechanism where that we could receive the agenda in advance and give feedback somehow without going to the council meetings or the pub meeting? I mean, I think I think absolutely. I think the mechanism, the agendas are made public, just like the city council's agendas and how council can get put on the mailing list to receive the agenda. And if council individual council members have questions or concerns, you can certainly speak to the individual public utilities board members, including the city manager. There is there is a there's always a segment on the agenda. Actually, at every pub meeting where the city manager updates, the Public Utilities Board, updates the Public Utilities Board on particular concerns of the council, things that are going on that are under the council's ambit so that it would be perfectly appropriate for you to express your opinion to her member matter. Could this Council make a request for information from the the. The MP. On some of the information that's been talked about tonight. I think the council could request information. I think the council could, for example. To be specific. We've heard from members of the public about safety concerns from emissions from these smart meters. We've heard from the director of the of information comparative of the emissions to a cell phone. What I'm interested in is seeing this verification of these assertions. If we have an issue and I'm perfectly fine going as an individual and talking to people, understanding what you just said, what I would like to know. Scientifically what the situation is also was asserted that there were fires related to the. So we've got a bunch of smart meters out there. How many fires have we had related to them? So, you know, I'd like to get some some verifiable information from what I've heard just verbally today. I'm not asking for it now, but I'm asking the attorney if we could request it as part of this referral. I think you can request it informally as individuals. I don't think the body as a whole could could pass a resolution saying we want this particular piece of information. But the council has expressed each of you has expressed some concerns over this. And I think we could advise Jill, the city manager, could advise the public utilities board of those concerns and pub would would. And this council and every citizen can ask for information for, you know, any department. And so I think. What. We should do with that information is make it public both for the council and the public. But you know, like. And just to finish that is in the end, I think we have to do to to evaluate our risks are based on science. And, you know, when I heard about the citywide wi fi and then this, you know, it's just like. Okay. Give us some information, because if on one hand we're saying we're going to wi fi have the whole city wi fi enabled, and then on the other hand, we don't want a smart meter that may or may not. Again, I haven't seen the publications that have been peer reviewed be be better or worse than this. We don't know. I can't reconcile those and we can't keep pointing to Washington that they ignore science and we ignore science ourselves. So I want I want peer reviewed. Information as an individual, but I'll take that offline. It sounds like we can't do that as a body. That's correct. That you cannot we could not give that. Yes. Yes. I think I think the idea is that information can be obtained and provided, but the council shouldn't be asking. Okay. So I would like copies of the information you sent to member matter. I see. And I think other councils may want copies. You should be able to give us all copies and then buy. Everything everybody else has. Yeah. You can give us all copies of We Ask Questions of Vice Mayor. So I have three questions really. And they really go, I think, mainly to Mr. Cohen. So my first question is one of the things in the charter has to do with City Council's ability to make decisions relative to litigation as it pertains to AMP. Could we. I think the underlying concern and what I've heard is also the liability aspect relative to potential litigation. So could we request information relative to our liability exposure? That is it. Litigation is one of the areas that the council and pub share authority. Only the council can can authorize us to initiate litigation or, for example, to settle a lawsuit. So we certainly could provide that information in closed session. But the Public Utilities Board would also have to be. You have to be a joint session. They'd have to be invited to attend. But first they would have to be in order to get into closed session to provide their advice, there'd have to be a very realistic and significant exposure to litigation. And I don't think we're at that point yet. Well. Let me just add that part of anything any decision that a body makes, it does risk assessment, and that that goes with. The pub's. Authority on policy decisions and understanding the utility operations, new things that are going on in the world of the utility and making some decisions about risks. They have budget, they put together budgets, all of those kinds of things. So, I mean, you could argue that everything really has a potential of some litigation at some point. But I think what Mr. Cohen is is getting at is if it gets to an actual real lawsuit or some claim, then that's when the city council has authority. So going back to that question, does the city risk manager, who does the assessment of the risk? Because you're saying that there's a risk assessment that. Well, I think any decision that gets made, you try to determine I mean, you do it sitting up here as well. You try to determine what the potential downside could be of any decisions you make. And I guess that's what I was I was taking from your question about risk. Assess my my. Questions, I guess a little more nuanced and I'll be a little more specific. I think we've heard from some people that they're claiming certain they're making certain legal claims. Who does that assessment and at what point does it come to the council and what would we be considering? Well, let me start, I think. Okay. So let me just preface this, because I think part of the concern, at least from our end or my end, I don't want to speak for my colleagues, is where we have this kind of split role with an appointed body. And I know it's a little different because of different legal restrictions that exist surrounding municipal utilities. But at least for me and bear with me because I'm a new council member, I'm trying to understand where our role lies. I mean, when you talk about potential litigation, Mr. Cohen just said it basically needs to be real. There needs to be something filed. So my question is kind of what's the lead up to that? Is there is there another assessment? I'm sure there's another assessment done, but what's the lead up to that? I think in terms of whether or not we have the authority to come to you and bring you in on a matter that involves part of that in a manner that involves significant exposure to litigation that comes from our office. This assessment is has a lawsuit. Clearly, if a lawsuit had been filed and we determined that the lawsuit was not meritorious and or we wanted to provide you with advice on that lawsuit, we would be we would do that in closed session with public and with the counsel. And counsel would ultimately have the authority to direct the city attorney in terms of the strategic handling of that lawsuit. Beyond that, I would say that sort of the day to day policy decisions are rest with the Public Utilities Board and AMP. I think it's perfectly appropriate for counsel to to to speak with the city manager and say, look, I want information in this area. And the city manager as as counsel's as one of the representatives on PCB will certainly convey that information to pop into AMP. And, you know, when the counsel asks for information, you know, it's kind of hard to say no. So, yeah, of course, we'll we'll provide. That to you. If I can just add, I think part of what I'm hearing is really a health risk. Mm hmm. No municipal body is in an Alameda. Or I would I would. Posture anywhere is in a position to determine what a health risk is. There are agencies that that do that. And I think what what the AMP executive or general managers is saying is the industry standards. And I know that's what you were trying to get at councilmember matter I see is the industry standards have not shown there is this connection. I understand the concern of the people who spoke today. But the the. Health the health assessments that are done by agencies charged with and and with the experts who can address those issues have not shown that this is a problem. And I think AMP can share that with the council to show that. And so there's no risk that connects to the health that would justify a claim. So I'll add to that one one piece, if I may. I mean, the the body the body charged with determining whether or not transmissions are legal, not legal, whether or not they create a health risk, whether they're safe for the public. Is the Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission sets emission standards. And, you know, I can let Nico speak to this, but but based on the evaluations that AMP has done, the emission standards on these smart meters are well below well below the standards set by the Federal Communications Commission. And so for that reason, it's your belief that there is no liability, legal liability, if if the technology were to change or studies were to come out that were different or the standards were to change, we would be doing another liability analysis from that, and that would be something that would the council be included in that decision relative not to the health risk, but to the legal exposure? Because my understanding is we that is what's within our jurisdiction. It's I was going to raise the objection of incomplete hypothetical. But not to cross-examine. This isn't the proper forum for that. Trying to understand. If if there were a lawsuit filed if a and we felt that the lawsuit had some merit and that there was some liability exposure, that it's at that point, you know, under the auspices of our of our Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act, that we would feel that we would have the obligation to come to counsel in closed session, inform them of the liability risk and request authority one way or the other. But we're not at that point, I can tell you from from having attended all these public utilities board meetings on smart meters and working with with the general manager every day, POB is constantly studying this issue. AMP is constantly studying this issue and constantly, you know, reviewing these studies. And if ever rises to the point where there is a real scientifically, scientifically backed request that these are exposing people to liability. We'll come forward. Okay. And then I ended up getting derailed with a couple of follow up questions. But my other question is, you know, there is my my understanding is the AMP is continuously conducting its own studies and looking into this. So rather than the FOIA requests or public information requests, what's posted and available online? Because I think rather than having all of us kind of constantly put in requests or having the public what's available and where is it available? So on our our web page, under our energy and view section, there is an FAA queue which is fairly detailed. It doesn't have a whole list of all relevant studies. It talks about the standards. It talks about some of the comparisons to other. Emitting devices like cell phones. We do compare ourselves to other municipal utilities and how they structured their web pages and how they get that information out there. And we're pretty consistent with what they do as well. So and we certainly we certainly can provide information. We have access to those we've reviewed those scientific studies. I mean, I think that Allen really highlighted it, that we go by what the regulatory standards are. Now, having said that, I think one of the benefits of having a municipal utility, a community owned utility, is we're not puny. So if something should change in the in the regulatory environment, we're going to adjust very quickly. It's not going to be a situation where we're going to actually he's going to have to get involved because we'll take it right to the pub and make any changes necessary based on those new regulations. Okay. And then two council member moderates his earlier question regarding this, the public Wi-Fi, things like that. I know it was said that we can't request information of the pub relative to a pub policy. But if the city's thinking about enacting policy relative to public Wi-Fi or smart cities, you know, one of the things that's unique about Alameda is that we have this resource, which is AMP, which is city owned, which has done studies. In those instances, could we request information that an app has relied on to help inform our decisions on policies that are within our jurisdiction? But. Not. And not within the jurisdiction of the pub. You want to you want to share? I don't think that's a legal issue. You know, because I feel like, you know, part of the question is also why duplicate the work or why go out and hire somebody to do this work when we are doing it already? Could we could we request the information in that instance where it might be relevant to a decision that we're making. And we're happy to collaborate with whichever department is going to be charged on point for that? Certainly, we've done a lot related to this particular issue. So I think we don't want to duplicate efforts and we do that on a regular basis for a variety of issues. So that's not. Okay. My final question, I promise, is the last one is, you know, the concern that we're hearing and you had spoken earlier about things that the public is considering. One thing that has been raised has been these multifamily buildings and the potential impact where there might be a number or a bank of smart meters. Can you speak a little bit about what the pub has done relative to the analysis of that and, you know, just the impact of it? Because that seems to be kind of a recurring theme. So we don't really differentiate between a single meter and multiple meters. Again, I'll fall back to the regulatory standards. So if if there was a potential issue associated with that, then that would flow through some sort of regulatory standard. Now that standard isn't there. It hasn't been established. One thing that's important to note about these meters is these meters. They're designed to go in one direction. They want to get to a device that will able to relay that information down the line and then get it aggregated. So they typically don't they're not like a wireless network in your home, which is kind of 360 degrees. They kind of they go in one direction. They're not going back into the house. So they're really going out. Now, we haven't gone in and done measurements in in houses or in an apartment buildings. But based on the regulatory standards, there's nothing that would lead us to believe that there's or would make any adjustments or a special dispensation, I guess, for a meter bank or multiple meters. Any other questions or comments from Council Member Ashcraft? This is more of a. Comment I think we've gotten some useful information about the council has in the form of emails from the city manager but about these comparative levels of of emissions or EMF from devices. What I think would be helpful because more information. Properly distilled is is better than less is to be able to put that out to the public in a number of formats that you don't have to search too hard to find. So while I appreciate that AMP has effects on your website, we have a public information officer. We can do an opinion piece in the in the newspaper and actually at the five K the other day I happened to be race walking with and MacCormack who's the public utilities board chair right now. And we we kept up a running conversation and I told her, you know, I think it might be useful to put it when I know there's an important meeting on Monday. But when some of those decisions are made, share it as widely as possible, I think that's important. And part of the problem that we all deal with his there is sometimes an abundance of information out there, the quality of the information in and this is where my scientist colleague Frank Materazzi you know, and he talks about he wants it published in peer reviewed because there's data and there's data. And but I think to the extent that we can be the purveyors of the information that we know to our own residents, we do a great public service. And it it helps, I think, all of us as council members. So and then sometimes there is misinformation in it. I'm not up on everything. But with regard to if the reference was to the recent North Bay fires and Peggy's involvement, I thought that had to do with transformers blowing. Maybe it was smart meters, but it's good to just know, you know, as much information as possible. You know, I haven't heard that it was a smart route heater related issue up there. And in fact, I think they're still investigating. So I'm not going to weighed in on that issue there. There was an issue in Stockton involving, I think, 5000 meters. They had a power surge. It was a somewhat unique situation in terms of what was happening on the distribution grid. My understanding we actually talked to our engineers about this is that that what happened with those meters would have pretty much happened with any meter. It's not specific to smart meters. So what happened with the meters? The meters, some of them essentially blew out of their socket. So and it was the way that they have their system configured. The nature of the surge, very unusual. It's not something that we would anticipate on our system. But again, the meters, whatever meter, if the old meters were in there, they expected they would have had a similar situation. Vice Mayor So one of the other things that got brought up is we are a different body obviously than the pub for contact information for members of the pub. If members of the public are trying to have a conversation or want to convey a concern. How do they how do they go about doing that? Because on our city website for the Public Utilities Board, it gives contact information for Robin, her phone number, and then an email address for Robin. But there's no contact information for the individual board members provided on this is on our city website. There is a pub mailing list and we get those on a regular basis and then we will distribute those to the hub members. And I believe that's on our web and anything that goes to Robin, he's my executive assistant. Anything that goes to her that's addressed to the pub will then get distributed to me. Is it possible to set up city email accounts for our pub members, individual ones where they because they're not, it's just and if we have them, it's just not it's not posted online. But to me, this is an access issue. So we're not making the decisions and they're the ones making the decisions. I just want to make sure that if you can't make it to the pub meeting, you can still get a hold of one of the board members and and share whatever your concerns may be. Yeah, absolutely. We can do that. And one thing I wanted to note also on Monday, in addition to this item, the lifting of the sunset provision, we are actually having an army update to the pub and it's just by chance that this is occurring at the same time as this referral. But it's amaz what do you have. About advanced. Advanced meter infrastructure, smart meters, smart meter updates? And it's it's going to cover a whole host of different issues, not really this issue, but the privacy issue, which was mentioned by one of the other speakers, is something that will touch upon that as well. So certainly there's interest. We welcome it. So I have some questions. So we had comments about the march, a potential moratorium that these other cities have done that. Is it possible, for example, to find out what about. That would be one of my requests to find out what other cities and counties have had a moratorium who currently have a moratorium and then share that information. And has AMP had a an agenda item where they had a discussion about these health concerns, given the public an opportunity to speak at an AMP meeting and discuss a potential moratorium at AMP, do that. Has that happened? Not to my knowledge. Okay. So then as an individual or the public. So has there been a petition started by the public in regards to this? Have you heard of a petition for Alameda? Okay. So that's something else our community could do to communicate the interest in our town on this. Okay. And then in regards to the smart meters at the apartment buildings, is there something that can be added somehow around these meters or something to reduce any potential RF to the residents? Is there anything that can be done to make them safer? I'm not. Aware physically. I'm not aware of anything that can be added or any utilities who are adding something we can certainly look sound like quite right. So I would like to know if there's a way to add some kind of physical something barrier behind these meters where they're against a wall that goes to someone's home. Or in in some sort of an apartment building or we have. Right. And some of this and I appreciate that a lot of this is needs to be data driven. Unfortunately, a lot of times we don't actually end up with something that we say is so black and white that everyone is going to agree until ten or 20 years down the road. When we look back and we say, oh, yeah, we now know that that did contribute. So if there's anything that we know or we think could actually help reduce the exposure, I'd like to know what that is. If if you have any information that goes to that, that would be helpful to. Any other questions on this? All right. And I also want to thank you, really, because I know you're going to be both of you going back to you've already said on the next agenda item on Monday. It is going to be coming up. So thank you very much for revisiting that. And I look forward to hearing the vote from the p b on these issues. Thank you very much. Okay. So I think that dispenses with our referral, so thank you. And then there's one more. Referral nine B 90 is. All right.

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-17 Density Bonus Ordinance. The Proposed Zoning Amendments are Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC_06162015_2015-1729

The carrying to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 17 Density Bonus. Andrew Thomas. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you ready? Yes, please. Andrew Thomas, city planner. Here to present this ordinance. I'm going to make this very quick and make myself available to answer questions if you have any. Back on March 10th. Well, back in December. Thank you. I guess it was January 2014. The council asked us to really take a close look at the density bonus ordinance now that we've used it a few times over the last couple of years, five to be exact. On March 10th, we came back to the City Council with a preview of some amendments that we thought would make. We thought it would make the ordinance more effective and also just easier for people to understand at that. On March 10th, you directed staff to proceed with the public review process, which means going back to the planning board, holding hearings so that you could take final action. On May 11th, the Planning Board reviewed and held a public hearing on our proposed set of amendments to the Density Bonus Ordinance. They unanimously recommended the amendments. We are recommending them to you tonight. We think these amendments do improve the ordinance, make it a lot more clear, easier for people to understand, and will improve just public understanding and implementation of the density bonus ordinance. So we are recommending approval of this series of amendments. Okay. And does this take just one reading in front of us. Too? It takes to sort of be coming back. On July no. July 7th, yes. Okay. And can you explain what the changes are? Yes. If you'd. Like. What makes this meaningful? What we've done is we've added some text about phased submittals. This is something that we were the the the density bonus ordinance and the and our other other sections of the municipal code interface like with master plans. This allows the city to phase decisions over time, similar to this last project that you just approved, so that you can reserve the right to approve, for example, the design of buildings later in the process when they're being when they're closer to, to construction. And in terms of and that what that allows you to do is it allows the applicant to do. And we just to explain this is what pieces of the density bonus application need to be done for the very first entitlement? And which ones can you defer till later? Specifically things like elevations and floor plans. We added some explanation about waivers, concessions and incentives so that it was very, very clear. If you're asking for a waiver of a development standard, a zoning requirement, we need to know why a waiver is because it's preventing the project from physically fitting on the site. A concession or incentive under state law is because they are developers arguing that they need you to waive the requirement for financial reasons. So what? We made it very clear and we improved the definitions in the in the ordinance to say if it's a waiver because you can't physically fit, then we need drawings to show why they don't physically fit. If it's for financial reasons that we need performance and numbers so you we can understand why you financially need those concessions incentives. And then we did a series of amendments because we had a lot of redundant language around affordable housing agreements. These are things that the city has a lot of experience doing because our inclusionary housing ordinance we've had has affordable housing agreements that we've been doing for years. So we cleaned up a lot of the text and referenced the inclusionary ordinance so that we didn't have redundant or confusing texts between the two ordinances. So those are the three major issues that we we adjusted and improved. Is there any changes in regards to parking and what does when you go over the parking allocation? Well, all we did on the parking piece is to make it clear that you need to meet the parking. The city's parking ordinance. And that has you start there. And we don't even get into any changes. State law creates some opportunities for reduced parking. Pregnancy bonus projects. But what we did, all we did with this ordinance is said, Look, before you even go there, first you need to show us that you can meet our local parking ordinance. If you can't. Then we can go to state law for those waivers, but start with our local parking ordinance, because before it it was unclear. It was it sort of laid it out. Oh, you just go right to the state waivers like. No, you don't. So what we did is we we just clarified that we didn't change any of the numbers at all. And what is our local law regarding parking? Well, it's it varies from depending on where you are in the city. Typical residential projects, you start with two spaces per unit. If you're a mixed use project on Park Street or Webster Street. So it's an apartment upstairs above retail, then it's it's 1.5 as a starting point. Affordable housing projects. The parking ordinance allows the planning board to read to determine what the appropriate number of parking spaces are for the site. Based on the specifics of the project itself. So if it's senior housing, they can look, they can reduce a reduced amount of parking if it's a large, large units and they can increase the amount of parking. But basically they in a shape the parking to fit the project planning on its demand. All right. Thank you. Any other council questions? Comments. Do we have. An email. There? And just to be clear, I think there was confusion over. The actual existence of an application that's recognizable as an application. And the the timing of when. That document has to be approved or that set of documents has to be approved. And I think you address the timing issue by separating concessions from wafer. Is it is it interpreted that there's actually going to be an application that is recognizable by the public? Who reviews these as an application? Yes. What we are doing and I think this is one of the. We didn't the the ordinance where he said you need to submit an application. I think what we learned through the Del Monte was it's and we've been doing this now with every single project. If the project is approved, we have another one that recently went or is going to the planning board. We've basically just said, you know what, that's an important point. And we there needs to be a separate document, which is the application for the bonus and or waiver if they're asking for one, so that everybody the you know , the community, you know, has to come into the planning department and we need to attach it to the project so that everybody can see. All right, what are you asking for? How are you justifying it if it's a whether it's a waiver or a concession? And it's it's the way we're treating this is, you know, in the in the in the in the property owner applicants, it's their application. So they need to write it. They need to make their case. And then it becomes part of the the public packet. And we don't take action. I mean, right now what we're doing is we're bringing those to the planning board as part of the original application proposal. So the scenario of having deficiencies in an application won't be an issue because I think the the previous explanation was that we just don't issue the permits. The project is already in title, but it's held up at the permit stage. This is this is now in the frontend. So the project doesn't get entitled without a complete application. That's right. And what we're doing and just have just to clarify that. So what we want to do is with the very first time we go public with anything and typically it's either to the to a neighborhood meeting or to the planning board for the very first hearing. We're attaching that application and we're making staff making a termination. We believe it's complete. But, you know, if anybody questions. Let's talk about that. Let's let's get that out. Because if there's something that's not quite done right, just like whether it's the landscape plan or the parking plan, same standard for the application. We think there's something missing. Let's, let's let's get it fixed before we approve a project. Thank you. Other questions and comments. BRODY Oh. And do we have a motion? Aloof. Second. I'm sorry. Do you have a second? ASecond. All those in favor. I wish and passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. I think this will really improve. The ordinance. Next 60. Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 4.17 G Special Government. Combining District and Zoning. Map to ensure consistency between City of Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map and the Enhanced Alameda Reuse Plan for 37.36 acres of federal property located on Singleton Street at the former Naval Air Station. Andrew Thomas, city planner. Also make this one. Quick evening. And make myself available to answer your questions. A couple of you just mentioned this actually on your last item. This is the sort of almost a companion piece to your decision on Alameda Point. And we have on your up at the dais there, you should see actually a recent adjustment we made to the actual ordinance in the findings. And it's just this underlined text where we just, um, it was really, uh, uh, the mayor was sort of asked us about, you know, really let's, we should make this relationship explicit, you know, in the future, some future council wants to know, you know, Oh, we're dealing with this site. Well, what was the logic of what happened in 2014? Let's make that explicit. So you'll see. We added a sentence about the relationship between the decision and Alameda Point and this decision, as many of you or a couple of you mentioned at the last hearing, what we are doing here with this proposal. It's a result of your discussion once again on March 10th, when you asked us to look at this, you know, the fact that our main point was moving forward and or housing element and the capacity and the city's ability to to absorb all these units while still making sure we, our transportation system can handle these changes and the need for the community to really be able to clearly manage growth. And we agree with you, this is important. We have to be able to manage these changes well. And so what this does is there is a site it's called North Housing. It is some people know it is the former Coast Guard housing. It's currently vacant. It used to be approximately 240 units. It's on 37 acres of land on Singleton Street. It's part of the former Naval Air Station. There was a the city worked with the Navy to do what's called a reuse plan, just like we did for Army to point that determine the appropriate number of units for that site. That reuse plan, which was done in 2009, stated the right number was 435. So that was sort of the what we were all working on. The current zoning allows much more than that. And just the base zoning alone, it's the zoning would allow up to 1121 units and that the total number of units with maximum state density bonuses could go as high as 1500 units. So what this zoning does is it puts a cap on the base zoning to 435. There's a table in the in the on page four of the staff report which basically lays out, you know, well, what would this do to the city's housing capacity in the northern waterfront? And it gets a little complicated because you have to make assumptions about density bonuses, which we don't know yet.

A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to submit application(s) for grant funding assistance for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) project(s) to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in chapter 79A.25 RCW, Title 286 WAC, and other applicable authorities.

SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_Res 31692

Which are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and Cher will sign it. Next agenda item, please. Agenda item ten Resolution 31692a resolution relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to submit applications for grant funding assistance for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79, a point 25, our S.W. Title 286 Washington Administrative Code and other Applicable Authorities. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted. This and. Thank you. This resolution is supporting a grant application for $1,475,000 from the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. At the again, at the Recreation Conservation Funding Board, $500,000 will go to a renovation of the Brighton play field. That's 200,000 square feet. $500,000 for renovation of Smith Cove play field. That's 5.6 acres and $475,000 will be dedicated to the Arboretum waterfront trail. And this would complement the grant application that I mentioned in item five, and we respectfully request this resolution be passed. Thank you very much for the comments. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31693. A resolution relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing submission of application of applications for grant funding, assistance for youth athletic facilities, projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79, a point 25, R.S. W WAC to eight six and other applicable authorities.

Recommendation to receive and file a report from City Manager on the status of interdepartmental efforts around the education, prevention and enforcement of illegal fireworks in Long Beach, as well as an update on statistics from last year's efforts; and Recommendation to request City Manager and Long Beach Fire Department to partner with neighborhood associations and community groups to disseminate educational materials in advance of July 4th.

LongBeachCC_06062017_17-0445

Motion passes. Thank you. Item number 18, please. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Mongo. Councilmember Your UNGA recommendation to receive and file a report on the status of inter-departmental efforts around the education, prevention and enforcement of. Illegal fireworks in Long Beach. Thank you. So we know every summer, increasingly our offices are bombarded with phone calls and the police department does a tremendous job in the time leading up to the 4th of July, in the months, months after, for the 4th of July, and dealing with the issue of illegal fireworks. And I wanted to make sure that we do have an opportunity out here in public session to hear from our our fire department about our efforts. I want to highlight one thing. And, you know, this is a really cool lawn sign that's going up in front of my house. I know that it's really sensitive for people who have pets. I know it's sensitive to people who have newborns like myself. I have a pet and a newborn, but it's also a very serious issue to people who value quality of life and, you know, veterans with PTSD and folks who are who are actually harmed by these activities . So I want to hear from our city staff on some of those efforts. And I just have a few questions after that. So let's go ahead and turn it over. Steph, thanks. Chief Mike Duffy Mr. Vice Mayor. Council Members. Good evening. And I'm joined here at the podium with my partner and public safety and city chief Robert Luna. And as was just mentioned, the 4th of July holiday is just under a month away. And as usual, the holiday will be commemorated with block parties, legal and organized fireworks shows and unfortunately, illegal fireworks. As I've reported in the past, the NFPA reports an annual average of about 18,500 fires caused by fireworks from 2009 to 2013. And in 2014, the U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated over 10,500 people for fireworks related injuries. 51% of those injuries were to extremities and 38% were to the head. The risk of fireworks injury is highest for young people ages 5 to 9, followed by children aged 10 to 19. Your police and fire departments have been working together for several months to address fireworks, education and enforcement in a proactive manner and to encourage the Long Beach community to have a safe 4th of July holiday. The staff report will provide a brief summary of these activities. Our primary focus is public outreach and education to communicate that message that all fireworks, even those labeled safe and sane, are dangerous and illegal in the city of Long Beach. As in previous years, the fire department will continue to coordinate public service announcements and press releases, distribute educational materials in English, Spanish, Carmi and Tagalog to communicate our message throughout the city. We are using a variety of media to accomplish this, including social media sites, electronic signage and posting fliers in highly visible locations such as parks, libraries and city busses. An example of what's in city busses is right here, and I'll be able to share that with with you after excuse me. We're also utilizing our CERT program, volunteers and lifeguards, to distribute educational fliers to residents. And additionally, fireworks are illegal. Magnets are now displayed on all fire department apparatus throughout the city. Representatives from the fire department will speak at block parties and other community events about the illegality and dangers of all fireworks. And requests for block party permits will continue to be coordinated through the Special Events Office, but the block party organizer this year must sign a permit stating that they're aware of all regulations, one of which is an acknowledgment that all fireworks are illegal. Our other focus is on enforcement. As you can imagine, our communication center receives hundreds of fireworks related calls on the 4th of July. In the days immediately preceding and following. In many cases, the caller is not able to identify a specific address, making it difficult to locate and report a reported incident. It is also common for a suspect to flee the scene prior to the arrival of fire or police staff. Last year, our enhanced police and fire patrols handled over 80 fireworks related incidents, issued citations and multiple warnings, and seized over £600 of illegal fireworks. Additionally, the fire department responded to five fires and one serious medical emergency, an injury that were all directly related to fireworks. It is important to remember that this increased call load for both fire and police over this holiday period is in addition to what we would normally expect to see in our normal call volumes. This time of year is already typically busy for us in the 4th of July holiday period just compounds that every year we ensure that we have all available personnel on duty to handle what we know will be a very busy period for public safety in Long Beach this year. To respond to reports of illegal fireworks on the nights of July 1st to July 5th, the fire department will deploy two additional patrol vehicles, each staffed with two arson investigators to work in conjunction with our police department's proactive patrols. Patrols will continue to target those areas of the city known for historic use of fireworks and respond to reports of illegal fireworks activity citywide. Anyone cited or arrested for fireworks violations may face a fine of up to $1,000 and be sentenced to jail for up to six months or both. The fines and penalties may increase depending on the fireworks classification. Fireworks may be voluntarily disposed of at collection bins, which are located at all fire and police stations as well as lifeguard headquarters. The above. Measures are these measures are being implemented to encourage community to have a safe 4th of July holiday. And for those who want to view a fireworks show, I would mention that there are two professional firework shows already scheduled one on July 3rd in Alamitos Bay and one on July 4th at the Queen Mary. Mr. Vice Mayor. Mr. Mayor and Council Members, this concludes my report. Chief Luna and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Chief Looney, you have something that I thank you. Thank you. So. So you see our you know, we are working together, our fire department, our police department, they work hard every year. And we know that if you want to see fireworks, you can go to Alamitos Bay or you can go to the Queen Mary. But we all know those of us who live in our neighborhoods understand that this is going to require a little bit more. We're going to need to work with our neighborhood associations and our neighborhood leaders to make sure that we are doing our part to sort of hold each other accountable. I think we need to send a clear message. I think these these lawn signs will help to send a very clear message. And so I want to I want to, you know, first just ask the chief, how would you envision we could sort of work with our neighborhood groups to disseminate these signs and the other materials that we have? Like, you know, I have this one that's printed in Spanish and we have all you know, we have, you know , English, Spanish, combined, Tagalog, all of all over four languages. What outreach efforts are we doing to make sure that our neighborhood associations and our neighborhood leaders have access these heading into the 4th of July weekend? Mr. Vice Mayor, as of today, I'll give you a rundown of all the activities that we've been doing through our fire prevention and community. And how about, you know, we don't even need all of them. I just think very specifically, if you're a neighborhood association working to get this stuff right, we can get those. You can reach out to Long Beach fire headquarters. We can provide you access to those things. We will be making the rounds out to all the neighborhood associations, community groups, faith based organizations. Also be able to plug people in through our social media sites, our city website next door. A lot of the other social media sites that are active in our communities, we're targeting those as well to get the word out to people and we will be able to provide these these materials to them. Great. And I want to make sure I know funds are limited. So we want to allocate some resources to make sure we have, you know, enough of these lawn signs at our field office and at Fire Station 12, so we can partner to make sure those are available there, right? Yes, sir. Absolutely. And then in terms of we you know, we get a lot of chatter on social media that people don't know how to collect the right information to report, say an adult who's contributing to the delinquency of a minor and engaging here. So I know that the police department does go around to every single one of our neighborhood association meetings every month. So is it possible, Chief Luna, to make sure that over the course of this next month we're equipped with specific message on here's the information that's helpful to actually make sure we can, you know, we can levy a fine or a ticket to someone who's engaging in fireworks. Can we make sure we have a message like that or a training available? Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the City Council, thank you for asking that question. Yes, we have been doing that and will continue to do that and step it up. Honestly, I wish we can get through the 4th of July with issuing zero citations, but I don't believe that's a reality, unfortunately. We are going to stress or encourage community members to make sure that when they do see somebody lighting fireworks that they call our communications center and any time the officers are going out there, we are encouraging the officers when they do see the illegal activity occurring to make sure they do. Issue the citations. And if the parents are involved, there will be consequences for them as well. But I can't tell you how important it is for people when they see this activity to report it. I think somebody will be less likely to do it if they know everybody's watching them and will call the police when they're doing so. Fantastic. So that concludes my my questions. And I just want to say, you know, we're we're one team here as a city. I see the chatter on social media on next door. I get it. I live in the neighborhoods. I understand the only way we can abate this is we really hold our neighbors accountable. So I have this lawn sign up. We'll have them available to our field office. We'll have them available at Fire Station 12. And feel free to continue engaging our police department and engaging your neighbors. Thank you so much and happy 4th of July. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I want to thank Vice Mayor Rex Richardson for bringing this item forward. And I think you asked a lot of the same questions that I was going to ask. I did want to. Find out. Just so I know, every year around 4th of July, everybody says there's not enough officers out. Chief Luna, how many officers do we have out on 4th of July? Lots of them. I understand. It's all of them. I know what I've been told. Yeah, what we do. The 4th of July is the busiest day of the year for the Long Beach Police Department, as well as my partner here from the for the fire department as well. Unless you have a scheduled vacation or there's some unusual circumstances, you are working one of the shifts on the 4th of July. So our staffing is significantly increased for that day. And I'm happy to report, although we're sitting here talking about a very annoying issue with fireworks, that really the men and women that work for the city entire, whether it's public works, the fire department or police department, if you take the last several 4th of July and how many people are in the city celebrating. Yes. And drinking, too. And some other things. We keep this city, at least we have in the past, thank God, very safe with the influx of people we have here. So we've done an amazing job. And I think it's because of our planning. Our strategies have been very effective in dealing with with the fourth. Great. Thank you so much. Again, I just want to commend the work and I know I'll have a sign in my front yard and hopefully my neighborhood associations will also be able to get many signs as well. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, I like to I just one question I can ask both. First of all, I want to commend our police chief and Chief DeVries for this. But because the question I'd like to ask is that can we put these signs up in our parks and recreation areas? Can these signs go up there? Councilmember? Absolutely. We're happy to provide the access to these materials and where you place them. I would leave that up to up to you, certainly. And I would encourage I would encourage, you know, any council member who is interested in getting these signs. We can definitely point you in the right direction. Thank you. Where you place them is up to you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a public comment on this item? Please come forward. Sir. Mr. Goodhew. Very good. I would suggest we do two things. One. Anybody caught doing fireworks? The fine is 1500 dollars. Period. That's an emergency order. Number two, the individual. Will. Spend. 50 hours per month in the animal shelter. And in addition to that. We will pay any off any police officer or fire department member or any other security people. The city wants $1,000 if they find somebody and have for that, find somebody shooting out fireworks. Half of that will go to that officer, be it a policeman, fireman, somebody they hire, a city staff person, whoever. And we all benefit financially by that because quite frankly, posting those signs is useless, period. Half of them after kids will take those and use those. Like they're like the firecrackers from the fire that they set those that they use those to build. So let's get pragmatic about it. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment members, please go ahead and cast your votes.

Ordinance Creating a Municipal Identification Card in the City of Boston. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

BostonCC_04062022_2022-0466

Councilor Murphy lays out the chair. Government Docket 0465 will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Mr. Kirklees re docket 04660466. Councilor Roy offer the following An ordinance creating a municipal identification card in the city of Boston. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel. Royal counsel. Royal. You have the floor. Thank you. Mr. President, I'm very excited to introduce a municipal identification or an ordinance to create municipal identification for the city of Boston. This has been a long time coming. There was a study done in 2018 exploring the feasibility of this and what services residents would want. But other major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have already successfully done municipal identification programs. And the great part about a useful identification program as it gives Boston residents sort of a one card fits all situation. So in Chicago, for instance, their municipal resident's ID cards allow them to access the air. It serves as what our Charlie cards would serve as their venture card. So their ID actually works as their T card. It also works as their Boston their Chicago Public Library card. So the goal here is to create a municipal ID that sort of centers city services on one card, but also does things like New York's card, which New York's card gives you benefits to cultural institutions. It gives you sales and discounts to tickets, to the museums and to the to their zoos and to their different city institutions . And so it gives this one sort of resource rich card access. The wonderful part about municipal ID is that it allows us to be more inclusive in the city and who has IDs. We need IDs for many different things, and some standards for IDs are very difficult for folks who are here with proper documentation or without proper documentation to obtain. This would allow folks under a very strenuous list of requirements to preside identification of who they are to the agency that will issue these, but also that they live here. This gives the opportunity to create a very inclusive city and to send a message that Boston is a gateway city, is a city that is looking to be as inclusive and welcoming to all who call Boston home. And so I am excited to move forward with this. We have very workable examples that now exist in other cities. This is no longer a new idea. This has already sort of started to take root and has been in place for several years in other municipalities. So where we're sort of following up on that, but this is something that really should exist and really will go a long way to improving the lives and residents in the city of Boston. And so I look forward to introducing this and to moving this through. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Royal Oak, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to? Would anyone else like to add their name? Please raise your hand, Mr. Kirklees. Add Councilor Bach, Councilor Brad and Councilor Edwards. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Councilor for Charity Council, Borough Council and Councilor here. Councilor Murphy Council. Were all pleased that the Chair. Dark at 0466 will be referred to. The Committee on Government Operations. Yeah. Mr. Quirk, please amend the attendance report to include Councilor Edwards as present. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0467.

A resolution By the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, and making appropriations for the 2022 Fiscal Year. Approves the 2022 Work Plan and Budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1270

11 Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, six, nine has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 20 1-1270 on the floor for adoption? Yes, Madam President, I move that. Resolution 21, dash 1270, be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Resolution 20 1-1270 is open. And we have Michael Carrigan here with us again from the Department of Finance for the Staff Report. Thank you. Good evening, board members. Once again, Michael Carrigan from the Department of Finance. I'm here to provide the staff report and request approval for the budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District for the 2022 Budget and Work Plan. The district is 22.66 acres in size and located along the 14th Street, right of way from Market Street to Colfax, and generally includes all parcels along both sides of the 14/14 Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create Denver's Downtown Ambassador. Street Initiative began in 2005 and visualized the 14th Street as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated street streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations who participated to establish the conceptual design design for 14th Street. In 2009, City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street Guide and the creation of the District Advisory Board. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the JD to annually pass a work plan and budget. District the district advisory board after notice and a hearing recommends to the Board of directors the proposed work plan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before it's made in 2022. The district plans to continue maintaining district amenities, including, but not limited to street to tree planters, flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and sidewalk lighting maintenance. The work plan, budget and charges include total revenues of $567,310, which is comprised of $257,070 in maintenance charges, band rental and interest revenue plus $310,240. And capital charges for the repayment of debt used to be used to fund the capital enhancements along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2022 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you. All right. Thank you. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak in person. And so we're going to go ahead and start with that. Mikey. Good evening. City Council and President. Madam President, I'm Batman Whiskey, and. I'm the executive director for the 14th Street General Improvement District. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Resolution 21, Dash 1270. Seen none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 20 1-1270. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 21, dash 1270 Ortega. I. Black. I see the. I. Clark. I when. I. Heard in. Hines. Hi. Cashman. I can reach Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. There are 12 eyes. 12 Eyes Council Resolution 21, dash 1270 has passed. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 20 1-1271 on the floor for adoption?

A proclamation declaring Wednesday, April 25, as Denim Day in support of victims of sexual assault.

DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0419

Thank you so much. And if we could have, Robert, did you want to say something else? Okay. If we could have all the volunteers stand up and just be recognize. Thank you. And again, you're always welcome here. Not even on the days that we're honoring you, but come on, hang out with us. We appreciate it. Thank you. All right. We have our last proclamation. Councilman Castro want you to go ahead and read Proclamation 419. Thank you, Mr. President. This is Proclamation number 419 series of 2018, declaring Wednesday, April 25th, as Denim Day in support of victims of sexual assault. Whereas every day women, men and children across Colorado suffer the pain and trauma of sexual assault upon survivors and our Colorado communities. And. Whereas, this crime occurs far too frequently, goes unreported far too often, and leaves long lasting physical and emotional scars. And. WHEREAS, during National Sex Assault Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves not only to lifting the veil of secrecy and shame surrounding sexual violence, but also to raising awareness, expanding support for victims, and strengthening our response. And. Whereas, sexual violence affects individuals of all ages, backgrounds and circumstances. And. Whereas, as a nation, we share the responsibility for protecting each other from sexual assault, supporting victims when it does occur, and bringing perpetrators to justice. And. Whereas, at the state level, we must work to provide necessary resources to victims of every circumstance, including medical attention, mental health services, relocation and housing assistance and advocacy during the criminal justice process. And. Whereas, Colorado communities can come together to increase awareness about sexual assault, decrease its frequency, hold offenders accountable, support victims and here heal lives. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, the City Council of the City and County of Denver declares Wednesday, April 25th, to be Denim Day in the city and county of Denver encourages everyone to show their support of the victims of sexual assault by wearing denim and participating in this show of international and statewide support of all the survivors of sexual assault. Section two the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Laura Richards with the Survivors Task Force of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Thank you, Councilman Cash. In your motion to adopt. Mr. President, I move that proclamation number 18 0419 be adopted. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments members of Council Councilman Cash. Well, thank you, Mr. President. And I don't know that there's much more I could say more effectively than the proclamation has detailed. We obviously, as a community, must do everything we can to lend a hand to the victims of sexual assault, to bring their perpetrators to justice and to lend those victims support in their ongoing recovery. I'd like to thank Xi CASA, the Coalition Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault for their ongoing work in this area and for bringing Denham Day to our attention. Folks wanting more information. The idea is not that you just wear your jeans, but that for that privilege you make a donation to the coalition to help with their ongoing efforts . Folks wanting more information and a packet of Denim Day stickers to help publicize this effort can call 63038399999 or visit Colorado Denim Day, Dawg. And, Mr. President, I left off the w w w just for you. Thank you. Thank you. My pleasure. And thank you, Mr. President. I think we know what the interweb is. All right. Excellent. Thank you for bringing this for Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. I just wanted to add a few comments and also thank Councilman Cashman for bringing this forward. We had an outstanding presentation last week from our district attorney talking about trafficking. Human trafficking and sexual assault is so much a part of what happens with human trafficking that occurs not just in this city, but across the country. I also had served on a nonprofit organization that worked with. Primarily women who are victims of domestic violence. But again, this was another situation where many of them had been sexually assaulted by their their partners. And it's it's so important to just keep this issue in the forefront. We know that sexual assault sees no boundaries in terms of age, race, gender. And just to keep the awareness and to ensure that we have resources and services for the victims is so important. So, again, Councilman Cashman, thank you for bringing this forward. All right. Thank you. Well-stated, councilwoman. All right. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman. I can each new Ortega assessment. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Mr. President. I Police Fields of learning announced results. 11 Ice. 11 ice for 19 has been adopted. Tell us when Castro. Is there anybody want to bring up? Yes, Mr. President, I would like to invite to the podium Laura Richards with the Survivors Task Force of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Thank you guys very much for this. My name is Laura Richards. I'm a survivor of sexual assault and a member of the Survivors Task Force. We're a coalition of survivors that go and testify on legislation such as the Human Trafficking Bill, which was one of the legislations I testified on Denim Day, just so you know, came about out of the a travesty of justice. A young 18 year old girl was raped and the judge deemed it not to be rape because her jeans were too tight. And we took. That. And we turned it into a celebration and a show of support for survivors. It's been going on since 2013. Here in Colorado. And I'm incredibly grateful that the council has adopted this proclamation and encouraged the support of the city of Denver to participate and show their support. Because we love to see your pictures, because we know each picture that you upload wearing your jeans means you believe in. You support us, and hopefully that will. Mean there will be one less victim next year. So thank you very much. Can you tell us one more time just for everyone, what day that we need to wear jeans? April 25th every year. It's the fourth Wednesday of the month in this month of fourth Wednesday of April. And this month it'll be April 25th. And I encourage everyone to get competitive with your pictures and join us in the celebration and support of survivors throughout the state of Colorado, because one day we won't need to wear our jeans anymore. That's awesome. Thank you so much. We appreciate. Okay. Jeans on Wednesday, everyone. Come on. And then upload them on Twitter and whatever platforms you use. This concludes our proclamation. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments; temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119896

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Agenda item for Capital 119896. Relating to the city, white and Seattle Public Police departments. Temporarily removing the charge of interest, as we put it, would be a consumption and utilization account to preceding several sections. Under Title 21, but. Authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and relocation accounts and replying. Confirming search and prior. Thank you, madam. And in the past, Council Bill 119896. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, you are the sponsor of this legislation and are recognized in order to address the item. Thank you, Council President. As I mentioned at council briefing this morning, this council bill 119896 is another example of the relief that we've all been providing during the COVID pandemic. Specifically, this legislation is needed to extend for another several months the ordinance that we passed earlier this year to prevent charges for late payments on utility bills. This financial release applies to both of the utility enterprises that we own and operate Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. Happy to support this extension and thank Mayor Durkan and her general managers of each utility, Deborah Smith and Mommy Harrah, for figuring out a way to make this happen financially. This relief extends through the end of this year and we can visit it again at that time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Mosquito, did you have your hand raised? Yes, because of arms data, please. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I am happy to be voting to extend the suspension of late fees until January 2021. But want to note, as I think Councilmember Peterson, you just articulated as well, it's possible that we will likely need to revisit the timeline before it expires at the beginning of next year. We know that the crisis of the COVID impacts will not end at the beginning of next year. And in fact, given compounding crises that are in front of us may even be more acute as various protections and support systems erode, either at this at the federal level or local supports expire. So I just wanted to lift that point up and say, I think this is a really good step for us to be taking right now. But also note that advocates such as Puget Sound Sage are working at the state level for utility relief, recognizing these bills are an important piece of the affordability puzzle, and that without them there are serious hardships that folks are experiencing, whether it's struggling to pay rent or put food on the table or care for families. And although there is a moratorium on shut offs in place, that's in Seattle during COVID emergency, we don't want any households to be racking up utility late fees during this pandemic. And therefore, it's extremely likely, in my opinion, that we will need to revisit the change prior to the January 1st, 2021 expiration. But every little bit matters and is really important right now. So excited to support Councilmember Peterson on this effort and looking forward to future conversations on this. Thank you, Governor Mosquito. Are there any additional comments on the bill? All right, colleagues, hearing no additional comments, will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Hi, Petersen. Hi. The one? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. I. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor, none opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Agenda item number five. Will the clerk please read item five into the record?

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

LongBeachCC_05182021_21-0451

Go ahead. That concludes the item. Thank you. Item 22. Item 22 is report from financial management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation and to the Let the record conclude the public hearing and a DAB resolution amending the master fees and charges schedule city. I'm not sure on the second. Do we have a mr.. Mr.. Mr.. MODICA, do you have any report on this or are we just moving forward? Okay. We don't have to. We can go straight to comments if there are any. We did a huge presentation on this as a study session about two weeks ago on the on the general philosophy. And we're available to answer questions now. If there's any specifics. I don't think it's any I don't think is any public comment. Correct, Madam Court. There's no public comments on this item. Okay. Let me go to Councilman Pryce, who has the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions I wanted to ask staff. Can someone from the staff talk about the public outreach or noticing requirement that was effectuated for this item? It looks. Like. Mean to do now. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Councilman. Councilmember. Hi. Yes. So, noticing requirements. I went out 14 days in advance of the hearing. This is within California state law and it went out via on our website posted as well as I'm posted on facilities and emailed through those interested parties. To the city clerk's office. Okay. And I just wanted to confirm that the master fee schedule that we're voting on today still has in place discounts for youth, seniors and nonprofits so that they're not going to be charged at the same rate as the general public or for profit organizations. There are no changes that were presented as part of the May or April six and the May 4th presentation. So those are still included. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Bryson. And that's a motion, councilwoman. It is. Thank you. Okay. Vice Premier Richardson. So just a couple comments. So so one thing that really stood out to me and I want to lift up, I was encouraged by the airport shuttle pick up and drop off these guys. All so so. Fleets with at least 25% of cleaner vehicles are per hour. Murphy has reduced 25%. Whereas if you have at least five vehicles and 75%, clean air vehicles is reduced by 75% using price in the clean the air thing. I think it's great. I think it's great that Long Beach is doing this and I think it needs to be lifted up. And also, I'm heartened by the consideration or comments last time you all weighed in and you know, I spoke to, you know, you and a number of people talked about youth and parks. I was glad to see that, you know, a lot that that was considered and what's what was brought forward to us. So I'm happy to support what's in front of us. Thanks. Thank you. Council member Austin. I support the item. I was queuing up to the motion, but I think our staff has put in a lot of our work. I mean, obviously the council has has reviewed these schedules and had the opportunity to review them for a few weeks. Now I'm prepared to vote. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I want to thank that's where Richardson for his compliments. I've worked on the Clean Air Vehicle Incentive for three years. It has not been without its struggles and looking for a way to recognize the impact of those vans on the neighborhoods around it. Mr. Mayor, Garcia and I have worked hard to become the cleanest airport in America, and I think that clean vans is a step in the right direction. We did something meaningful with taxis many years ago, and I think the vans is the next step that we needed to get to, and I look forward to getting those fleets in line. I did have some questions. I met with every department head and that we had questions with and I had some questions related to some of the fees in here that staff had some information they were going to research and get back to us. On whether or not certain fees were set by the county, specifically with a mandate that we charge fees that are lower than our costs, which the county would then be creating a an unfunded mandate. And so I was just reaching out to health services to see if they got an answer to that. I know it's been about a week. Have you? I know there's a lot going on. I can't remember. Yes. The the the fee for specific to vital records, which was the conversation we were having is set in the state health and safety code. We can't charge more than the base rate. The remainder of the costs that are in this fee study are related. That's the $28, the additional costs, the expedited emergency weekend and others are are not established specifically. We do have some flexibility in those rates. However, the increases that were proposed, the conversation make us significant would be make us move higher than others. So just to be clear, they are state mandated. Therefore, that is an unfunded mandate and we have a process annually when we close the cap or to then pull out any unfunded mandates and forward those to the state for requests for reimbursement. And we're doing that with all of these final record. When we spoke, we didn't know even if the county was mandating it or the state. Now that we know that it's the state, can we ensure that it's a part of that annual closure process to potentially bring in that additional revenue? I will work with will work with the financial management team and look at that option. That's great. And for those department heads that aren't privy to this detailed conversation that Ms.. Colby and I had on any fee that is set by the state that exceeds our cost to provide it is an unfunded mandate. And there is an unfunded mandate, cost recovery strategy that is court regulated. And so we have that option. They often pay four or five years later, but it is still local funding that we should have available to our local kids. So thank you for doing the research. And even if it's only tens of thousands of dollars a year, tens of thousands of dollars a year over ten years, 20 years, it's a lot of money. And the more of those that we catch along the way, the better. We are representing our residents and able to provide those funds locally. So thank you for doing that research. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ciro. You, Mayor. I want to thank staff for their hard work in getting this report together. I know that it takes a lot of staff time to review these fees, and I do want to address that. You know, I think that there's always a concern that I think our residents will have, various stakeholders will have with an increase in fee and also just, you know, having them hear this in light of the pandemic. Right. I think that that's my concern is we're talking about recovery and wanting to make sure we help businesses and residents recover and then all of a sudden we come out with our fee increases. Right. So I'm just interested in hearing how, you know, if we're going to be moving forward with these recommended fee increases. What will be the communication process, especially in sections where they have more than doubled and sometimes quadruple? They're very few cases. But I think it's just really important that we do provide information ahead so that in light of just the current economic situation we're in. Right. So I do want to be sensitive to that, where we're going to be announcing this in this in light of this condition, economic condition. Councilmember and Development Services. We don't automatically turn on the switch and start charging the new fees. We do provide public notice to our customers well in advance of the changes in fees to allow them the opportunity to come in and. Submit their their applications to us. And in light. Of COVID and our permitting, we will be very. We will. Allow enough time to for the community. To submit their applications with under the. Existing fees. Thank you as well as the other departments as well. And. And Health and Parks and Rec. That's Councilwoman Services. Brant Davis, director of Parks Recreation Marine, something similar to what director R.S. explained. We would also have a very proactive communication model in place through our website, our nature center, our community centers. And we'd also be reaching out directly to a lot of our stakeholders or community groups who have had a history and any type of event reservations. And so we will be very forthcoming during them. Plenty of notice of any anticipated increases above or beyond what they've been expecting historically. Thank you. Good question. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. See no other council comment. We have a motion in a second. Please go ahead and do a roll call. Compliments. And they asked me. Councilman Allen, I'm Catwoman Pryce, I councilman supporter. Right. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Councilwoman Sara i. Councilwoman. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We're going to do all the funds transfer items together, which is item 24, 25, 26 and 32. So if I can have you please read all those, please.

Recommendation to adopt resolution in support of the formation of the Lower Los Angeles River Recreation and Park District; direct the City Clerk to file the Resolution with the Local Agency Formation Commission; and, authorize City Manager to approve the final District Boundary Map on behalf of the City. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04052022_22-0370

All right. Sign up now. All right. Thank you so much. We're going to move on with the agenda. We're going to take item 20 that was pulled from consent. If you want to recuse yourself at this point. Yes, I'm going to recuse myself out of an abundance of caution as I work for RDC. Thank you. Thank you. Item 20 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to adopt a resolution in support of the formation of the Lower Los Angeles River Recreation and Park District Citywide. All right. Is there a second on this motion? Okay. Any public comment here? No public comment. Let's go ahead and have our vote. Councilman. Super not. Motion is carried eight zero. Thank you. I think we're going to go ahead and just take care of our one hearing that we have and then we'll get to the request to move up items. So let's hear hearing 24.

A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, by adding a requirement for mailed notice to be delivered to property owners within a 200-foot radius of a proposed official map amendment (rezoning). Amends the Denver Zoning Code by adding a requirement for mailed notice to be delivered to property owners within a 200-foot radius of a property to be rezoned at the time the application is received and at least 15 days before the Planning Board public hearing on the rezoning. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0474

12 up. Yes, 12 eyes for 22 passes translations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are on to the last council bill of the night. This is number four. Councilman Flynn, would you please put 474 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I move that council bill 18, dash 474 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second public hearing for 474 is now open. We have a staff report. Yes. Yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. President Council Members. Jason Morrison, Community Planning and Development. So I'm here this evening to present the proposed MELD Rezoning Text Amendment number one. And before I get started, I do want to acknowledge Councilman Rafael Espinosa, who is a sponsor of this particular text amendment. So this text amendment adds a requirement for mailed notice to property owners within a 200 foot radius of a property to be re zoned. The goal here is to improve notification for neighbors during the rezoning process. And this text amendment is specific to the rezoning process only and implements changes at both the application intake as well as the planning board public notification. As outlined in the Denver zoning code. There are two types of public notice. There's informational notice, which provides the public with notice of CPD receipt of an application for review and available avenues to give feedback. And the second type of public notice is notice a public hearing which provides public with advance notice of a required hearing in which a review or decision making body will take action on an application under the Denver Zoning Code. So now let's look at how this text amendment modifies this process. So currently for informational notice, within ten days of a determination of a complete application, the city notifies the following parties the city council members in whose district the subject property is located, the At-Large City Council members and R.A., whose boundaries encompass are located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. So this particular text amendment, all current notification, remains the same. And what changes now is that real property owners whose property is located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning, including those properties to be re zoned, are notified upon receipt of complete application. So similarly, during the notice for public hearing, those that are notice are the City Council members in her district. The subject properties located the At-Large City Council members and the RINO's, whose boundaries encompass or located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. And that happens 15 days before a planning board hearing. So this particular text amendment, all current notification remains the same. And now all real property owners whose property is located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning, including those properties to be reasoned, are notified in advance of the public hearing. So here's a snapshot of our public outreach efforts. And I don't necessarily need to read everything here as I know that it's in front of you and within your packets. But I do want to highlight our attendance back in February at the monthly ANC Zoning and Planning Committee. And I'd also like to note the planning board public hearing, where Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval to Denver City Council. And finally, our attendance at Lou Reed last month, where the committee recommended well, excuse me to where the committee recommended that the bill move forward for your review this evening. So as of today, I've received five letters of support for this particular text amendment. One was from the full delegation of the ANC members. One was from the Overland Park R.A.. One is from the Capital Hill, United Neighborhoods. R.A. One is from the Highland United Neighbors. R.A. And one was also from a private property owner in Denver who owns multiple properties within different neighborhoods. And I'd like to publicly thank everyone for their feedback. CPD finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with many of the goals, strategies and policies found in Denver's Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and Blueprint. Denver. The text amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As Wolves proposed, language enhances communication between the city and those partners at parties potentially affected by this type of zoning procedure. Perhaps more importantly, this text amendment establishes those lines of communication early on in the process, therefore, reinforcing transparency and improving outreach to address concerns and feedback in an open, thoughtful and fair manner. So switching gears to Blueprint Denver, the plan stresses the importance of integrating a thoughtful public involvement strategy into the planning process. And it also highlights that in order for a public involvement strategy to be successful, it must include a wide range of mechanisms for people to share their ideas , questions and concerns. As proposed, the text amendment will improve citizen engagement in an efficient, effective and timely manner. Looking to the second review criteria, CPD finds that the proposed text amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of Denver residents, landowners and businesses by both reinforcing transparency and encouraging active citizen participation in the rezoning process. Finally, CPD finds that the proposed text amendment meets the third review criteria as the proposed language is uniform within each particular zone district. Moreover, the proposed text amendment is an improvement to encourage citizen involvement during the early stages of the rezoning process, regardless of which zone district your property is located. So CPD has analyzed the proposed text before for compliance with the review criteria of just outline, and you find that it satisfies the three review criteria. And we would like to recommend that the SEC submitted for approval. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have one speaker this evening. Chairman Seiko, 6 minutes. Germans take a Black Star action. Okay. Okay. If I go home, I'm down for this. Good night. All right. That concludes our speaker this evening. Questions by members of council. Councilman Clark. Yeah, I have a quick clarifying question. In the in the in the presentation, you mentioned support letter from the Overland Park R.A.. I don't see that in the staff report. I did get an email from the neighbors of Overland North, which is a separate R.A. Did both of the Overland R.A. offer a letter, or was it just noon and not open? Uh, let me double check here. So the letter that I received was from the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. Okay. Then I just wanted to add to the record that I also got, you know, an email. I think all of us did at about 415 from support from the neighbors of Overland North, which is a separate auno. Okay. Just want to add that. Great. Thank you. We will add that into the record. Thank you, President Pro Tem. Any other questions? All right. This concludes Council Bill 474 comments by members of Council. Kelvin Espinosa, would you like to speak on your own? But just I'll be brief. I just want to thank Jason and Kyle. I get you know, they gave me props, but actually it was their work and heavy lifting to sort of get this language right and in a way that was readily digestible by CPD. And so I want to thank you two specifically for the work that you guys did for the shepherding that you've done with community, the responsiveness that you've had with any inquiries and just general overall professionalism and how well it went at planning board. So it's really impressive. I mean, it's fun to see you guys work. And then the other comment I'll add is, you know, with with the sort of esoteric text amendment like this, you really find out who's paying attention the channel channel late in the planning board because we've gotten a lot of I've gotten a lot of personal support from everybody, just about everybody's district. And it's it's it's it's fun to see things. My district's not suffering. I'm just joking. This is a great this is a great bill. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. I want to echo that remark. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for bringing this forward. And I hope that I speak for every other person up here on the dais here. This is a very necessary change, because so many of our RINO's, many of our rhinos, are not as active as others. And this will really. Get the word out to the people most impacted by by rezonings. So thank you to Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I think I think it's I think it's accurate to say that our our notes don't represent every parcel in the city. And so every rezoning, I feel like there's one or two folks who feel like say that they didn't know about this and so who live right next to the rezoning. So I think this is a great bill and I'll be supporting it as well. See no other comments, Secretary Rocha. Madam Secretary. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I black eye. Clarke. I miss. Mr. President. I. Please. Closed. Hold on. Okay. There it is. There's 12. All right. Police force voting. As a result, 12 eyes for 74 has passed. Congratulations. On Monday, June 25th, Council will hold a required public hearing for council vote 563 approving the.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to grant permission to ASM Global to operate a professional boxing contest at the Long Beach Convention Center on May 21, 2022. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_05032022_22-0486

Thank you. And let's move on to I believe it's new business 26. Report from City Manager Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to grant permission to ACE and Global to operate a professional boxing contest at the Long Beach Convention Center on May 21st, 2022. District one was in motion and a second is your public comment on this. No customers. And I'm sorry, Councilmember Superhot, did you have any comments? Yes, I do. Thank you, Mayor. I would just like to commend staff for bringing this item forward so quickly. It's also kind of a version of it takes a village in. Terms of council process as well. That is. It takes a village within total compliance. Of the Brown Act. So it's interesting that this involves Jack Rabbit, boxing from District six, the Convention Center and District one. The supplemental item to bring it here tonight was signed on to by districts two, five and eight, and it originated in District four with a call to myself from Pastor Gregory Sanders, who said the applicant had approached him needing to get something passed at the convention center. And Pastor Sanders didn't know exactly who to turn to. I said, Well, the applicant probably did the right thing because to get this scheduled when you want it scheduled might require divine intervention. And I would just like and so I told the pastor to have the applicant contact our office. And. Barbara moore shepherded the applicant through the process. And I'd also like to commend the applicant for really doing the legwork to get this forward and for that effort. I think we should pass this unanimously tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a seconder on this motion? Vice Mayor Richardson generally comments? No. And Councilman Nelson. Yes, I think. Council Member Supernova thank you for for motioning this. Thank you to the city manager's office for for bringing this forward. This is an archaic piece of ordinance that really needs to be cleaned up. And I'm looking forward to hopefully getting something back very soon before it is council because events like this can be very positive for the, I think the image of our city but also for for economic development and just just celebrating particularly our young talent here in our city. This this particular event will will feature a young up and coming boxer who is really the pride of Long Beach today. He's a Polish student. I met his father many years ago and have been trying to coach him into bringing his gym up into the north Long Beach area. But he reached out to me with this this issue, and it didn't seem like a big challenge to to to fix. And so I'm glad to see this being moved as quickly as it is. I'm looking forward to attending this event and supporting other events like this because I think really Long Beach is long overdue to have in May. Boxing is entertainment events and us to be able to showcase our city on a broader level. So I'm happy to support this and encourage my colleagues to as well. There's emotion and a second, there's no public comment, you mentioned. So we will go ahead and cast her votes. Motion is carried. Thank you. We're now down to the second public comment period. I think you have a couple of people and I'm quick.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 34740 with Utility Solutions Partners, LLC, of Rancho Cordova, CA, for managed services to provide maintenance and integration support related to the City’s utility systems, to increase the annual contract amount by $425,200, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $271,130, for a revised one-year contract amount not to exceed $2,982,430; and Increase appropriations in the General Services Fund Group in the Technology and Innovation Department by $425,200, offset by one-time charges to user departments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10062020_20-1001

District five. I. District six. I strict seven. By District eight. By District nine, a motion carries. Thank you. Could we please have item 42 would you please with item club. Report from Technology and Innovation Recommendation to amend contract with Utility Solutions Partners or manage services to provide maintenance and integration support related to the city's utility systems to increase the annual contract amount by 425,000 citywide. Motion and. Commitment. Then further comment those. There's no public comment. Right. Have any. And then counsel come in on this side of. Mr. Andrews, this is Councilman Mungo. Yes, go ahead, please. Is there a staff report? I know this is based on the utility bill integration, but I was hoping that we were being forward thinking and it integrates with our one carbon plan and or our Go Long Beach app so that residents could have one place to go for their utility bills or a library card, their metro pass there. Annual passes to Eldorado Park. There, there. Golf resident card. I'm just looking for some integration input before we vote on this item. All right. Anyone? Yes. So we have Kasim Lee from Tech and Innovation who can try to answer some of those questions. Hello, everybody. An honorable mayor and members of the city council. I'll try to answer a question about the one card. As you know, there is a one card study going on. And and this certainly would be an opportunity to to to integrate integrate that. This particular item before you is the annual maintenance renewal of the existing system, which supports our utility system, our customer care billing system, our mobile workforce management. These systems are responsible for a the collection process of $200 million of revenue annually. So this is the year one of our extension of our existing agreement that was awarded in 2017. And in two years time, this program will be under will be renewed again and not necessarily new, but go out for award again. And so and so somewhere during this time frame, there might be opportunities to integrate that. One thing that is very important about this particular program is that in this coming year, there is a requirement that we upgrade our Oracle customer care and billing software. And and so this proposal in front of you includes the the effort to do that upgrade with the support of all the utilities. So this is a upgrade of the current system and maintenance of the current system without any add ons that move us towards one portal 24 seven City Hall that we've been. Desiring her four years. I would say that any if this system has a role in the one card program, this particular upgrade will be a prerequisite step towards towards that because the software currently on is is up to up to the end of its natural lifecycle. Okay. Thank you. I'll support the study. Okay. I'm going on this item. If not, we have a motion. Grab motion. But I'm a price. Secured by. Thank you. But what? District one, district three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. United is one of 29, so the whole family would be 390. Councilwoman Mongo, your mike is live. District six. All right. District seven. District eight, District nine. All right.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease Amendments for Rent Relief Programs to Rock Wall Winery and St. George Spirits Through the Loan Conversion Assistance Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)

AlamedaCC_01052021_2021-8482

A loan of a maximum of six. Months of rent. Again, attempting to help these tenants out in a. Challenging COVID. Environment, the tenants are required to meet specific. Requirements in order to qualify for this. Program. Namely, the. Tenants. Business operations had to be consistent with the long term land use and development plan for Alameda Point. They had to have 25 or more full time. Employees or generate significant. Sales tax. And then thirdly, they had to demonstrate to the city that there. Was a significant loss of income of 30% or greater since March. 17th of 2020. So these, to qualify, have qualified for that program. And in addition, if they then meet certain negotiated. Performance milestones that are set out in each of the respective amendments, they would have the opportunity to have some or. All of the. Deferred rent converted from the loan into a grant. So they would be forgiven to some degree for a portion of it if they met certain requirements that are spelled out in those amendments. And that that is what I have to share on this. Thank you, Miss Mercado. Yeah. I just wanted to add a little context, because we do have a new council member who was not here when the council approved and created this program. So just a little bit of gist, just a little bit of meat on the bones for you. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Well, it's also good for members of the public, too. That's right. So the council had been grappling with how to provide some assistance to our tenants since March. And we have we've considered, I think, this program at least three times since March, just trying to get it right. And we initially came up with this program because we scoured around to look at what other landlords were doing. And what we discovered is that a lot of landlords were not really knowing what to do. And then there was this program where the landlords were landlord said, Hey, we can like share a little bit of the pain with you. And it was a little bit crafted after the Federal Government's PGP program, which, as you recall, gave businesses grants and if they met certain qualifications, the grants could or they were loans which if they met certain qualifications, they would convert into a grant and would need to be repaid. So we crafted our own program to look similar to that. We we think that we captured the large employers of our tenants. The reason we we pegged it to 25 was because there was, as you might know, another program for business assistance citywide for four businesses that had under 25 employees. So this was to supplement that and to hit that larger number. In addition, we knew that there were some some of our tenants, the larger tenants really needed help. So the council created this program. And then in October, they added that they after grappling with what this program would look like in October, the Council actually offered $1.5 million to fund this program. So we had eight applicants and and then three of them did not meet the qualifications. And then three of them went to go to. Also in October, we created the program that you considered just earlier tonight, the 933 program. That's what I call it. Nine month deferral paid over three years and you could have up to three months deferred. So I call it 933. So three of the tenants decided to go with that program instead of the loan conversion program. So then we're left with these two tenants who who were offered the opportunity to do the 933, but really wanted to stay with this loan conversion and negotiate some milestones and really wanted to try to get the six months of abated rent. And the last thing I would just add is that when we negotiated these milestones for the tenants to meet, we really took into consideration the direction that the Council and the spirit that the Council had at the time. The Council was very specific that they wanted to to give some credit to that, for lack of a better description. Two tenants who have been community spirited and community minded, not necessarily just during COVID, but in general. And so you will see some of those milestones that are pegged for, you know, offering for providing programs or offering their space and things like that. And also the big one is the hand sanitizer, creating the hand sanitizer and distributing it citywide and a region wide, really. And then the council also really, you know, grappled with, you know, trying to be all things to all people and and realizing that we couldn't just give things away. And so they really wanted the the tenants to show that they had a hardship. And so that that that we looked at, we kind of worked over the financials of the tenants a great deal. We we think that we came up with some creative things. They're not perfect. But we thought that we captured the spirit of what the council wanted. The other thing that I think the council there was a some division, but the council really were they were saying if you if they can't open, we need to be able to help them. And there were some. Some council members went as far as saying we want to give them one month for every month that they're unable to open. And we couldn't do that. And so we kind of came to a happy medium. And that's what you see in front of you tonight. It's not perfect, but nothing about COVID is perfect. And we've been so we're we're trying to capture something that offers help but feels fair. Great indignation, Ms.. Mercado. And who is that? Just. I missed you. I just. Know. I'm sorry, Miss MAXINE. Sorry. No, no. Problem. I just wanted to jump in and say. And when we. Talk about not being able to be open, I think we really are meaning not being able to be open in the robust, full way. They were pre-COVID. They may. Be able to be open in some limited ways, but it certainly isn't. Providing. Them the. Income that they were used. To in the pre-COVID. Days. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. And the reference to hand sanitizer, just for people listening and who might not know is that is our own St George spirits. And very quickly, at the beginning of this pandemic, Lance Winters, the he's got a a title that's more clever than CEO, but whatever it is. Like creative genius or. Something like that. Anyway, he pivoted because they already had all the FDA approvals for what they were producing in terms of spirits. He pivoted to producing hand sanitizer and I mean for Alameda County Health Systems, the Highland Hospital Center and for public safety departments around the region, what I did not know is they were giving all that away. They weren't charging anyone anything. I did not realize that. So not only did they help their production of spirits, but they started producing hand sanitizer and donating it. So that is just kind of carrying out the community spirit that we've seen from this and in other businesses, too. So thank you so much for for the explanations. And then let me ask two questions. If staff has any clarifying questions about the staff report, and then I'll ask the city clerk, do we have public speakers on this item? We do not have any public speakers. Okay. Clarifying questions. Or if we don't have public speakers, we can actually just launch into our council discussions, I think. I think Councilmember de SAC, I saw your hand go up. Then I saw Councilmember Spencer. So let me take you in that order. Okay. Well, thank you. You know that that break was very helpful. It allowed me to kind of reflect on on and reflect more on kind of the concerns that Councilmember Herrera Spencer had raised, because I think they are there. They apply here as well. So what I'm kind of concerned about is and I'm concerned about that now retrospectively from the previous issue, but I think it applies here is is coming up with a policy after the lease agreement has already been agreed to or not the lease agreement, but the agreement for the program has already been agreed to. So so, you know, is there and the question that I have for staff is, you know, is there anything about now where we can. Deal with, you know, the policy issues regarding how to guard against overreach. Is there anything about how we can deal with those policy issues now? Because I'm realizing that and the previous issue, I realized that, well, maybe we should have dealt with the policy issues before agreeing. So so so that's the question that I have. Well. Well, any. Party. I, I think I see. Vice Mayor Vella, did you want to comment on that or. I'm a conservative. I guess I just I have a concern about what's been agenda is specifically in terms of what we're talking about. I hear the concerns, but the main goal, my understanding is that we are trying to give financial assistance to some of our tenants. So I guess this this kind of I just I'm trying to understand how a conversation about overreach comes in when when we're how it comes in relative to what's been agenda ized. And I feel like we keep going. We're talking about something that's not really before us. Okay. Thank you. I'm a. Little concerned about. Mom. Okay. And before I go back to Mrs. Spencer, did I hear Ms.. Maxwell start to address that concern? No. No. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Spencer, I'm your muted. Right. Thank you. And I wanted to go back to I did have clarifying questions. And once again, I wasn't I haven't been involved in all these meetings that you all have and staff member McConnell she raised this issue of a described and thank you very much. I thought that was very helpful for me this 933 that there if I have it correctly after each year that one year then is that one month is abated. So a tenant pays 11 month, one month is abated. And then I look at this and I think that maybe I'm mistaken about the 933. And so I thought that was what I heard three years, three months end up getting abated after like that. So with this, my understanding is that it's. Up to. Six months that can be abated and that's about maximum figure is and that's why it's different for each tenant. But but I was trying to figure out how do they get especially like when you're talking about the hand sanitizer, which is wonderful that they did it, but do they get the abatement right up at the front so that at six months it was taken away that they owe from the beginning? Or is it each year that they pay 11 months and then one month? So after six years they then get one month abated. How how does that connect? This. Nelson Who wants to take that? I don't care. At least if you want to answer, that's fine. Yeah. I mean, as the event, as they met the event is, they provided the evidence. Associated with the particular event and they would get the opportunity to abate that amount of time and it would be applied thereafter. Does that respond to your question? So can I just add a couple of things? All right. So you are correct. Councilmember Spencer, these are two separate programs. So the 933 was the one that was discussed prior and that prior action. And this is the loan conversion program. And for example, the the I believe that at the time we, I negotiated the, um, the agreement for lone conversion. They were not near the number that we put in there for hand sanitizer. So it was a goal for them to, to meet. And when they meet that goal, then they would provide proof to the city that they've done it and then would say, thank you very much, that's one month's rent abated. And then let's say they did something else and they they provide evidence that they reached that. We would say, thank you very much. That's two months, you know, so it's ongoing for a three year period of time. Thank you, Miss Maxwell, that you have? No, I think. That. We got it collectively. Teamwork on Mr. Spencer. Council member. Spencer. Thank you. So, going back to the hand sanitizer, have they already performed the amount of hand sanitizer being distributed so that they've already earned the stream up to three months, I believe it was. Or what? What are you looking for on that? So I believe that I, I don't I'm not recalling off the top of my head, but I think we had like a 3500 or something like that in the agreement. And I believe that they were at like 2000 when we negotiated. So they have they have more to go. And I'll just add a little spoiler alert. The Mr. Lance Winters is waiting to be one of our public speakers. So as soon as we finish clarifying questions, we can hear when we can learn what his title is that's escaping me. So Councilmember Spencer. Thank you. So yeah, it is the 3600 from the report at least. And so I don't know the relationship between if they do 12 and then they get a certain dollar amount. So and then they like that or or so so it feels like and this is where now I from member datacom I feel like this has already been negotiated. You have a candidate that's already been performing and now it's coming to us essentially for ratification is what I'm hearing. Which I am. Is it my concern? So we were responding to the spirit of the conversation in which the council had when we created the program. And so, yes, they are they are producing hand sanitizer. The big bulk of it has been done. But we wanted to encourage that. They continue to do that and continue to be a community partner. So we set a goal for them. I mean, the the point of this program is to create performance measures. And so from the 2000 where they were to the 3600, we thought that that was worth something to us and to our community and should be rewarded with with an abatement. And so while I understand what you're saying, it feels like it's like they're getting credit for things they've already done, but it's not it's things that they're doing that the council said, Hey, we want to acknowledge people who are doing things in our community to help and to that, that's why that measure was created. But if I have it correctly, it's 115, $118,000 that we're being asked not to have them pay to offset 3600 gallons. So is there some did someone put a value on 3600 gallons? Because as we all know, we have many and we're fortunate we have many members in our community that are stepping up and not necessarily receiving $118,000 value to offset their donations to the community. And your question was, how did they reach the calculation? That my calculation. And we didn't do that. We didn't do the value of each gallon of hand sanitizer for the rent. I mean, we were being responsive to the council's direction, which was help these people help the community and let's acknowledge them so that we can help them. And I mean, so none of these tie back to, you know, a mathematical equation that says, you know, 1000 gallons of hand sanitizer equals this X amount of dollars, which then is applied. If the council wants to do that, then we just need to figure out what a gallon of hand sanitizer is worth and then do that math. But we were following the spirit and the direction and which the council had given us when they created the program, which was acknowledge that they're doing something. I mean, because we were at the point where there was some council conversation which was give them one month for every month that they're closed. And that would have been way more than what we're discussing right now. Thank you, Ms.. Mercado. I also just note that there is a reason that the term unprecedented is used over and over when describing the events of the last ten, almost 11 months as Sandy, how it's over. The food bank says, This is my first pandemic. It's mine, too. But I do want to commend staff for, I think, doing a Herculean effort at trying to interpret staff and counsels direction and wishes. So any further clarifying questions, Councilmember Spencer, you still have the floor. Yes, thank you. So when I look at the agreement here, it has year one, two and three. So is this really a three year lease? But during the payments over three years, they will have the opportunity to have six months. So essentially abated. So essentially two months per year. Whereas the prior one we were looking at was one month per year. And the city is also, you know, landlords for residential. We have renters. All right. Is this something that we're offering to those trying to figure out how we choose which tenants we're helping? And again, I would just maybe channeling the city attorney. I just make sure that we are talking about the specific item before us. Also, I would just say the previous one was three months per year because that's how you three, three and three, they get to the nine months. And so this one is a shorter one. And then, I mean, if I may answer a little bit, the residential tenants are receiving what every residential tenant is receiving citywide. We did not do a special program for them. They are under the city's residential agreement. So while so we're following that edict, the city is subject to what every other landlord in the city is subject to. Okay. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Council. Yes. Sorry. So I heard. I'm sorry. So it was three, three, three. So it's three months per year. That was the date after being abated on the other contract. Right. And this is two months per year then. So the first one is nine months within the between March of last year and June of this year can be abate. It can be deferred. Then they have three years. They pay it back three months over a three year period of time. So so for the next three years, they're paying back at least three months of those nine months that were deferred. And if they pay back early, if they have a banner year this year and they pay back everything, then they get a they get an abatement for every year early that they pay. So if they pay back three years early, they're going to get three months abated rent. So essentially, they're going to get. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just want to clarify that the maximum is one month per year, though, because they have three months for three years. But when I look at this one, it looks like the maximum is two months per year. There is been offered to be abated and not paid by the tenants. No, there and they have the same thing. They have six months between March of last year and June of this year. So they can pay they can abate six months within that same time period. And then they have three years to meet those those milestones to to get to the abatement. But that six months evaded, if I'm hearing you correctly, that is six months. That's correct. That's three years or three years per year for the other program. One month per year? I think that's correct. Well, I don't think they were thinking of it as that per year, because what if they meet all their milestones in one year, then they'll get all six months abated. But what if it if it takes them three years to meet all their milestones, then they will have had their six months abated. So we're not unlike the other program, which requires them to pay at least three months per year to get to the nine month repayment. This one doesn't have that requirement. This just says meet these milestones. In whatever order you can. So they could receive the credit for six months immediately and then at some point unfortunately not be able to continue paying rent in years two and three, whereas the other programs they pay 11 months, they get one month abated, they pay 11 months, they get one month abated. This is what it sounds like. They could get abatement for six months upfront, not pay rent for six months, and then at some point not finish the balance and be unable to pay back. Well, I mean, that that's correct. There's a default risk with each of these with each program. I mean, the first program could get nine months deferred rent and then be able to make the three month payment in the next year. I mean, so there's a risk there as well. And then they won't get any abatement. We won't get any rent. So there is there is a risk of default in both programs. There's the first program. There's there could be a risk of a nine month default. And in this program, there could be a risk of a six month default. Thank you. Sure. All for now, Miss Spencer. Yeah. Okay. So then any other clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? All right, Madam Clerk, our first public speaker, please. Lance Winters. Good evening, Mr. Winters. Happy New Year. Welcome. Good evening. Happy New Year, Madam Mayor. Council City of Alameda Council Staff. Everyone, thank you for your your careful stewardship of the city and for considering all this. We find ourselves at a strange place after nearly a year. And I just want to come back and point out that at the beginning of this whole thing, I don't think any of us had any idea how long it was going to last. And we exchanged words. Spirits knew that we needed to do something, and we invested thousands of dollars in the additional ingredients that we would need to manufacturing hand sanitizer. And those were those were things like glycerin and hydrogen peroxide and packaging supplies, because we don't typically package things like this. A number of small distilleries across the country pivoted to make hand sanitizer, to make up for losses in sales of their products and charge astronomical fees to. To address Councilmember Spencer's questions about the cost and value of hand sanitizer. We were seeing it go for upwards of $50 a gallon in bulk rates. And so that's it's a significant amount of money. We spent thousands of dollars to be able to make this without the intention of ever selling it. We wanted to be good members of our community. We wanted to help support people who were in need. This seemed like a time when everybody was in need and we had the ability to make this. We had the bulk of the ingredients already on hand. So we didn't we didn't sit and labor over who deserved it, who who should be paying what. We just said, let's make this and let's put it out there to our community because our community needed it and that was it. And and I think that's the I think that's the spirit that we should all be operating under during these trying times is looking out for one another. We would have been doing this regardless of any sort of programs the city would put in place. And honestly, you know, if you don't take it into account, that's totally understandable as well. And if we don't get if we don't get the the rent abatement passed, we will continue making and giving sanitizer away because it would be criminal not to. But I do appreciate the council taking the time to to be able to consider this abatement for us. And thank you all for that. Thank you, Mr. Winters. And do you have another speaker, Madam Kirk? That was our only speaker. Our only speaker. Okay. So another person has raised in Lord their hand, but I think I'm listening. Okay. So if anyone would like to speak now on this item six B, please indicate the way you need to do that. Otherwise, I am closing public comment and so we will go to council discussion. Who would like to lead council everyday? Well. Great. Well, thank you very much. You know, let me start by a kind of overarching view of the ordinance process and and the way in which these agreements have come up this evening for me, since I kind of like stumbled into the first one, kind of really implicates that process. So the way in which ordinances are adopted or passed in the city of Alameda and I suspect a lot of other places, is that there are two readings. There is the first reading. And then 30 days after there's another reading, there's a final passage. And then and then 30 days after the final passage, the ordinances is is or an agreement is adopted. So I think the reason why we have that is because we want to be in a position that if there is new questions or new information that comes to light, if there are new ways of seeing things that that we perhaps missed on the first go around, that we can catch it on the second go around. I'm. And I think it's it's the fact that new member or returning member actually returning member council member Herrera Spencer had pointed out concerns about the way in which COVID 19 enforcement violations might be pursued by staff. It's a new for me, it's a new information. And I didn't grasp it as quickly when we were first discussing this matter about 45 minutes ago. But as I look at number four of the agreement, Section four is about COVID 19 enforcement violations. I think the new lens with which. Councilmember Desai, excuse the interruption, please hold is time. Could everyone who's not speaking please mute your microphone? We are getting some background noise and I'm not sure where it's coming from. So if you're not the speaker, please mute. Thank you. Sorry. No problem. Okay. So. So I appreciate the the point that I believe Councilmember Herrera Spencer was getting at in terms of guarding against overreach, because I'm looking at for section four, I, Double-A, Triple IV. And it does seem a little cut and dry. Now I get that. Earlier tonight, we talked about a framework by which we might deal with guarding against overreach and that framework which is coming up with policy language. But the question I still have is. Might we adopt policy guidance language offline first? Before we adopt the the agreement or if the city attorney has other suggestions to how we might deal with policy guidance now or offline. I'd certainly be all ears because because I do think that, you know, taking the points that were raised previously, because they're applicable now, right now, I do think that we need to hammer that out for us. We need to hammer out guarding against the overreach issue that was raised earlier. And I think it still is still an issue because I'm looking now with a new fresh set of eyes asked for. And and I'm realizing that, okay, I think there are some good points that were raised. And I think we should we should discuss it. So I'll leave it at that. Vice Mayor Vella, I'd say you're having good. I actually think that we laid the foundation for addressing that issue and doing it in a way that comports with and complies with the Brown Act in terms of agenda, using it properly and allowing for a thorough discussion. So I'm actually not interested in having something transpire in a way that would be pausing this meeting to try to circumvent the Brown out to do something in a nontransparent way. That would be a concern of mine. The other thing is we heard from Lance Winters, who is, you know, literally one of the one of the two parties that would be entering into this agreement with the city. And this issue was not raised by him and he was paying attention to this meeting and the previous meeting. So I'm wondering if we aren't jumping down a rabbit hole that's of our own creation, as opposed to addressing the issues brought forth by the businesses that we're actually trying to help. And I don't want to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is providing that financial assistance to businesses who have been good community members, who have risen to the occasion during this pandemic to not only be good businesses and trying to keep people employed, but also being stewards to the community in terms of providing services. And so I, I, I really want to focus on that. I think the path that we laid out on the previous agenda item is going to apply to all of these different things. I think that it's a red herring to say that we're overreaching when in fact what we are trying to do is provide a benefit to to the businesses and keep them afloat. They're not raising this issue. And I think we've gotten really off topic and off path. And I think we've laid the foundation will have that conversation. If there is a concern for this hypothetical overreach, which again, I want to remind my colleagues is a hypothetical that's been created by us. It's not something that's actually occurring or an issue that's actually been raised by any of these businesses. So I am inclined to support what's been put before us tonight. I think that we need to focus on that, making sure that we address the immediate hurdles that lay before our businesses to keep them afloat. And then we can deal with this issue. It's going to come back to us on the issue of a potential hypothetical. Maybe it will happen, overreach will come back to us in February and we can have a robust and transparent public conversation that's been agenda ized pursuant to the Brown Act in our Sunshine Ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone we haven't heard from yet? COUNCILMEMBER That's why, before I go back to Councilmember Spencer. No, I think so. For Councilmember Baysox benefit, because it wasn't at the at the earlier thing. I do think that there is some consistency that needs to happen between these, even though these are different contracts. I think having different sets of expectations in different contracts is problematic. And I do agree with Councilman Vice Mayor Bell. Now I'm going to start calling you Councilmember Vice Mayor Avella. You know, I agree with that. I think we have addressed this issue. The businesses that have signed on to that have already we've already approved their contracts, signed on to a very vaguely worded thing that said one. One violation is a problem and would cause them to to lose their funding. I think, you know, I raised some concerns about about the vagaries of that. And we we took some action. Councilmember her Spencer has highlighted that she has some further concerns about that. And I think we can address those as a part of the policy. It's how it's being addressed now, and it is actually after the fact adding additional protections to an agreement that these businesses have already said they are comfortable with. And therefore, I'm comfortable moving forward and I hope that we can do so. I appreciated the email we received in December from Saint George Spirits asking us to please take action as fast as possible. And the idea of putting a halt on this and waiting a month or a month and a half to to really hammer something out just does not seem wise. We've been through this whole thing saying we need to act fast. We need to act when people need the help so that they don't get to a place where we are taking action after it's already too late. And I think that we're getting to some places where we're at risk of that. So I'm happy to support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Councilmember Knox White Councilmember Spencer Tracy and. You might still be muted. Thank you. I was. Appreciate that. One of my concerns in regards to asking about the rent being abated is that these are monies that then would go to the base reuse fund by city money. And I feel like there needs to be some balancing act between what is being abated and what someone in the city is receiving or somehow a council has determined. It connects, right, that there's some relationship. And because this money is not our money is and we're talking about approximately, I think, 300,000 that we're talking about abating, which would be money that the city has not received. So I want to put that in the context as much as I want to help these businesses. I also want to be able to provide services and whatnot for our community and do the. Repairs and whatnot at the bay so that we can continue to support all of our tenants and our community members out there, including those that live out there. Right. So this is this is, as I see it, as honestly, a big ask. We have many and I appreciate the program of up to 7500 for a certain tenant, I mean, across our town. But here we're actually talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, not 7500. So that I think it is important to be clear on what the ask is. And then in regards to the paragraph, I appreciate member day for expediency that the language is actually very specific in the contract. The city may. Upon the written approval by the city manager and city attorney in their sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the remedies, including the tenant shall immediately owe and pay to the landlord. All unpaid deferred base rent together with late charges interest do a reason to me that is not just loose language at all. It's actually extremely precise. And that's why I have the concerns that it does not allow for the discretion. It actually says any. It doesn't say anything about the type of violation. So that's why I see that as a concern. And I think it is important to balance that regardless of what my other colleagues have done in the past. I think it just and I, I do appreciate the memory. So I have read this and I think it is an important issue to be addressed. So thank you. Thank you. And Councilmember Spencer, just so that we don't mislead anyone in the public who doesn't have the benefit of having this agreement in front of them, I continue reading where you left off because it does say that the city may opine that the written approval of both the city of Alameda City Manager and city attorney in their sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the following remedies. And yes, Tenet, one of them might be that the tenant shall immediately owe and pay the landlord all unpaid deferred deferred base rent together with bank charges and interest. And the next option, though, is that the possibility is the tenant shall return to landlord within ten days of the date of the written notice from the city, all previously earned rent credits defined below or the tenant another option. The tenant shall not be entitled to any further benefits established by and described in this amendment or the fourth possibility. Tenant shall timely and fully comply with the remedies imposed by the set the city under this subsection. If they and and again this is after they've met with been warned had a chance to cure. But it also, as the vice mayor reminded us, is coming back to the council for further refinement of policy by this council. So it's there's a lot of permissive language. And it and again, I want us to all keep in mind the reason we're doing this is to stem the spread of COVID 19 so our businesses can reopen again, our kids can go back to school. But you raised a good point about the base reuse fund. And I want you, if I can, call on city manager Eric Levitt to just tell us what you've addressed before. When we've discussed the base reuse fund, it is true that this money would come from it. But what's the what's the condition of the base reuse fund and how will this impact it? I think in the short term, definitely it puts pressure on the base reuse fund in the short term. I think we're looking at the long term as far as the business is out there and we're trying to make sure that we keep attractive tenants out there and that we have strong tenants out there. And I think we're trying to help them work through this time so that long term we continue to have these tenants out there and then that would replenish those funds that would be lost in the short term. So that's what we're trying to do. But this is a difficult financial time for the city as well as for for the tenants, for sure. Death to quote from the. Thank you, Mr. Levitt, and to quote from the financial impact paragraph on page four of the staff refer staff report fund eight five, which is the base for use fund received 16.6 million on a revenue budget of $14.2 million, which and that was in fiscal year 2019, 2020. So it received $16.6 million on a revenue budget of 14.2 million, which added over 2.4 million to the fund balance. So the reduction of $393,140 is unlikely to adversely affect the health of the fund in fiscal year 2021, but 20 and then 2021. But I think the other point is that we don't know where this when this is all going to end. I'm really hopeful that the vaccines get here in a timely manner. We get people vaccinated that 80% to get our herd immunity. But how long that will take, we don't know at this point in time. So that's why it is really important to make sure that in addition to our largesse to our business community, we make sure that the very logical and sensible orders of the public health officer are being followed. And it's not that we try to play gotcha, but we don't want to be creating problems for other businesses or specific businesses by ignoring the public health officers orders. And I will say that in all of Alameda, I think we had very few businesses cited for for violations. So anyway, I thought. Councilmember Desai. Yeah. Yeah. No, I don't see myself supporting this agreement until we have the protected policy, the language regarding protecting against overreach, I'm not going to support this. And notwithstanding the policy agreement that's coming back to us in February. No, no. You know, that was a lesson that I had learned on the first go around, as if I had to do it over again. I would have I would have said, let's get the policy, hammer out the policy first guard against overreach. I think it's a real issue. Other people might not think it's a real issue. I think it's a real issue. So I'm not going to support this until I see it. Garrett Thank you. Visalia Villa. So we heard twice from one of the business owners asking for aid. And I just want to understand, my colleagues that you want to withhold aid to these businesses, you want to withhold financial aid to our businesses. You would rather see our businesses suffer financially. Because of a hypothetical issue that we are going to address before the contract is even even going to be enforced. I'm just trying to understand where the issue is, because the business owners themselves have not raise these issues. They're not expressing a concern about an overreach. And we have an opportunity to actually address it because of the timeline. This is the first reading. There would be a second reading and there's a 30 day period. Correct after that. Madam Mayor. Yes, according to his staff, has told us so. So ultimately we have time to enact the policy, but we're going to withhold. Your plan is to withhold financial aid to businesses that are struggling. We'd rather see our businesses go under or struggle financially. And we'd we'd we'd rather see people lose their jobs. I'm just I'm trying to understand. How a council member decide they want to address. I think I said my piece. I right. We need to guard against overreach. Okay. Councilmember Spencer. Thank you. You know, I really do appreciate the vice mayor's comments. And I was going to put it in perspective. I think there is a compromise here that removing the paragraph regarding the COVID 19 enforcement violations that I think she so eloquently describes is hypothetical. So I think I would be very comfortable moving forward if we remove that paragraph that honestly, I would agree. It's a hypothetical, apparently these differences and I think they truly are good, solid basis and we don't have that issue with these businesses. So I don't even know why it was added. I actually don't. I think it was overreach to add it. I think we can trust our businesses, work with our businesses like every other business in town that they don't need a hammer on them. I mean, so I say this is why in the world was it even admits a hypothetical, so let's remove it in its entirety and then I'm more than happy to support that. Thank you. Vice Mayor Valet. Because as my learned colleague so eloquently pointed out earlier in this meeting, we are giving them substantially more financial help than all of the other businesses in town, and we're giving it from an account that she expressed concerns over. So I think that there is a give and take. There is agency on the part of the businesses in question. They have had an opportunity to raise these issues. And I frankly find this whole conversation to be a distraction from what the real issue is. And I found us going veering so far off topic that it seems as though we're willing to kill a deal that's been agreed to. And that's a frustration that I I'm sure the business owners share. I think it's disappointing. I thank you for your comments. City manager, address your hand up. Yes. And so I can clarify a little bit more on the finances. So I actually just received on Friday of last week or Thursday of last week, I just received the initial estimate of what the revenues and expenditures were for the end of last year, not for this year, but to June 30th, 2020. And we did end up with a net positive balance of $6 million in this particular fund. Some of it may have been from sales, but a lot of it is because we did reduce certain expenses. So we had about 14 million in lease revenue, about 2 million in revenue last year, which is the 16 million you referred to. And then we were able to reduce expenses. We still have major capital expenses out there and that all of this also goes to the capital expenses. But we do have that access and I feel very comfortable. I want to make sure everyone is aware we recommended these lease because we feel that the long term viability of that area and the Spirits Alley, that these lease agreements would help keep these businesses afloat right now in a time of need and then have them be able to come out of it stronger, which I think in reverse. In in the end would make the city of Alameda stronger by having these strong leases out there. So I want to make sure and clarify I didn't fully answer that question earlier. Thank you. Mr. 11 is Max. So I see you hand. Up and building on Mr. Lovett's point, we don't expect. Any further applications. For this program. And it was $1.5 million allocated for it, and we will have spent approximately one half of that and anticipate that's about what we will spend. Thank you, Miss Mansoor. Miss Spencer. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve this, but strike the provision of the COVID 19 enforcement violations. Certainly, we have a motion to have a second. No second. So that motion fails for lack of a second. I am going to just ask us all to take a deep breath, take a step back. Let's look at this from a number of different perspectives. Okay. Rarely in political life do we come to an agreement that everyone thinks is absolutely perfect, and we like it just the way it is. But at the end of the day, as elected representatives, and not just any elected representatives, we are governing at a very precarious time for our residents, for our businesses, for city government. None of us knows exactly where this all ends. Hopefully it ends well. And I truly believe, as I have said many times, that time and science are on our side. If we can just hold out until enough vaccine is out there to get us past this terrible scourge that we have lived through. And again, while we are all impacted by COVID 19, not everyone is impacted equally. And when we think of these businesses, it's not just the business owners, it's the people that work there that they employ. And so are there other ways that we can achieve the same objectives? I think, you know, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Spencer, I think your concerns are valid. I don't disagree with you, but I feel that we have already in the previous item over which we spent a great deal of time in discussion, we came up with something that would satisfy the concern about overreaching. In fact, I, you know, implored that I would love to put together an ad hoc committee to advise exactly precisely what kind of language you would want to see in there to to guard against this overreaching that you've both referenced. And, in fact, I'll make my offer once again that I would be delighted if the two of you would agree to be that ad hoc committee to work with the city attorney's office and city manager and community development and come up with that language that you think addresses any deficiencies. But we we stand here at a crossroads where we can just walk away and say, okay, you two legacy building businesses that have been added alameda point a long long time we have helped other businesses out here you we are turning your back our back on because we just couldn't agree on the precise wording i'm asking you to stop and consider are there other ways to achieve almost all of what you want? Because I don't think any of us is going to walk away with everything we want. So, okay, before I hear from one of you, I see Councilmember Knox White's hand. So I just want to know, we developed this program early. In November, I believe, early November and December. We've been negotiating with these with these companies for six weeks. We've heard from them. They've sent us emails asking us, please, to do this. I guess I, I do feel that we have come up with a solution that addresses the issue, an issue that none of the businesses who already agreed to these contracts and are aware of the issue have raised. And I think that in fairness to all the businesses that we have already signed agreements with, the idea that we would, at the end of the day, sign two agreements with different terms seems really odd and off putting. And I guess I'm a little concerned, I guess, that that my colleagues are suggesting that the three three people on this council are going to somehow turn around and change the policy in order to start pulling the rent out from under some of the businesses that we're trying to help, which really at the end of the day is kind of the intimation of what's happening with this policy. And I would like to just make the make make the one case that we just we move forward with this. We fix the issue through the policy at the end of February. And then we and then we, you know, in future ones, I will be happy to work to make sure that we don't get into this situation. Again, it's you know, this is one of those things is we're somewhat sometimes building the airplane as we're flying it , trying to address issues and needs. And, you know, we clearly could have done this. And by we I mean the council, because this is actually something the council inserted in at the end at the last minute, which is why I'm nervous about making changes at the last minute after an entire negotiation that has completed. And and this is not an issue in which we are actually putting the city at risk around this. This is an issue in which we're now making the case that we want to actually provide more more protection to businesses themselves than than to the city, who we are actually negotiating. We're negotiating against ourselves a little bit here. I think it's all in good faith, and I'm not arguing against that. But I just want to say, like, we're not with this issue that we're talking about is not one where the city is going to somehow be on the hook for things because of a mistake. We're actually trying to make sure that we're clearer to our tourist folks. So I'd like to make a motion, quite honestly, to approve the staff recommendation with the hope that we can honor the negotiations and the work that our staff has done at the direction of a unanimous city council about six weeks ago. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Vice mayor. Second. Then seconded by Vice Mayor of L.A. Discussion Councilmember Spencer. I think I saw a hand up. So I did watch the meeting when this was discussed and it was this paragraph is injected at the end and I believe by the mayor because she had this concern and I appreciate that. But honestly, the discussion that this has been going on and on and on, that is correct. And I am not right. But if the last at the end when I watched the middle of all this was an objective and added. And so honestly, I don't believe that this actually was part of the discussion from day one of these discussions. So that's why I feel like it is a good compromise. Just remove that paragraph then if we can't reach it and come back later, or the policy of how we're going to enforce all of that does apply to all of them. But this language, I think it is harsh. When I heard it during the meeting, I was caught off guard, quite honestly, that wow, where it got even come from. It is an extreme. I think it's extreme. I think it's unfortunate that somehow it got included and I and I so I, I don't feel comfortable that the language and the solution is not a real solution if it's not in the contract. And quite honestly, policy can change by a vote of three any time. So I think that is not a real solution to have it. Some document, three people, three council members can change any time. It's not part of the contract. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. CNN May we have a roll call vote, please? Councilmember de SAG. Nope. Not quite. All right. Spencer at State. Villa. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft High that required four votes since there was only three eyes, one now and one abstention, it fails. All right. Thank you. We have dispensed with item six B. And before we move on to item and I do, I just want to say one thing and then I'll call on you. Vice Mayor Elect Elector Council Member. Now, that's why I am very disappointed and I don't like to see us treating different businesses differently and I hope moving forward we can find a way to do better. Perhaps after our policy discussion, Councilmember Knox White and then the city manager. So I'll see what that city manager has, but I'd like to make a second motion. Okay. Vice versa. So as I understand it, the vote failed on the two lease agreement for failure of gain to four votes. So do you want us to try to figure something out and bring another solution back for another first reading for the next council meeting? January 19th. I'm assuming that's what you would like, but I just want to make sure that I'm consistent with the desires. Of the Council. Back to Councilmember NOx. Wait, please. So I will move that. We approved that we remove section four and approve the approved the contracts because I do believe that we need to move these forward with direction to staff to work on a is to work to insert the final policy work into an up lease amendment after the after after we have an approved council lease amendment. I've heard from our from the point of that these two businesses that they really need us to move this forward. And if we don't if we give direction, we're going to be off in two or three months to two months before this thing comes back and is back to being. And I don't want to wait that long. I'm having a second thought and discussion. I, I have a concern about just suspending any reference to COVID 19 public health order violations. I would mind if you modify the language. I might consider it Vice Mayor. I have a similar concern also because we had other businesses at Alameda Point completely flouting the health regulations, and these were two businesses that were, in fact, not doing that to the detriment of their business. So I do have those concerns, and I think I'm not in a place to vote for that with that completely being removed , especially when we have the other requirements for the other contracts. Councilmember Spencer. Thank you. I I'm not sure you all heard. I'm seconding the motion. I think it's a great motion, great compromise, and then we can move forward. Vice Mayor, do you want to try to suggest some modified language for paragraph four? I don't know what I. Mr. Knox, wait. We have a new vice mayor, and I was actually. Calling about. Is the maker of the motion. You were talking to me. My apologies. I guess you'll be next. You know, I think that we still need to have language in there that references the COVID 19 health and safety ordinances, that if there's an ocean violation related to COVID 19 or a violation of the county health orders such that the county Department of Health takes action, that the contract be suspended pending a review of our legal counsel and coming back to council. Something to that effect. And City Attorney Shann, perhaps you could help us out here. I wouldn't mind seeing language that articulates the opportunity for someone who's found to be in violation, to cure that violation within a certain period of time. I mean, I guess if the rave was held, but that's where some discretion would come in anyway. If it. Didn't fit. So what? One one easy fix for the contract that might satisfy the the concerns of the councils are currently it provides that and currently it provides the list of potential remedies but that the decision makers or the city manager and the city attorney would the. What if we just remove that and change the decision makers to the city council? It wouldn't change much of anything else in this agreement other than just to say upon the approval of the city council in its complete sole and complete discretion. I think with that, would that would that typify the Council? What about the opportunity to cure. And so the council. So number four gives the opportunity to hear, right. So options for the current lease gives the council the discretion to essentially ask for a cure. And so then it puts the decision making back into the council's hands, which I heard is a major concern that staff might overreach. And then the council can elect to go with step four, which is a cure. Councilmember Spencer. You to vote. Thank you. Give additional time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I am sorry. Councilmember Spencer, you're out of time. And I'm almost out of time. I would move that. We give ourselves five additional minutes. This takes four votes. I'll second that. Oh. We may not have four votes. Okay. It's been moved by the mayor and seconded by Councilmember Spencer that we get five more minutes each. Roll call vote. Councilmember de SAG. I. Not right. Now. Spencer. I vella know mayor as the Ashcraft. I know that fails because it needed four votes and it was 3 to 2. Yeah, I got that calls every day. So do the rules allow me to yield time to someone without? They do not. But you can keep talking. I guess I call it the question. That we have. I was just about to call the vice mayor of vice mayor of L.A.. So I heard a suggestion from the city attorney. My question threw the chair to the maker of the motion. Is, is that something that is amenable to the maker of the motion? To give to replace the city manager and city attorney with a decision by the council, since the issue seems to be discretion to unelected staff. Yeah, I'm not comforted. That's what I've heard the issue is. But. But Councilmember Desai, would that be something you would support? You know, it's. I think it's how you frame it. I think were we the city council are not. Playing an administrative role in terms of managing a contract. That's that's not what we do. And if if if what we mean is that. When the city manager or city attorney comes to some kind of decision, they will before executing that decision, they will forward it for ratification by the city council. That's a. You know, frankly, I don't think there's any higher authority when it comes to dealing with overreach than the city council. And it is a public it would be a public it would be a public meeting. So. So tell us how you would phrase it so that you would support them. You would want any decision of the city manager and city attorney ratified by. The Council rather than if you tell us. Yeah. I don't know. I think. I think we're moving in the right direction and frankly. I'm probably not as much on my toes to make some kind of policy language on the fly right now. So I still go back. I would rather have a hammer out the policy before they. Like I said before, you know, let's hammer out the policy before we make we make some kind of agreement. And I know what you're saying. Well, as hammer out tonight, I don't I don't know if we can hammer hammer that out tonight. So Vice Mayor Villa. So Councilmember de SAG, might I propose that we get language in there that just says that the ultimate decision rests with the council with a vote of the council, that there could be a recommendation made by staff. We're going to be developing policy. That policy will be in place before anything actually happens. So we would be guided by our own policy when we make a decision to ratify. Cancer every day. So because. Of that. Because of the dose or because of the delay in in and acting things that we're going to be making a decision on policy in February. So that policy would then guide our ratification vote? Well, I think it is a substantive it is a substantive move to have the city council. The issue is staff overreach. That's the way issue that I'm seeing that I'm agreeing with. Councilmember Herrera Spencer I see articulated in the previous matter and I think it still is still exists here whether or not people believe it's true or not. I mean, it's completely possible that maybe these guys didn't want to raise it as an issue and they caved to language for as harsh it as it is because they didn't want. So I think there's room to say that it's incumbent on us. I think ultimately the decision has to be on the city council when it comes to either one, two, three, one, well, one, two and three are basically penalties for is kind of this kind of very vague due process. So all the things that I'm reading is there's a lot of concern about businesses that they feel across California that they feel are being punished by by government. And so I don't know. I mean, I'm leery of making policy on the fly tonight, that's all. I think we're moving in the right direction. I'll leave it at that. I have 30 seconds. Yeah. I guess my concern is, is that if how would there be staff overreach if council ultimately votes on it, but on whether or not we're enforcing that provision? I think that's. Okay. So. So if we if we added that, would that make. Would that make this something that you would be agreeable to? I'm. Now I just have to see the language first. So. Can we put the language up on the screen and what do you think of that? Councilmember That's why. Go through the chair. Attorney Shen Would we be able to in this? So what I've heard is not necessarily just overreach of the city staff, but I've heard an outright essential. I'm going to stop short of saying an accusation, but that three, even three council members cannot be trusted making this decision. And so I'm wondering if we can, because this would not be an ordinance or anything else we could actually, the contract said by a vote of four city council people, I think, for the final determination. Or is that problematic if Councilmember NOx is against that? The Charter makes clear that the council takes three votes to take action. Otherwise, all throughout the charter and the Council taking steps that affect the Council, increase the voting threshold for itself for future items on the charter. Thank you. Okay to my question, because council then Councilmember de SAC said he is not comfortable not seeing the language. Is there something we can put up on the screen? Do we need to take a break? I mean, I can put up the ordinance on the street if you just give me 1/2, please. Thank you. And Madam Clerk, if I may suggest that you put up section four on page three on the screen, which is the lease provision that's at issue. I thought. Subject. Can everybody see that now? Yes. Yes. Thank you. But you know what I think? Well, no, it's it's actually the council voted. So I think the that first full paragraph is where. Well, I should probably call Vice Mayor Valley because I think you were suggesting some rewording. My, my, my suggestion would be based on the recommendation of the city attorney that we changed that last couple of lines that the city may upon the written recommendation of the city or based upon a vote of the city council. Just replace the city. They'll need a city manager and city attorney with upon a vote of the city council. Or. So the city may. And after the comet. Mm hmm. It would say upon a vote of the majority of the city council. Seconds. You writing? I think the problem is that the pdf. Yeah, I. Only have a pdf of it. I do not have a word. And I was trying to figure out a way to type or do something and I couldn't do it. So I my time my time was running even though I wasn't speaking. And I can show it again. But unfortunately, I. I can't figure out a way to tie. Maybe let me try cutting and pasting it into a word document quickly. Just give me 1/2. Can someone check the time of where it was when a member of vice mayor was speaking? I believe it was well within the 2 minutes is now out there. Laura. It's Nanette. I just sent it to you in an email. Yeah. Thank you. You know, we're going to do I'm calling a five minute break. It's almost 1035. We're going to come back at 1040, ten four oh. So we'll take a break and take a little pressure off the city clerk. Thank you. Be back at 1040. Everyone in the. Mm hmm. Okay, everyone, it is 1041. So we are back in session. Okay. Madam Clerk, did you have the opportunity to. Yeah, look at that. And I started. The city attorney had kind of captured some of the changes that he thought he was hearing. So I started to capture those. So they are here, if that is helpful. Now. In strikethrough so everybody can see it. Do you want to read that for us? So it would be changing that section to upon the approval of City Council in its sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the following remedies. So that was striking the city manager and city attorney part and the written approval just changes to approval. Okay. Councilmember Desai as your handouts. What I would recommend is where it says underlined the City Council. It should be the city council on a 4 to 1 vote. And then I have 20 seconds on number. I replace all unpaid with the phrase some or all unpaid. Number two replace all previously with the phrase some or all previously. And number three 6 seconds. Any further replace with some or all of any further. Furthered. Number three. Oh. Any further. Oh. Some. Yeah. Some or all of any further. City attorney. Are you finished, Mr. De? Yeah. Yeah. Did you turn the. Please? Yes. Yeah. Councilmember, I want to reiterate my concern over increasing the voting threshold, which is not authorized by the city charter. Oh. Oh. Okay. That's. That's fine. Remove. Okay. Okay. Okay. Are we ready? Well, make of the motion back to you. On the assumption that Councilmember De Saag is putting this forth as a motion, I withdraw of the previous motion. You're going to have to nod your head or shake your head. Oh, that's a yes. Okay. Okay. All right. So if I'm understanding correctly. Madam Clerk. Do you want to start the motion for us? Yes. So I think the motion has been withdrawn by Councilmember Knox White. And then Councilmember de SAG has made a revised motion to introduce the ordinance with this language added to the leases. This modification. So here. Okay. And then do we have second. I see. Councilor remarks. White has seconded any further discussion. Okay, CNN, may we have a roll call vote, please? Councilmember de SAG. Mike Knox. Right. Hi. Spencer. You're muted. Sorry about that abstain. Vella. I. Mayor as he Ashcraft. I. This carries by 4 to 1 with one abstention. Thank you and thank you to both Councilmember de site and Councilmember Knox Way and Vice Mayor Vella for that for keeping at it a little longer. Much appreciated. Okay. Now another little agenda adjustment. We were able to get the the assembly member. I I'm assuming we still have him. Do we still have the assembly member? Yes, we do. All right. So before we go to item six C, we are no, not yet 60. But when we get to 60, we are going back to 6 a.m.. And I want to welcome almeida's own resident and this. We might have lost him. He was there just a second ago. Oh, no. Past his bedtime, probably. Oh, shoot. I mean, he was. We just saw him there. Oh. Hmm. I'm not sure what happened. Assemblymember Bonta. If you are listening, please come back. I can't find him now. Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Too. Well, I'll tell you what. We will work with the Assembly members office, and we will hopefully get him back for our next our next meeting in January, because we'd love to hear from him. So many, so many important issues happening at the state level. Okay. So with that, we're going to go. Are you getting dizzy yet? We are going to go to item six. Madam, quick, would you introduce that item, please? Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution, adopting a medicated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to present the property at 23/55 Street from annex mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property and introduction of ordinance. Amending the Zoning Map designation for the property at 23/55 Street 1870 4135623. From annex mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property as recommended by the City Planning Board. Thank you. And who is his presenting this item? Yeah. Mayor, I am so sorry. Assembly member Fonda is back now. I don't know me. He must have lost his connection. And I'm so sorry. I don't know what you guys want to do, but I just wanted to give, you know, I. And Mr. Thomas and Ms.. Chen, if we could just impose on you a little longer because the Assembly member, I think we're confusing him to now you see it. Now you don't. So if we could just hop. Don't go far. Don't go far. So I think I was starting to introduce someone who needs no introduction. He was actually a member of this body at one time, and he is our friend and neighbor and has represented us in the State Assembly for how many years? He can tell you himself. Hi, Assembly member. Apologies for keeping you up so late, but you are welcome and the floor is yours. Happy New Year too.

Recommendation to request a public report from City Manager, with input from the Fire Chief and Financial Management, on the contingency plans and budgetary impacts of the decision by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) to terminate the Long Beach Fire Department's Rapid Medic Deployment Pilot Project (RMD), effective immediately, and the EMS requirement that, effective October 1, 2015, all approved Long Beach Fire Department ALS Units must be staffed with two State Licensed and County Accredited Paramedics.

LongBeachCC_09012015_15-0879

Item 27 is a recommendation to request city attorney to draft a resolution in support of Long Beach hosting the National League of Cities 2018 Cities Summit. I'm sorry, Tate. I was just checking if you were in detention. That was on 28. You were talking about 27. 28 is the recommendation to request a public report from the city manager with input from the Fire Chief and financial management on the contingency plans and budgetary impacts of the decision by the City of Los Angeles. I'm sorry. Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services EMS to terminate Long Beach Fire Department's Rapid Medical Deployment Pilot Project RMD effective immediately and the EMS requirement that effective October one, 2015, all approved Long Beach Fire Departments, LLC units must be staffed with two licensed and county accredited paramedics. The City manager. Vice Mayor. Council members. If we can get the PowerPoint up. You go to the first page. So here's. There we go, vice mayor councilmembers. We're here to make a quick presentation regarding the R&D program and you'll see the background alternatives approval process, the training implementation, data collection analysis, where we now and what the next steps are. So as you are all aware, late last week we received notice from the county's emergency medical services agency that they are discontinuing our pilot rapid medical deployment program, R&D. We have also recently learned that there is no opportunity to appeal this decision. As your city manager, I want to let the council and the public know that we fully intend to comply with the direction of the agency. We certainly plan to meet with the commission and the agency soon to discuss returning to our previous paramedic model as well as to do a review of the highs and lows of the R&D program. Before we go into the presentation, I do want to take this opportunity to personally thank our entire fire department management team Chief Terry, Deputy Chiefs Sergeant Segura, and Brandt's Assistant Chiefs Kean and Rowe and Administrative Bureau Manager David Honey. As a team. They have worked tirelessly for the past three years on an outside the box program to present a budget solution, which also allowed us to enhance services, if only temporarily. In a moment, I will turn this over to Chief Terry and the management team to simply go over the history of the program, how it came about, how it has been measured, and what we view to be some of the more impressive successes. Obviously, the EMS agency, as sometimes is the case with new approaches to service delivery, has reached some different conclusions in a few areas. But we would like to present to you, per your request, the results of the program and remind us all why we pursued this, pursued this approach in the first place. So the next slide. So let's go back to post-recession and let's look in 2011. So to that assessment, here's what we've been doing with our fire department. We eliminated engine 101 due to budget cuts. We eliminated Rescue 12, the ALS unit, we reduced staffing at Station 14, and we began the daily engine reduction program, sometimes called a brownout. The following year, in 2012, there were more tart cuts. We eliminated another engine. This time, engine 18, we eliminated a truck, truck 14. In 2013, there were still cuts. We eliminated engine 17, we relocated Engine eight to Station 14, and here we adopted the RMD program in the budget to deal with these cuts that we wouldn't have to be facing cutting more engines or cutting more trucks or cutting more or less programs. So in 2014, we implemented the RMD pilot program. While we implemented this program as a budget saving measure. To save the budget, we're also able to do some service enhancements. We added rescue number 12. That's converted vehicles to an A+. We added rescue number 22, converted a bill to an A+. We added rescue three, converted a blessed to an A+. And we also added two more ambulances. Blaze ambulances. Come 2015. No more cuts. The pilot program continued and we were able to add one more ambulance Bell's unit. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Chief three and the management team to go over the deployment alternatives and the next steps. Mr. Mayor, council members, we thank you. On behalf of my entire team, we thank you for allowing us the opportunity to discuss the recent developments with the Rapid Medic deployment or RMD pilot program. As you are well aware, since July 10th of 2014, we have deployed our paramedics in a different configuration than we had done previously over the past year of the program's implementation. I have often stated publicly that the program was functioning well and the data that was being produced showed no signs of care, degradation or cause for concern. Last week, however, we received a letter from the local EMS agency that is both surprising and alarming. I want to recognize that if I were in your shoes, I would have a number of questions as to why the EMS agency would shut down a program that we, as the fire department said, is functioning well. Tonight with this presentation, I will recap how this program came to be and provide you with a number of specific data elements that support the fact that the RMD program is an effective service delivery model and has shown statistically significant improvements in a number of areas versus our previous model. However, I do want you to know that we will comply with the direction given us by the EMS agency. As the city manager mentioned, the idea for RMD was not something we created on our own. Of the 33 emergency medical services agencies in the state, 29 of them had already implemented a version of the RMD program. We found that in Los Angeles County, the city of Los Angeles had actually been granted the approval of a single paramedic system in 1999, but never moved forward with the implementation. During our research, we determined that there was value in maintaining a two paramedic system, but did not see why those two paramedics necessarily needed to arrive on a single apparatus. So taking examples, we found that we're functioning at a high level from throughout the state. We made some adjustments to those models to fit our needs here in Long Beach. In 2011, we sent a letter to the EMS agency requesting the ability to engage in a pilot program for deployment of our paramedics. The letter was addressed to Emergency Medical Services Director Kathy Chidester and the medical director, Dr. Bill Koenig. At the time, we presented the idea to the city manager and the City Council for discussion. Concurrently, we engaged in meetings with the EMS agency to develop a guidance policy that would provide the guidelines for the pilot program and also kept the City Council informed through study sessions, budget oversight committee, public safety committee and full city council meetings. In addition, we engaged in discussions with our union on multiple occasions regarding the effects of implementing this program. Excuse me. In June of 2013, the pilot project was endorsed by the full EMS Commission, and we reported to the City Council that we had been granted approval to move forward. Shortly thereafter, we were informed by the agency director that we could not move forward with implementation until policy reference 407 had been vetted by the various subcommittees of the agency. During that process, at an EMS commission meeting, a request to establish the Data Safety Monitoring Board or DSB was made and approved by the Commission. This was codified in the draft 407 guidance policy. Back at one. As noted earlier, the idea for R&D program, the R&D program was initially presented to the EMC Agency by then Fire Chief Allan Pat Alano as a pilot study. The concept for the pilot program was vetted through multiple committees and stakeholders in Los Angeles County, and in May of 2013, the Long Beach Fire Department submitted our pilot project to the EMC Agency for their approval. The next step for us at this point was to update the policy reference number 407, which outlined all of the requirements of the RMD pilot project. Finally, the Data Safety Monitoring Board was created and officially formed by the EMC Commission as part of the policy reference. 407 The EMC Commission created the DSM-V. The board is comprised of four distinguished physicians and etiquette educators from Los Angeles County. The board was tasked with collecting raw data from the RMD program to review and analyze program performance and to identify any issues that could be a cause for concern related to patient care and safety. During the past year of program implementation, we have sent raw data once a month to the DSM B and Agency for review. The DSM-V focused their review on 32 specific data points and provided periodic updates to the full EMC Commission regarding the effectiveness of the program. Concurrently to seeking EMC Agency approval to begin the pilot program, we also provided regular briefings to the City Council through budget process and through periodic status updates to the full City Council, the Budget Oversight Committee, the Public Safety Committee. And in addition, we met with the Firefighters Association on numerous occasions to discuss the effects of the R&D program meetings. Those meetings were held on August of 2012, December of 2012, January of 2013, April of 2013. July of 2013. October of 2013 and April of 2014. During the discussion phase of the pilot program, we highlighted a number of potential advantages and some disadvantages of the proposed program. Implementation of the program would increase the number of advanced life support or ALS units citywide. We would shift from a system of paramedics on only 17 units in the city to a system with paramedics on all 29 units and around 29 units in the city. The program did provide the ability to add paramedic ambulances to stations that currently had none. Specifically stations 12, station three, and Station 22. Response time citywide to get a paramedic on scene of a critical call would improve with the new system. And we realized a dramatic reduction in a reliance on automatic aid from Los Angeles County Fire Department and Orange County Fire. In a year prior to RMD, we relied on L.A. County. Over 200 times to run calls for service in the city of Long Beach. And during the past year of armed implementation, we have only relied on them ten times for assistance. Additionally, we saw a number of enhancements in patient care outcomes and finally, implementation of our M.D. stabilized our budget. The disadvantages of the program centered around the impact of change. The change of deployment would alter a system that had been in place since the early 1970s. We did not minimize this concern and knew going into initial discussions this would be a hotly contested issue by our union, by neighboring unions in Los Angeles County and other stakeholder groups. For the past three years, the EMS agency has received numerous communications from groups that opposed this change. Another disadvantage of the program is a reduction in daily sworn staffing. This reduction, which enabled us to meet our budgeted goals, did reduce the number of sworn firefighters on duty each day and caused us to change our standard operating procedures and revise how we respond to certain non-emergency medical service related calls prior to the implementation of the RMD. Prior to implementation of the program, we engaged in a very robust training effort to ensure our people were well versed on the new program components. We assembled a team of department members to help create the Armed Manual that covered specific operating procedures on various call types not related to EMS that our people face. We conducted department wide training on the RMD program. We established a lengthened academy for our ambulance operators and increased driver training they received prior to moving to field operations. We continued to solicit feedback from the rank and file to identify potential areas of concern that needed to be addressed. And we provided continuing education and ongoing review process of the program and the various components. We convened an armed working group to address staff concerns and discuss potential improvements. R&D after all of this was implemented on July 10th, 2014, after over two years of discussion, meetings and preparation with the implementation, we began a two year pilot program on the new deployment model. We immediately began the process of collecting data that was required of the pilot program that we agreed to send to the SMB and the agency monthly, talking about how we collect our data. One big component of the R&D program is data collection. In order to effectively monitor the system, data was required to be sent to the by an emergency medical services agency on a monthly basis. Initially, we had planned on utilizing electronic patient care records, but a decision was made by the EMS Commission prior to the start of the RMD program that we should continue to submit our data in the same method in which it had been submitted for the two years of retrospective retrospective excuse me, study material. Our data originates a few different ways. First is a CAD or computer aided dispatch data. Second, the majority of the data that we see that comes from comes from individual emergency medical service or EMS report forms that are generated by our field personnel. These forms are manually filled in either by a company officer or captain or the paramedic while on a call for service. This has historically proven to be the most accurate form of data we collect as the information is compiled by the rank and file members in the field and includes a number of data sets not found with the CAD data. Lastly, many pieces of equipment used in the field timestamp the data being produced by those machines and for example, Cardiac Monitor has the ability to electronically transmit data directly to a hospital telemetry machine and show real time what paramedics are seeing in the field. This year, we sent nearly 15,000 emergency medical reports to the DSM-V, an agency to review. These reports were sent over in their raw form, not manipulated or altered in any way. And the Data Safety Monitoring Board evaluated those reports to evaluate our program. This slide shows some key data points that the Data Safety Monitoring Board was reviewing and a comparison between pre RMD and post RMD outcomes. Those areas that are highlighted in green on this slide indicate enhancements in our system over the past year. Next slide. This. Here is a summary of more specific data points that clearly show some enhancements in our system. The response time section at the top. Chest pain, cardiac arrest and trauma are all data sets that were generated by the Data Safety Monitoring Board and show pre RMD and post RMD response times for the first paramedic arrival on scene. The second area down below call volumes per rescue shows this is an average of all of our rescue ambulances pre RMD we averaged 13.1 calls per day per ambulance and post RMD 11.7 calls per day and at the bottom are reliance on automatic aid with Los Angeles County pre rmd 292 calls for service and post ten calls for service and Orange County 450 calls and post 218 calls for service. Since the inception of the pilot program, we've been in constant contact with the Emergency Medical Services Agency regarding the overall performance of the system and the specific data points being monitored in conjunction with our medical director, Dr. Steve Shea, who is here this evening. We have been responsive to any and all questions or concerns that the agency may have. In addition, we have brought forward a number of issues that we felt needed to be adjusted to make our system more effective. During the pilot project, we have only received formal communication from the agency on three occasions. Issues raised by the EMS Commission and EMS agency have been shared with the city manager and the City Council and the previous City Council and meetings throughout the pilot project. The first was the first communication we received from the agency was related to an issue we brought to the attention of the agency when we informed them that due to the large number of basic life support or BLS level non-emergent patients in certain areas along beach. We wanted to put basic life support ambulances into service to address those calls. On the heels of that move, we received a letter from the and the EMS agency stating that that we were not meeting the three minute time differential for arrival of the second paramedic, which was specified in the 407 policy. This specific section of policy states that we need to have a second paramedic arrive within 3 minutes of the first paramedic. 95% of the time, after receiving a letter from the agency stating they were putting our program on a plan for improvement. We met with the director regarding this requirement. We then went before the full EMS commission to discuss this section of policy, and their response was a decision to defer any penalties imposed on the noncompliance of Long Beach Fire Department in meeting this requirement that a one plus one staffed ALS or advanced life support units arriving at the scene of an incident within 3 minutes of 95% of each other of the time. And that that we would report back with calculated, budget driven data as to why we couldn't provide more units. One of their questions there was, why can't we just add more ambulances into the system? The second communication we received came in May. This was a letter that came from the Data Safety Monitoring Board, and it was related to the review of our data. Excerpts from this letter will be shown on the next slide. And finally, the last piece of formal communication came to us last Wednesday stating that the program would be terminated. And I will discuss this letter in a few slides. A new medical director, Dr. Gachet Hill, was appointed to the position of medical director for the local EMS agency on July 1st, after the retirement of medical medical director Dr. Cavanagh, who had been with us since the start of the program. The DSM v letter. This slide shows excerpts from the letter that we received in May of this year from the Data Safety Monitoring Board. This same information was presented to the full EMS commission in June of this year. This, of course, is a very positive letter from the Data Safety Monitoring Board about the RMD program. On August 5th, the newly appointed medical director asked to conduct a ride along to see the R&D program firsthand. This was the third such ride along conducted by a member of the EMS agency over the past year. Medical director Dr. Gachet Hill Road, along at Station one for 4 hours. Following this ride along, the medical director asked for a meeting regarding her observations. On August 13th, we met with the EMS agency and brought up and they brought up numerous concerns with the RMD program, which are now referenced in their letter. We we responded to all issues that they raised at that at this meeting. We're also very clear that our own medical director, Dr. Steve Shea, who is the architect of our paramedic program in Long Beach and who has been our medical director for over 30 years, would be the first person to pull the plug on a program that was a risk to public safety or a degradation of patient care. At this point, I'd like to welcome Dr. Steve Shea to come up to the microphone, and he's going to specifically address one component of the letter that was related to the fallouts that specifically deal with medical conditions and medical complaints. These were items that were put in by the medical doctor, and our medical director wanted to respond to those issues just as way of introduction. Dr. Steve Shea is our medical director. He's the medical director at St Mary Medical Center. He has been the primary and chief architect of the paramedic program in Long Beach since the early 1970s and has been with us every step of the way through this pilot project up until this point. So with that, Dr. Shea. I've been here. A long time. Yeah. I've been here a long time, and I've seen this program grow and develop and become. I think the premiere program in all of Los Angeles County, and there's lots of reasons for that. But when we got the termination letter, I was very surprised, too, to actually have gotten the letter and was surprised by some of the language in the letter. They talked about fallouts and, you know, fallout to me. Sounds like we did something wrong. And when you look at what a fallout really is, we looked at the four or seven requirements that actually we helped develop. And one of the requirements of that was that we guaranteed we'd be having two paramedics in the ambulance transporting Tier one patients. Now, a Tier one patient is somebody that has more likelihood to become unstable and require more treatment than our average patient. So we put that in the 407. We would accomplish that 100% of the time. And we do not accomplish that 100% of the time. And so those all came back as fallouts. Now, we reviewed all the fallout. We sent all the fallouts to the DSM-V. And in my way of thinking, fallout is something where there's an adverse patient outcome. In the fallouts, all the fallouts that we reviewed, we saw no adverse patient outcomes. So even though the numbers that and and we dispute the numbers we got from the county, we actually gave them the reports. I reviewed the reports that they reviewed. I they're their numbers aren't entirely accurate, but there are some fallouts in that. There were cases where two paramedics were not in the back of the ambulance transporting a Tier one patient to the hospital. In most of those cases, the patient improved at the scene, was stable, and there was no need for two paramedics in the back of the ambulance. In our old system. We had two paramedics in the ambulance, but one was driving the ambulance. So what we were doing certainly was above and beyond what we had done in the old system. So to call those fallouts, I think, is a little bit of a misnomer. Now. Do I think this system is better than the old system? Yes, I do. And I'll tell you why. We know that we get paramedics to the scene quicker in the new system than we did in the old system. There are a few time sensitive emergency conditions where that makes a difference. Patients with chest pain. Patients in cardiac arrest, trauma patients. The data from the DSM-V confirmed that in each of those emergencies, we were getting paramedics to the patient quicker than the old system. So I think it's a better system. Our numbers for resuscitated cardiac arrest went up significantly. Some people can say that maybe that's not statistically significant because the numbers aren't that big. But if you look at the data, there's a definite trend to more patients being successfully resuscitated under the new system. So do I think it's a better system? Yes, I do. Do I think we should close the system down? No, I don't. I think that. I think the county. Is jumping the gun with their fallout and how they've been analyzed. And I would like to get a meeting with Dr. Gachet to go over every single one of the fallouts individually. And determine whether or not we really have an issue. I don't believe there is I don't believe we we we have not uncovered one case where a patient was put in jeopardy because we didn't have two paramedics in the back of the ambulance and the county to this at this time has not given us any as well. So that's. That's kind of my read on the fallouts in and the system, and I still believe it's a better system. Thank you, Dr. Shay. So next steps. We do plan to meet with the EMC Commission at their next scheduled meeting to review the letter and discuss transitioning back to the previous model. We will develop solutions to meet fire department budget goals and we will work closely with the city manager and financial management to identify viable solutions. We will comply with the direction provided by the EMS agency and we will revert our system as per their requirements in this letter back to the pre RMD staffing model. With that, I would like to turn it over for to the last slide for Budget Manager Leah Erickson. In regards to the budget impact because we received this notice at this late date in the budget process. We are not recommending reopening the budget process. This termination of our M2, you will have an estimated $1.4 million budget impact to fire and rather than having fire come up with structural service reductions to cover those costs, we have a three pronged approach. First, we will house fire to make adjustments to minimize the FY16 budget impact within their budget. But then we'll also be tracking the first responder fee revenue that is being received in FY 16 and we'll be using that to help cover the additional costs. And if those two are not enough, we also recommend reserving 1.4 million of any 515 year end savings. Typically year end, we do have savings that do occur and that money will be a backstop in case there is not enough first responder fee revenue or other reductions in the fire budget to cover these additional costs. That is the solution for a proposed solution for 16, and any permanent fix will need to be addressed in the FY17 budget process. So mayor, vice mayor, councilmembers would be happy to respond to any questions now. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to the makers of the motion first. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Mr. Manager, the fire chief and financial services for the report. I will just tell you that I was extremely taken aback last week when we received this information and this news. And so that is why I took a lead. And I want to thank Council Member Supernova and you Ranga for for signing on to this supplemental agenda item because it's obviously has a major impact on our governance, our budgeting, and particularly for FY16. The information that we read from the the County Emergency Services Emergency Medical Services Agency is a 180 degrees different from what was represented to us on August 18th at our budget meeting from the fire department. And so I'm I'm really perplexed here. I appreciate the the detailed report chronicling how we have arrived to this this point. I have been a I think I've been critical of this this model from from day one, because I was concerned about patient care. I and to Dr. Shea's point, I mean, I do appreciate your opinion, sir, and your service to our city. But it's clear that the the the agency for the county clearly disagrees with your assessment of our program. I do have a couple of questions, and I know there are probably many others behind the rail. But but during the hearing on the 18th, Chief, do you consistently cited reports of the Debris Data Safety Monitoring Board and stated that the data indicated that R&D posed no risk to patient safety. However, the EMS agency later indicated the DMA. The SMB monitoring is only one aspect of the evaluation and not reflective of the entire program evaluation. Did any other parts of the evaluation process raise any other red flags along the way for you, as apparently it did for the agency staff? Were there any other red flags? Councilmember. As we went through the process, the only other formal red flag that came up was when we were sent a letter from the EMS agency stating that we were not complying with a section of the four or seven policy that stated we would have the first paramedic and the second paramedic arrive within 3 minutes of each other. That came to us in the form of a of a letter and a formal kind of plan for improvement. We then went back to the EMS agency and discussed what we would do to to work toward that. We had multiple discussions on that issue. Ultimately, we ended up going before the full EMS commission to discuss that specific issue, to discuss that specific section of the policy and its applicability to any other EMS provider in Los Angeles County, which it was not. And ultimately, the EMS commission, the EMS commission, by by motion and a unanimous vote stated that they didn't want to take that section out of the policy, but they were not going to hold us accountable or punish us for not meeting it. But other than that, the vast majority of the communication we had from the EMS agency over the past year of the program has been positive. So so when was that that when did you get that communication from the MSA? That was you know, I don't have I we'll look up the exact date of the letter, so I give you the exact date. I don't have it off the topic. Was it within the last month? No, it was it was it was a while back. It would have been. I don't want to give you a I don't want to speculate on the date, but I'll get it for you right now. So so in your comments in your report, you also mentioned that there was a four hour ride along. And then after the ride along, there was there was some comments and some concerns raised. Is that true? Yes, sir. Okay. Is there any reason why you chose to withhold that information from the council when you were asked about the validity or any any risk with in terms of the armed process moving forward? COUNCILMEMBER Well, we've had, as I mentioned over the past year, on three occasions, we've had members of the EMS agency come right along with us just to evaluate or just to watch the program, monitor it, evaluate it. Doctor, the new medical director asked for asked for the ability to go ride along. She went and rode along. That's a fairly normal practice, not something I would normally bring up to the council. I didn't see any reason to inform the council that the agency was riding along with us on that date. And back to your previous question, that letter on the on the three minute time differential was sent to us on October 22nd, 2014. Okay. And then I'm also in reviewing the letter, it cites a review of 269 records provided by the fire department in which this patient was transported prior to the arrival on scene of a second paramedic. Okay. And if I understand that letter correctly, the EMS indicated that the the fire department deemed all of those cases to be appropriate departure from Tier one transport criteria. Or, in other words, that the patient would be transported by two paramedics. The however, the EMS stated that 48% of the cases, nearly half of them had significant concerns about patient stability in the field. These cases included acute stroke patients, patients in respiratory distress, trauma patients, children with apparent life threatening events, among others. And the letter stated that these issues are too great to ignore and pose immediate threat to patient safety. First of all. Would you agree with that characterization that these cases represent an immediate threat to patient safety? And if not, why not? No, sir, I do not agree with that. I believe that I. I do not agree with that. So of the 268, 269 patients that they're referring to, they cut that number down to 128 that they say were still in question, which amounts to out of the 15,000 reports we sent them over the past year, it amounts to 0.08% of our calls for service. And as Dr. Shea mentioned, each and every one of those calls for service that are questioned as to whether or not they are in in compliance with the policy or out get manually reviewed and manually evaluated by both our education team, by Dr. Shea and by the EMS director. We've had a number of these calls that we've looked at as recently as earlier today. And I'll give you an example of one, a patient, 40 year old male that was presenting with cool and clammy skin with a blood pressure of 80 over 40 at the beach after being stung by a stingray. The the patient had just been stung by a stingray. He was cool and clammy because he was wet because he had just been taken out of the ocean. And 5 minutes later, 10 minutes later, when they reevaluated his vital signs, his blood pressure came back up to a normal limit. The EMS agency said that was a fall out, that it had fallen out of our Tier one transport criteria when in fact, the patient had no medical reason to be transported to the hospital at all. So we evaluate each and every one of those things that are considered fallouts, as does Dr. Shea and the EMS agency. And so, no, I would not say that they just automatically constitute an emergent situation for the community. So is the EMS agency considered a credible authority in terms of governance over over help services in the county, other fire departments? Yes, sir. The EMS the EMS agency provides all the pre-hospital guidelines that we follow to deliver emergency medical service. Yes. So it sounds to me like we have some serious dispute with with this this credible body, and that that raises some some serious concerns with me. I mean, I don't know that we're in a in a position to necessarily take them on as a as a as a city, particularly citing the fact that they they do have some regulatory authority. I do have some some some practical questions for you. What is our current staffing level? And are there no firefighters currently in our department to restore these positions, or will it have to be accomplished through overtime? Councilmember the we have enough firefighters to staff the organization. What will happen when we revert back to the to the old system is a number of the people who are in a paramedic position now will not be they will revert back to they will revert back to a firefighter position and lose the they will not be functioning as a paramedic in our system anymore. So they are firefighters and they'll just go back into the system the way they were. If you recall an earlier slide, we go from 11 ambulances currently with one firefighter paramedic on it down to eight. So we believe we have enough firefighters to manage. And as a system, there could be we'd have to have I'd have to look at that with my deputy chief of operations. But there could be a need for overtime in some places, but I believe we have nothing. And in the budget presentation and I believe on August 18th, you know, the plan was to eliminate 24 positions from the budget. Is that that still going to be the plan? Yes, sir. So we're still going to eliminate 24 positions from our budget. And because I think I ask you to question whether or not the elimination of those positions were tied to the R&D program. And you answered affirmatively. Actually, no, sir. The elimination of those 24 positions, those 24 positions were related to the daily engine reductions or the brownouts that we were carrying in our budget from a number of years back that had never that had remained in our budget, but had never been filled. So those positions had nothing to do specifically with R&D. All right. So now I'm really confused. And lastly, and I'll let my my colleagues answer their ask their questions. Are we I heard that we're not planning to appeal it, but I saw a communication earlier that we were planning to appeal it or plan to go to the Imus agency to to to challenge this race and ask questions about this on September 16th. Is that correct. Councilman? But we have no plan. We've been informed that there is no appeal process. However, the department and our medical director, Dr. Shea, will be there at the EMS commission because they're going to be giving an update on the fact that we're they're closing down the pilot program. We're going to revert back to our old system, at which point we will speak to the EMS commission about our findings throughout the program. But we're not we're not calling it an appeal. We're just going to go meet with them and discuss how we're going to revert back to our old system. Q Mr. GROSS and Lisa, thank you. I think the solutions put forward to mitigate this issue, I think they're they're they're credible options for us to consider as a council. And I just got to say, I'm really disappointed that we are at this point. I know there were high hopes for this R&D model to be successful and forward for it to be a model for for fire agencies across the state. I still think that our model was unique to Long Beach and and and, you know, even though it was implemented and similar models are under are being practiced in other areas of the state, none are as large as our department. And the the the the ideal of putting a sworn firefighter on a rig with a non sworn EMT is. It was I think it was it was fatally flawed. And yes, there were challenges to that. But, you know, at the same time, you know, you have to to step out there and be bold sometimes. But at the same time, I'm going to just be very straightforward. When I read this, I felt like I was was misled. I felt like I was misinformed by by our staff. And that was disappointing to me. Councilwoman Price. He. I'm sorry. Go. Don't go there. Thank you, Mayor. I'm seconding this motion. I agree with. With the Councilmember Austin. Either make a motion. So the motion is to receive and filed this report and to direct city management, not to appeal the the decision of the Emergency Medical Service Agency. Okay. This procedure. I too was very disappointed in the letter. Obviously, when this first came up to me last year, I did question the. Pilot program aspect of this of this whole whole thing and wanted to go ahead and and approved it at the time, considering that it was a pilot program. However, the last budget hearing that we had with the fire department was that it was moving forward, that it was budgeted fully as a pilot project. And yet this letter says they want to go back into contingency to your contingency plan. It's clearly stated here, I didn't see a contingency plan in here. So I'm guessing that the contingency plan is a reversion to pre rmd service levels. Council member. Yes, that's true. We sent email communication, a memo type communication to the EMC Agency as part of the creation of the governing document of this program. That that basically said it would be the responsibility of the fire department, the city manager, and ultimately the city council determined to determine how we would revert back to a previous deployment model should we be required to do it. We we didn't get very specific in that in that communication with the county because we didn't want to relinquish the control of this city council or the city manager or the fire department administration to make decisions on how we deploy our resources. And that's that's good. However, when it comes down to the budget, we're it's not there. I mean, we now have a hole of 1.4 million that we're looking at. Financial management is proposing a a fix, if you will, looking at the. What's that? I misplaced it near the end here. The. First responder fee using those in addition to any savings that we have at the end of the year. And then some other I guess some other fees that will be addressed out there. And that's my that's that's my problem. That's my concern, is that now that the pilot program basically has been terminated, from what I understand, there is no appeal process to this. So we're stuck with a pilot program that did not work and and without a budget to fix it. So now we're looking at trying to fix a hole in in the fire department's budget to get to revert back to a process that we should have. Basically, I think prudence would have told us to keep that budget in there somewhere in case or in the event of an emergency where this pilot program failed. And we didn't do that. So I'm very concerned with with that aspect of what we're dealing with today. So I'm checking in this motion. Councilmember, I do want to point out, though, we're no worse shape off than we were when this started because we had a $1.5 million hole. This program backed it up. So we're just back to where we started. So rather than eliminating an engine or a truck, we tried to do this program. So no one has that intent to make that recommendation. Now, you heard what Mr. GROSS and Ms.. Erickson are saying to to deal with the 1.5 million. But we had a $1.5 million hole, whether we did this program or not. Come tomorrow. You are wrapped up. Okay. Councilman Price. Thank you. I appreciate the presentation tonight by city staff on this issue. I know that you have been working diligently since you received. The letter on last Wednesday. So I appreciate your efforts in trying to update us. And I get the sense from the the presentation tonight that all parties, in terms of city staff, are in agreement that there was a good faith basis in regards to the implementation and the operation of the project. And I respect that and I appreciate that. And while I appreciate the opinions regarding the effectiveness of the model and some viewpoints, I will say that that conclusion is very much in dispute at this juncture, and the authors of the report are not here to defend their findings. And so while I appreciate the position that our staff has taken in, our leadership has taken in regards to the effectiveness of the model and the foundations that led to the findings of the EMS report maybe being different. We are now in a situation where we as a city are in receipt of a letter from a regulatory agency that raises some very serious concerns about patient care standards. And that is that's the reality. That's the reality that we find ourselves in. And I think it's very important. At this. At this juncture that when I wanted to offer a friendly, although it was implied in the presentation, that we immediately cease the R&D model in light of the findings that have been given to us in writing and appear to in no uncertain terms, indicate a concern from a regulatory agency regarding the safety of this model for potential patients. So I'd like to offer that friendly. Except hey, there's a motion and a friendly that was accepted. Councilman Price, did you have anything additional? I have. Please go ahead. In regards to the funding. You know, I think we as council members do our very best, each and every one of us, to understand areas where we don't have expertize in regards to staffing. And, you know, some of the data that you presented tonight, it's very natural for you to present this data. It's this is the language that you speak. But to us, many of us don't have that expertize. And so the big picture issue, I would say, and I don't mean to speak for my colleagues, but I think we look to our city leaders to come up with the innovative ways to resolve this issue. This is now an issue that we've all found ourselves in a predicament. And how we respond to this predicament is, you know, as a member of the city council in this body, I would be looking to our city leadership, specifically our city manager and his team, to help come up with innovative ways to resolve this issue that we now are faced with. And so. I think while I will be open, I'll be open to hearing what some of the ideas and and thoughts of where the funding will come from. And while I appreciate our financial management team coming up with some temporary fixes, I think this presents more of a long term issue that we're going to have to think about, because moving forward, we had all hoped and expected. And I. I do believe that. The fire chief and city management staff believed that the pilot program was something that was going to be well-received and something that was going to be a long term methodology to be used by the city. And so we've based a lot of budget projections on that. And now that has changed. That reality has changed. So, you know, I'd be interested in finding out how we deal with this tomorrow, how we deal with it in FY 16 and what the plan is long term moving forward. And I look really I look to you for guidance. I look to our city management team for guidance in that regard. This is your area of expertize we're looking for from direction for we're looking for direction from you as a team and specifically our city manager who who helps guide us in all things impacting the city through his various department heads. So I want to thank you for the presentation. And again, you know, regardless of of what happens in resolving some of the findings and whether or not there is some agreement on those disputes in regards to the foundations of the either parties opinions, I think all of that is is to be discussed at some future time because at this juncture, we have a report that we need to deal with and act upon. And and I believe we're doing that by tonight's action. So thank you very much. Thank you. A Councilmember Richardson. Mr. Mayor, can we have the friendly repeated? Absolutely. Mr. City Turner. We actually repeat the whole motion as it stands. Mayor members of the Council, the motion, as I understand it, by council member Austin and seconded by Councilmember Iraq, is. To receive and file the report and not to appeal the decision and that the friendly amendment was to terminate the. R&D program immediately. I would like some clarification on immediately, I believe. The letter indicated. By October 1st and. That if more time was needed, the city needed to notify the department by I. Think it was September 15th. I, I certainly am not the person to answer that question of whether what is immediate and what is immediately. Well, I will try to clarify that the intent of my motion was immediately as and as of tomorrow. And the reason for that is because although we may want to be in compliance with the letter, which allows us some time, the letter also has a finding that says we're practicing a methodology that is potentially causing patient care risks. And I just don't know how we continue. Now, we're on notice in writing of a potential issue in the manner that we're delivering medical care. So I guess I would maybe. Ask the city attorney, do you believe that it would be prudent for us in light of these findings to continue the methodology, even though the regulatory agency is giving us time to comply? Well, I guess the question I would have is, is what could be done? Practically speaking, how can they convert back to the other program? And I would leave that, obviously, to the experts in the in the fire department. I think the direction that I'm taking from this, as I understand the motion, is to do it as expeditiously as possible, protecting the safety of the individuals. I, I. Also think that there is. Credible evidence and an argument to be made that, you know, there's a disagreement with. Some of the decisions and the letter itself. So the letter itself. Isn't evidence of specific conduct or instances. It's where they had concerns. And I don't have enough of the specifics and each one would be factually based. But if we had to go through each one of those, we would have to do that and we would have obviously someone looking at those two. And I and I understand that and I appreciate. But wouldn't we cease the practice and then discuss the disputes and then. I mean, to me, it seems like we would the prudent approach would be to cease a practice that is potentially detrimental. Now, that's that's my my thoughts on it. But again, I think your wording is probably better as expeditiously as practical, perhaps under the circumstances, because I do understand there are some staffing, major staffing issues that need to be worked out, and I respect that. So the intent behind the friendly is to. Respond to the findings. If we want to take them on or challenge them, that's another thing. I don't think this is the time and place to do it because I think the prudent thing to do is to err on the side of caution. If I can interrupt. We have no intention of. Of appealing. We have no intention of going up against the commission on anything. So we're accepting this totally 100%, and we're going to begin immediately. I can promise you that. We definitely I've just talked to the chief. We will have it back to the previous situation by October 1st. If we can do it before October 1st, we certainly will. But again, I just want to point out that we have no intention whatsoever about revisiting anything with the commission. We simply want to talk to them about putting going back to the. They wanted us to talk to you about going back to the the old system. Had something because I just want to weigh in, Mr.. Mr.. West. And I just want to just add to that that I am 100% in agreement with that. Just for the record, there is no appeals process. I personally talked to the medical director today, both the medical director as well as her boss. And there is no appeals process. We're not going to appeal. I think that they're aware that the chief and his team are planning to attend the meeting, in particular to share how they would kind of discontinue and go back to the old system by October one. I think the plan has always been to go and go back to the system for the letters request, but there is absolutely not going to be an appeal and there is no even if the city want it to. There's not a process. And so that's not happening. And thank you, Mayor. And I do want to point out, too, though, the EMS agency, certainly they've invested a lot in this program, too, and they want to talk to us as we unwind it, because they certainly want to review. They want to come back and interview our paramedics, interview our employees and talk to everybody in the department over the next three, four or five months on what was strong about the program, what was weak about the program. So because they're all about change as well and they see change coming to this is just a program they couldn't get behind. And we are accepting that and recognizing that. And we'll work with them after the program's concluded, because they do want to do a an analysis of the program and publish it and what went right, what went wrong. So other fire agencies can look at this. And I think and Mr. West, thank you for sharing that, because I think that's an important point. Again, we're not involved in the the details to the level that the city manager is and certainly the fire chief. And so, you know, maybe there's an aspect of this that they feel most strongly about that might have been modified or changed or tweaked. I don't know. I just want to make sure that we are respectful of the process and their intent and that we are not doing anything that could potentially appear to be ignoring. I can assure you that that will not be the case. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, like I said at the outset, I really do believe there was a good faith basis. And I do believe that the fire chief received information along the way that was encouraging. I know that for a fact. In fact, the parts of the letters that he's shared. Prove that. However, the decision, as unexpected as it may have been, has caused us to be in a bit of a predicament, and we need to respond to that. I think in the most prudent, cautious and conservative manner. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the presentation and the proposed budget solution. I clearly see that some work has been been been done in the last few days since we've gotten this notice. My top concern is the safety of our residents. And and I want to get down to some facts. I'd like to get more clarity on this particular budget solution. So to begin, I personally I know that we strive in almost everything we do budgetary to be we tossed around words like prudence and fiscally conservative. I think we've learned a good lesson. Well, I think the entire city of Long Beach has learned a good lesson that we can't if we don't control our own fate, we can't gamble by putting the lives of our residents into the hands of some other regulatory agency. So so to get to the specific questions I have number one in the presentation today, I there were a few questions I had. So first it references that we were not the first we were not the first agency to implement this. And it says that Los Angeles I think it says Los Angeles implemented the program. Is that correct? Or Los Angeles approved the program. A councilmember in 1999, then fire chief Mama Autry actually brought this brought a similar version of our M.D. before the city council and the mayor there. It was approved. It was taken over to the EMS commission, where it was also approved. So they had approval to move forward on it. It was going to be a localized deployment only in the San Fernando Valley area. And ultimately the Los Angeles City Fire Department never went into that deployment model. So the presentation, so it was approved, but it was never implemented or tested? That's correct. Now, not in Los Angeles County, no. So the presentation is misleading and makes it just at first view. I'm thinking that it just says it says where did it come from? R&D not invented. In Long Beach, 1999, City of Los Angeles Fire Department received approval. Just at a glance. I would want clarity to see, to say it was a received approval, but it was never implemented or tested. So this just appears just a bit misleading. I think secondly and I see in here there's some reference to some communication with the Data Safety Monitoring Board or or or is it, I think, August 13th, some conversation with the medical director. I know that two weeks ago I asked the question on whether we had a sense on whether or not the county would reject this program and what would be our contingency plan. And then I believe the response that we got was, Councilmember, I don't have any indication that the county would step in given the data that was submitted to them over the past year and given the data safety monitoring boards letter that they submit to the full EMS commission, I don't have any indication that the agency wouldn't look at the data and see clearly that the program is effective based on the data. So I think there's I'm unclear on to today's presentation says that that there was some conversation but last week it it says that there wasn't some conversation. And then the letter the letter that came in says that the agency conducted multiple ride alongs with different agency staff from July 2014 to August 2015 and identified major concerns regarding training, mentoring, oversight and system performance. And while some of these are expected at the beginning of the pilot, the persistence after a year is most concerning. These issues have been brought to your attention on multiple occasions, most recently during our August 13, 2015 meeting. And then and then it goes on to say that because my original question was about the contingency plan, and what I heard was that it's really not necessary to have a contingency contingency plan. But it says here that per March 14, 2014, the contingency plan for City of Long Beach paramedic pilot staffing model was referenced. So what I would have preferred to what the more clear, direct answer would have been, there is a plan. It's not very it you know, it hasn't been fully developed, but there was a plan submitted until 2014 because that was the question. So I guess I'd like for you just to respond to these three areas where I left the last council meeting with some certainty that there was no indication from EMS. But then the letter references, not only an indication, but also that we submitted a contingency plan. If you could just respond to that. COUNCILMEMBER The August 13th meeting that we had came on the heels of of a phone call, the new medical director, she did her ride along. She ended up making a phone call to Dr. Steve Shea, basically stating that she had some concerns, wanted to have a meeting. We set up the meeting on August 13th and a number of my staff went and met with the EMS agency. I need to point out clearly that this was a fairly common practice, even with the previous medical director. We. Since July 10th of 2014 to that August 15th, August 13th, excuse me, it was fairly common for them to have a question or concern come up at the EMS agency and we would mobilize our staff. Sometimes I would go some most of the time it was our staff would respond out to the agency. They would sit down and they would engage each other on whatever the issue was, whether it be a specific data set issue or response time issue or whatever. Those meetings were very, very common. And so this meeting that we had scheduled for August 13th was we viewed it as a very common practice. This was consistent with what we had dealt with all the way along when we left that meeting on that day. Everybody in the room, including Dr. I'm speaking for Dr. Shay is including Dr. Shay. And my entire staff felt that, yes, we still have some unresolved issues as we have had in the past. And we're going to continue to engage in discussions with the EMS agency, agency to ensure that they are in a comfortable place. We're in a comfortable place and we will continue to move forward. When I told you at the City Council meeting at my budget presentation that I had no expectation that based on the data we had submit to the county, that we would be in a situation where they would terminate our program. I didn't I didn't use those words there, but that was honest. We were in the midst of discussions that were consistent with probably 15 other meetings we had had over the previous year. So I had no reason to believe when we walked out of that room that the that I would we would receive a letter a week later or a week and a half later that would terminate our program. Going back to the contingency plan, the contingency plan was merely, we felt, a simple kind of budgeting exercise. If we had a $1.5 million hole in our budget that we used at that time, or $1.4 million budget, and we created armed so as to avoid a future engine closure or closing another ambulance if if that system were to be unwound. We viewed that as a simple kind of budgeting exercise for us. And we would then be faced with a $1.4 million hole in our budget, at which point I would bring my staff together. We would work with the city manager, we'd work with financial management to determine feasible solutions to the budget hole that existed if they were to unwind the program. So the contingency letter that we sent back to the agency, while not overly detailed and specific we felt was sufficient enough to give us the ability to determine what we wanted to do, should that should that situation ever arise. And, Chief, I think I understand the intent, and I think it was all well-intended, and I do understand the miscommunication on. I asked for certain things, but I think you were asking for you interpret it as did you receive anything outside of the norm? And I get that as well. As a leader, you have to make those calls. But I think I think we all understand that there are ramifications for the decisions City Council makes. I think we're elected to make those decisions with full information, not necessarily filtered information. We'd like to just know that whether there was communication or not so we can make, you know, an informed decision on our own. And that's just my opinion, I would say, next, I think the way that's been framed tonight is that this this has been a program that the city of Long Beach has openly welcomed and that this you know, this comes as a surprise. But the truth is, I've been in every city council meeting the last five years for the most part, and this has been controversial since day one. And so in that said, I know that there have been very vocal opponents and the rank and file I know that certain council members have expressed concerns with this program. And I understand your role as a leader and I totally understand the budget ramifications. My question is, what have we done over the last two years? Have we had any specific outreach in terms of joint labor management meetings to meet and consult on an informal basis, on an ongoing basis about this program so that you can bring the rank and file on on board so that maybe we wouldn't have had this this this sort of outcome. So has there been some ongoing joint labor management discussions about this program? Councilmember We, as I mentioned in my presentation, we we had seven specific meetings where we discussed the RMD implementation and the specific effects of that of this program. As we went into the program during the period of the program's implementation, we've had a number of labor management meetings scheduled, which the labor group has canceled or not showed up on about three months ago. We actually it was almost three months ago, right about three months ago under Chief Rose Leadership, he established a working group within the Department of Members of all ranks to come in and offer their opinions. What we wanted to know through that. We knew what the data says. We know what the the call the response times are. We know what the outcome data says as as I showed you in the presentation. But we wanted was more of kind of an experiential. Employee satisfaction how they feel about the program and we were going to put to see if we could identify some themes that we could put together and address with the input of, of the work, the actual people who are doing the work in the stations we have at this point, those those groups are still functioning at at this point, we may be best suited to have them turn their direction on to what the department looks like going forward into fiscal 17 or something else will continue to utilize that. But yes, we've done we've made numerous attempts to reach out and in a collaborative manner ask for and solicit input from all stakeholders in the organization . So I think and so I think it's in just as much in your interest and our department's interests that we that we build and cultivate that relationship with the rank and file and not necessarily leave it up to the union to attend certain meetings. This isn't necessarily about the the union. I think this is we bet on this. And we left it our relationships up to a non-binding board when there was essentially a number of individuals who could have canceled this program. I think considering how fluid and how volatile this program was, we should have we should moving forward, work on that rank and file relationship because it matters. Employee morale certainly matters. And it actually was represented here in this in the letter employee morale. So I would that's my suggestion moving forward now regarding the budget. I see that there are budget solutions that restore the a million and a half hole that R&D filled. Now. If we were to return to pre armed levels, how many rescues are in place at the two 2013 pre Ahmadi levels as opposed to today? Councilmember there currently we have eight advanced life support rescue ambulances in excuse me we have 11 advanced life support rescue ambulances and service. When when we revert back to the old system, we will we will have eight. So again, the the budget for the presentation today, if the question wasn't specifically asked, I think that the public might have saw it as we have a solution to where there's no service impacts. And that's not true. There will be at least three there will be three taken out of service which it which have major budget, major impacts to the quality of life of our residents. And I think that's something we need to just be upfront about and address. So that said, in terms of now that we're going back to this baseline of eight. What will be our process for deploying those eight and making sure that we that we have as as in as efficient a program as possible or a process as possible. Councilmember over as we move forward over the next few weeks, what we will do is we will utilize our run modeling software systems that we've used traditionally over the past ten years to make data driven decisions. We typically use them, unfortunately, for when we're going to select something to take out of service. In this case, we will apply all of our historical call volumes into the run modeling systems, and we will make decisions on where it's not only about rescue ambulances, because we're going from 11 rescue ambulances down back down to eight. But right now, we currently have a firefighter paramedic on every fire engine in the city. And we're going to take that back down to only nine engines in the city. So we will use our run modeling software to determine where those paramedic assessment engines should be and also where those rescue ambulances should be in order to meet the needs of the community to the best of our ability when we move forward. Thank you. So as I understand it, what you just said, we're not going to use some methodology from the past and 2013 methodology, but we're going to use data from today current data to justify how we implement this model. Is that correct? Councilmember That's correct. I mean, the data from a year and a half ago in the fire service tends to change constantly, which is why we constantly evaluate it. And because this is a big change to go go back to a system with fewer resources in it. We're going to need to reevaluate the existing data, the best up to date data that we have to determine. We're placing our resources where they need to be. Okay. So it's fair to say that whatever happens now may not be the exact same deployment strategy as it was in 2013. That's quite possible. Yes. Okay. I will I will agree with that. I think there's no magic wand to solving this. I think that we we need to look at this as we're going back to rebuild our system. We're going down eight and going to rebuild our system the right way based on today's data. And we're going to be upfront and honest about how we build that. And we're going to, you know, and acknowledge that we do need to make investments again in our fire department. So those are my statements. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I have a few questions myself. Of course. First, why did we believe that there was an appeal process? I understand yesterday there was mention of an appeal and now there's no option for that. Counselor. That was probably my problem. So this all just hit us pretty fresh last Thursday. So we thought there was an appeal process. I assume there was one. And as I delved into a deeper, I discovered there was not. Thank you. And then next question, which it says budget adjustments will be made, of course. Will they be in addition to the 24 eliminating the 24 vacant positions? I mean, what else are we looking at in terms of budget implications for the fire department at this time? Councilwoman Gonzalez, the fire department is tasked with trying to find ways to reduce their cost to minimize the impact of the 1.4 million. But we are not asking them to make like a fire truck eliminations or other other types of service impacts. So we really believe that the the mass vast majority of this will be covered by the first responder fee revenue and if not that, the backstop of the year and savings. Okay. And if for any reason that doesn't isn't sufficient, is there another idea? The so the we're recommending 1.4 million be set aside at year end 15 as the backstop to cover the additional costs. And so that that would assume like $0 came in with first responder fee. And we do know that there will be some revenue coming in with first responder fees since that has been approved. And then last point here. So I see in the letter it says no effective mechanism to aid high risk. And also mentions data collection is not robust enough. But then in ours, of course, it says it is. So where is the. In that sense? Where is the confusion or where is the difference? Because we see. That that's a huge. Difference. And I don't know how we work through that and still believe that that's a good model for us. Councilmember with this with the first question specific to an inability to identify high risk patients, nobody in my command staff, nobody in my in my education team, in EMS and even my medical director have the slightest idea what that is. What it refers to, we have no idea. We are baffled by that statement completely. The the robust data collection we believe that that is referring to. If you recall, prior to implementation of RMD, we had talked about going to an electronic patient care reporting system. In fact, we were all kind of ramped up to do that. We were ready to go. But just prior to implementation of our M.D., the EMS Commission came back to us and said, We want you to continue to provide your data to us the same way prospectively as you have retrospectively. So we for an apples to apples comparison, we want you to collect your data the same way going forward. So we stopped the electronic patient care reporting in our last meeting with the the director of the agency, Kathy Chidester. She pretty much she pretty much came right out and said that the way that we're collecting our data, the pen and paper reports did not provide them she felt did not provide them, and an ability to kind of query information out of the data fast enough. And we believe that that line in that letter is basically saying that they would like to see us move to electronic patient care reporting or whoever else is going to do this program, use an electronic means of communicating that data to the agency. That's what we believe. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. And then. Okay. All my other questions were answered. I will just touch on the point that Councilwoman Price and Councilmember Richardson mentioned, and it is the relations between the rank and file and management. And I can't stress that enough. I know we know that there's issues there. And I just would hope that I think some of this could have been resolved on maybe the the back end if we would have had better relations between the two. And I think I would ask that our city management staff really step up to be able to be that liaison in between, because I think it's very important. Now we're put in a situation where on paper and. Whatever the case is, it just doesn't look. Good. And now we have the perception that we've been we have a model in place that just hasn't worked out. And whatever side we're on, it's this is now the reality that we're faced with. And so I would just really stress that somewhere along the line that we're working on that relationship somehow, some way, I think it's very important. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, thank you. You know, I think everyone kind of realized that the public safety is our most important, you know, priority to the local government, the city of Long Beach. You know, I'm always supporting our firefighters and our police because I think they do a great job and the safety, you know, to protect our city. You know, I've seen how hard that these Long Beach firefighters and the police department work. You know, so the first firefighters and the paramedic California then I am proud to support at any and all times. But. When the chief first proposed the Earth M.D. program to the city. To the city council. I have some concerns. In my opinion, our previous EMR system with the two professional firefighters and paramedics response to each serious medical call was working very well. But along with the rest of the city council was assured that the new AMD program would save our city money that would not be diminished and the quality of care would provide to our residents. In fact, we were all told that the AMD program would actually improve our emergency medical response system. And because of the cheap shots I supported and proposed our M.D. plan, as did a majority of the City Council in the Art AMD program, has been in effect for, I think, more than two years now. And throughout this time all I've heard from the fire chief is that the program was working well. And now we found out that this is not true. I am disappointed. And sadly, by this transfer, I have lost trust and confidence because the fact that all we asked for, each one of you, you know , top assistance is the true. And that says an opportunity like that, especially we're dealing with safety and protection. I think the truth is the most important thing. You know, the L.A. County Emergency Medical Services Agency canceled the R&D because it had failed. And let me read just a few of the lines from the letter sent to Chief DAVIES, director of As Agency. You know, the RDM has created an environment that is not conducive and good patient care. Rescue ambulance are being shipped with a newly trained paramedics and EMT who has very limited experience. You know, I could go on, but why should I? Because we've heard most of this tonight. Colleagues. I am disappointed that I am even in this position tonight made of the proposed project never measured up to the promise made. I'm not interested in hearing any more of the same things tonight and trying to say that program. So I think it's time for us to terminate R&D once and for all and get back to the system that provides first class care for the people of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Marie Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know there has been a lot that's said today, and I wanted to thank my colleagues for articulating their thoughts on the position that we're in right now. I especially want to thank staff having been on the council almost as long as council, actually a little couple of weeks longer than Councilman Andrews. I recognize my role in in this, and I will reiterate what Councilwoman Pryce stated, which is we look to our staff, our department heads and our city manager to come up with strategies, especially during the horrible budget times that we experience, to come up with strategies and ways to close our deficit, our budget deficit. And so we provided parameters for each department. And the chief came forward with a model that, while it may have been unique to Long Beach for a Long Beach's history is not necessarily unique in the state of California. I believe we did this in earnest and that the staff did it in earnest and also did it in good faith, as Councilwoman Pryce mentioned. And so what I hope I know that we have shared a lot of frustration this evening, and it's rightfully placed. I, I don't dispute that. I think our challenge today and what I hope that we can focus on going forward, we have a week and a half, two weeks before the charter requires us to pass the budget. While Ms.. ERICKSEN indicated that this does not impact our current budget process structurally, we do have to look forward. Councilwoman Pryce articulated that very, very well. Looking forward, our obligation is to work with our department head, work with our city manager, and ensure that we have a structural solution to this and. While it doesn't necessarily have to be visited tonight, we did earlier in the Budget Oversight Committee have a short discussion on this. And as it is the case with any other department, the department will have to manage any deficit that comes up. So and I say that just to acknowledge my role in all of this, my personal role in all of this, there is no city staff versus council leadership. This is this is all of us. And we find ourselves in this position. And I would like us to be focused on doing, again, exactly as Councilwoman Price indicated. Let's move forward. Let's terminate the pilot. I believe it was a good effort. I believe in our data. I don't want to dispute. Our own staff information at this time, I don't think that's that's healthy to do that. And I also don't want to go line for line into what the letter indicated. I that's not what we are called to do today or call to move forward. And we're called to move forward in a very judicious way. And so I support Councilwoman Price's friendly. We will move forward. And I look forward to the next couple of weeks hearing about the three prong plan that Ms.. Erickson laid out for how we will manage this deficit if there is a deficit after we look at the first responder fee within the department, because we don't need a reminder that we do not have resources in the remaining 20% of the departments to extract any deficit that comes from this. This will have to be managed by the department. And so. To the fire. Chief, I want to thank you for coming forward with. What I believe is still a good effort and coming forward tonight in sharing your thoughts on it. But I look to you to get us through this and figure out how we're going to manage our deficit. Thank you. But thank you. Jason, your comment? Yes, I was going to say thank you, vice mayor. The the reality is and I just I feel I need to say this. This is this is a profound disappointment for me and my staff as well. And the men and women in the fire department that worked so very hard on this, my entire command staff, the deputy chiefs, the assistant chiefs, our nurse educator, our director of education, the all the educators there worked very, very hard to make this program successful. Unfortunately, as a result of the letter from the EMS agency, we will revert back to the previous program. And that's that's okay. But I don't want to diminish the work, the good work that our folks did. We took a very bold step at a very uncertain time, given our budget, given a series of reductions that impacted our operational capability. And I just don't want to minimize the impact and the chance that our folks took to do the right thing for the city. And I want to thank you for saying that. I do want to state that I believe every day the good men and women of fire show up every single day to do right by our residents. And they do it not in consideration of any budget model or any particular model, but they do it because they're doing right by our residents. So thank you for that. Councilman Price. Thank you. I'll be very brief, but I do think it's very important, given the the time that. Staff and the chief and his command staff have put into this project just to say one thing, and that is we consistently ask our department heads to look for innovative ways to deal with our budget. And you did that. And I know there's a lot of department heads who are sitting in this council chamber tonight, and I don't it would be a shame if even one of them walked away from this and thought, I'm not going to try anything new. Because of a risk of what might happen. That would be a shame. And I say that. And when things like this happen, I mean, you can really only analogize them to your own life experience. And I can't tell you how many times I personally have gone to court and a judge has given a ruling or a jury has done something. And I've come back to my colleagues and said, I have no idea where that came from. That was totally unexpected. And there's a disappointment there. And I and I completely get that. But that doesn't mean I don't keep trying innovative things and ways to do things. So, you know, that may be a very lame analogy, but I say it because we have a lot of department heads who are sitting in the council chambers. And I want you to know that personally when we say please think of innovative ways to help us with this problem, I speak only for myself when I say I mean that meaningfully and authentically. It's not just lip service. It's not like try something new and if it doesn't work out, shame on you for trying something new. I'm not going to say that. The bottom line is, and I agree with the vice mayor that, you know, we don't want to be in a position where we're going line by line because it's a disputed issue. You know, there are very few facts that are undisputed in this right now at this time. Maybe that will change in the future upon further discussions with the entities, I don't know. The one thing I will say, and I respectfully I don't even know that I disagree, but I will say that if in fact, there is going to be a necessity for a budget. Cut. Let's say that are you know, the only thing that I would change is, you know, we try innovative programs and we have a definitive contingency plan. If it doesn't work out, here's what we're going to do. I know that we now have a plan that Ms.. Erickson has articulated that seems great, and I'm very hopeful that that works out for us. But if in fact, it doesn't and cuts are necessary, I will say, speaking very personally, I cannot imagine that I would support any further cuts to public safety. I'm just going to and I may be alone, a lone council member on that voting on my own, but I cannot imagine that I would support any cuts to our police department, our fire department, including our lifeguard services. I just can't imagine a scenario where I just think that everyone is operating on a bare bones level right now. And so I would be interested if there is going to be cuts to look at where else cuts might come from. Because, you know what, maybe we put off our fleet program. Maybe we I mean, I'm not I'm not saying suggesting that. I'm just saying we need to look at please, nobody nobody from Fleet get upset. I'm definitely not suggesting that. But we as a city have to work together to get through these next few years of tough times. And we have tried the proportional share model. It's it's working. There's data that supports it. But maybe as a result of this predicament, we need to do something different for a few years to make sure that we're keeping up the public safety standards that we need to keep up. Maybe we need to cut more in administrative resources. I don't know. But I'm just speaking personally on my own behalf that I would put up a very strong opposition to any further cuts for the next few years of our fire department and our police department. I just think that those are two areas where we need you more now than ever. So that's just, again, total personal opinion on that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Richardson. Thank you. Just a couple more questions that that I forgot to ask. So. One of them. What is our what, chief? What would you say would be your timeline to evaluate and get back to the council and to form for your approach to deployment moving forward? Well, Councilmember, we have already started having these discussions. We will run our system, ah, run modeling system here over the next the remainder of this week and get into it next week. There's a system that we have, a process that we're going to have to go through in addition to determining where the resources go. But we're talking about rebidding. We're going to have to rebid the entire department, move people all around to different places. We're going to have to engage in a meet and confer with the union. We're going to have to talk about station moves where you move the apparatus, all that stuff. So at this point, I mean, the process, the earliest we can even consider being ready to go or being able to articulate to you what's going to happen is probably, I would say, October 1st. So that was problematic about that date. And thank you for for clarifying all the work that needs to be done to actually explain that to the Council. The challenges, the budget, the next budget will be adopted by then, and I'm not entirely sure that I want to move forward with the next budget until I actually have certainty and clarity on what our staffing models are going to be once the new fiscal year. And just another question we have. How much does one rescue cost now? And I remember the figures back in back a couple of years ago, but what do they cost today? It's about $1.1 million. 1.1 million. And then and then are we still moving forward with our academy and how much does that cost? We were budgeted just a little over $1,000,000 for Academy. We're in the process of of interviewing candidates for that academy. But we'll make a determination based on attrition months down the road as to whether or not that's going to be needed at this point. Okay. So so the the the evaluation, is there any way you can speed that up so we can get that done, say, in a week? Councilmember I don't think that's going to be possible. We want it to be accurate, which means we're going to have to load the system with a lot of data and rely on our contract partners from Deccan to put that together. So I don't think we'd be able to put that together in a week and have it be accurate. Okay, so so what? You'll get back to us October one and then so we won't know when we approve this budget, what our staffing model is going to going to look like. Okay. That's enough for me to digest at this point. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you. Thank you, Chief, for the presentation. I'd also like to thank Council Member Price for articulating that brilliant legal analysis of where we are right now without any legal. And she had four days to do that without any legal background. Last Friday, we're under a deadline. We had to have this item in by noon, and I had to make that same decision in 5 minutes. And I guess I was just lucky. Our guest. Right. But that was a point. I thought this letter was incredibly serious. And to me, this item here simply states, what is plan B and how much will it cost? That's what we're here for tonight. I don't want to look back at how we got here. I'd also like to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing up the issue of morale. My dad was a Long Beach firefighter, so I do have a little bit of an understanding of how important that is. Very few jobs in this world other than the military may be do the employees live together? And morale is a critical piece. So I agree with Councilmember Richardson that we need to get that fixed very quickly. I guess other than that, I do have a couple of questions. I guess, to Dr. Shea's point about that he would like to talk to the medical director. My big question is if we can get a system in place where that happens instantaneously, because I know it seemed like a quick timeframe, but that was ten days that we lost where, you know, then it just all came crashing down. It seems like if there were questions there and maybe you didn't have a heads up, that it was that this serious. But I see some room for improvement in the medical director of Long Beach speaking to the EMS agency, maybe directly and and more often. And other than that, I think that just just moving forward here, my other concern last Friday was the budget, because it's not completed. That was my other thought is how do we fix this? Councilmember Price says she can't imagine any more cuts and she still has three fire engines in her district. As I pointed out weeks ago, my district council district four is the only district in Long Beach without a single fire engine. Guess what? I can't make any more cuts there. It's just not going to work. Okay? Yep. Yeah. 414 and 22. Okay. So, anyway, that's. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. At this time, we go to public comment on the item and I'll come back to the council. Any public comment on the item? Seeing no public comment on the item. Then I'll come back to the city council. I don't think any more public no more council comment at this time. There is a motion on the floor which is to receive and file and also to. You essentially eliminate the program? There's no appeal. I mean, there isn't an appeal anyways, but I think that's the the nature of it. There was an also a friendly by Councilman Price and Mr. Parker. You want to just repeat it one last time so we all know what we're voting for. Certainly, Mayor, members of city council, the motion to receive and file the report and. As you mentioned. Not to appeal the decision of the EMS agency and. To terminate the program as and I believe, as the chief has indicated, as quickly as possible. Councilman Richardson. Before we vote, I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment. Councilman Austin I think waiting a month is a long time, but I get it. It takes that much time. So I'd like a weekly update on where we are in this process, because I'd like to know I'd like to track this as we approve this budget. Would you accept that? I'm actually I will accept that because I think in light of the fact that we are moving forward with our budget situation here and we're trying to approve a budget in the next few weeks, it's it's important that we have as much information regarding this situation as possible. And I just wanted to clarify the not appealing means. I was really trying to to to emphasize the point that, you know what? Let's let's let this go. Let's let's not go back and contest this with the emergency in any way and let's move forward. I do agree with Vice Mayor Lowenthal. There's no future in the past. Okay. Thank you. Members, who's going to cast your votes? They all spoke. Motion carries nine zero. Okay. We did consent calendar already. So we're going to go on to, I believe, item number 19, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Doris Oneyda Salazar, dba Sirenita’s Restaurant, 410 West Willow Street, for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0606

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. And please cast your vote for here, number one. There's. Thank you. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. We're going to be moving on to hearing number two by Samir Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much. Mayor Craig, would you please read the item? Item two. Excuse me. Is this an offer this also? Yes. Okay, fine. Thank you. Item two is a report from financial management recommendations to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of St Anita's restaurant for ten West Willow Street for Entertainment Without Dancing District six. Any of you wishing to give the oath? Please stand up and raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you. Mr. Merkel, would you like to speak on that? Yes, thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. We will have a staff report by Bret Jackass, our business services officer, and also Emily Armstrong, or administrative analyst in the business licensing division. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for entertainment without dancing for Doris Anita Salazar doing business as Sierra Anita's restaurant located at 14 West Willow Street. Operating as a restaurant in Council District six. All of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided the recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have, and that concludes this report. Thank you. Any public comments on this? I know. Not. I'll close the comments on that council. You have any deliberation on this? Anyone from Biden is decisive. I can speak on it. I will be the one to speak on it. I would also like to thank the staff for taking this time to conduct this hearing. You know, while appreciating is coming into the district and wanting to activate business corridors for the quality of life for my residents, it's also a top priority for me. Also has an example of opportunities for business as long as they are mindful of the family homes that are directly behind the corridor. My office reached out to both the business and the neighborhoods associated around the areas and there are some concerns about noise in the after hours. I am willing to give Sarah Serenitatis. An opportunity to flourish, but I want to be sure and put on record that I would like for the license to be renewed if there's noise abatement and also in the after hours. So this is what I'm asking for with this item. Could I get a second, please? Fine. Members, please cast your vote. Council member Austin. Motion carries.

A RESOLUTION supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1639 and urging Seattle voters to vote “Yes” on Initiative 1639 on the November 6, 2018, general election ballot.

SeattleCityCouncil_10222018_Res 31846

will be given to members of the public. So having said that, will the clerk please read agenda item three into the record, which is under the section adoption of the resolutions? Agenda Item three Resolution 318 46 A Resolution supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1639 and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 1639 and the November six, 2018 general election ballot. Before any council members would like to speak on this, let me sort of move the process along. I'll move to adopt Resolution 31846. So has been moved in second to adopt resolution 31846. And so we'll now hear comments from council members pertaining to the resolution. So any council members would like to speak to it. Please proceed. Councilmember Gonzales, you have the floor. I would love to speak as to my resolution. So this is a resolution that I'm bringing forward in collaboration and conjunction with Mayor Durkan and really excited about setting forth another action by the Seattle City Council in support of common sense gun legislation. We have, as you all know, taken many steps over the last several years to act where we believe we can act as the city of Seattle. And in fact, last week received wonderful news about our own gun safety storage ordinance that we passed here at the city council. The NRA moved to file suit against us, and that case was dismissed last week. And our law was upheld as being constitutional and in an effort to continue to be responsive to our constituents requests to continue to advance common sense gun safety legislation. It is with great pride that I introduced this resolution concerning firearms. This particular initiative, initiative, Measure 1639 will be on the general election ballot on November six, 2018. This initiative seeks to make changes to to state law related that are contained within the Firearms and Dangerous Weapons chapter of our CW 9.41 initiative. 1639 would create an enhanced background check system and require firearm safety training and waiting periods before semiautomatic semi-automatic assault rifles may be purchased or delivered. And Initiative 1639 would impose age limitations on who may purchase or possess certain firearms, including prohibiting purchases by persons under age of ten, under the age of 21. And this initiative would also require certain secured firearms storage or trigger locks and criminalized non-compliant firearm storage if it results in unauthorized use. So it is my great honor to be able to present this resolution to the City Council in hopes that the City Council will have a unanimous vote to urge Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 1639 in the November six, 2018 general election. Thank you, Catherine Gonzales. Would any other members like to comment on the resolution before us? Okay comes from bakeshop. Only that I want to say great thanks. To my colleague Councilmember Gonzales and all who have worked on this. I wholeheartedly support it and I'm glad to see our state moving forward in this direction. I concur. Thank you very much. Okay. That concludes the comments from councilmembers and will now hear from comments from the members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution. And the total time allotted for the comments will be 10 minutes in two minute increments, and the speakers recalled in the order which they signed up.

Recommendation to receive and file the Parking Study for Downtown and Alamitos Beach. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_12112018_18-0950

So please cast your votes. Great motion carrier. And I went, thank you to the council and everyone that came out to speak tonight. We're going to transition into the time certain. And so I think if you're not if you're here for next the item that's coming up which which is the parking study report that's what's next. If you're not here for that, please just quietly exit so we can transition into the next time into the time serve that we have. And we'll start that in just a minute as people exit. Are they? I'm sorry. Yeah, I think they're think. Don't believe Joe anywhere. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Well. I'm a landlord and tenant in Chicago. The only thing worse than landlords and tenants. I don't know where it comes. Their natural enemies or. Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Court, can you please call that the time? Certain item item 15 report from Development Services recommendation to receive and file the parking study for Downtown and Alamitos Beach District one. And to thank you, I'm going to ask the item, please, guys. Everyone that's talking. You guys, I'm going to go outside. Please. Please read the item. Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members, this is an item that we've been working with the community on for a parking study in the downtown. It comes to us as a result of a settlement agreement with the TAPS Group in the downtown. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Linda Tatum of our development services team, as well as Christopher Coons and our public works director, Craig Beck. So Linda. I'd just like to introduce our project team, which was and included the Development Services Department staff, as well as the city's traffic engineer, Eric Lidstrom, as well as Christopher Coons, and previous to Christopher Carey, Ty, as well as our consultant who is in the audience tonight and will be available to respond to technical questions regarding the report . So I'll turn it over to Christopher for the staff presentation. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council. So as. Was mentioned, this parking study looking at downtown and Alamitos Beach came out of a settlement agreement, but really became more than a legal settlement. It became an opportunity for the city to work with the community and get really good data and chart a pathway forward to address parking issues in two very different environments one being downtown and one being Alamitos Beach. So there's basically four aspects to the study that Kellaway did with staff. One is collecting data so that we're basing our assumptions on facts and not just on implied assumptions, and then identifying strategies to increase parking availability, a public outreach and engagement component. And then the final documentation, which is the report that's in front of you this evening. So as mentioned, after we came to an agreement on a number, a complex set of litigation related to certain successor agency projects, sales, project, property sales. We came together with Albie Tops, which is Long Beach Transportation and Parking Solutions. They were at the table with us as we crafted the RFP. They were part of the RFP process where we selected the consultant. We selected KOA Corp., which in our view and staff's view did an excellent job on this study. They were that was a choice that I'll be tops was involved in and supportive of. And the entire process was data driven, as I mentioned. So when we look at what we found, we start with downtown. And based on Kayleigh's assessment, the factual assessment, there is an excess of available parking downtown. Now, when we say there is an excess of available parking, that does not mean that on any given hour that every visitor or resident is able to find exactly the parking space they want. AT Exactly. Exactly the moment they want. What it does mean is that there is numerically an excess supply of parking and that that is demonstrated in accounts that were done weekday off Street. There's a good amount of parking available. And then when you look at the weekend, there's a good amount of parking available. The other thing that we look at is parking turnover. So businesses especially need parking to be available not just to one person that parked there all day, but for customers to be able to come and go throughout the day. So that's why we look at turnover, how many times a specific space is used during the course of the day. Turnover is fair within downtown at about 2 hours and time, and parking is generally available throughout the day. What we did find, however, was a lot of that available parking can be hard to find and that signage is lacking. So a recommendation of this report, which is just one example of many items where our work has already begun, has to do with improving wayfinding. And this council previously placed a wayfinding package not just for downtown, but citywide. That's being implemented already. So this just shows you we went blocked by the consultant team with the city, went block by block measuring parking and measuring parking availability. And as I mentioned, it doesn't mean that parking is always available perfectly on every block. But as you can see illustrated here in color that it's not more than a single block walk to a block, that there is more parking availability based on the data. So what we found in Alamitos Beach is very different than what we found downtown. So I think all of us that live in the study know these findings from firsthand experience. There is a parking shortage within Alamitos Beach. There is very limited off street parking and there is on street parking, but not enough at peak periods. Parking is oversubscribed, especially on weekends, when businesses and residents are competing for the exact same on street parking. Turnover is generally fair to poor, so instead of the 2 hours that we saw downtown, you see longer turnover. And that relates directly to residents and businesses competing for the exact same parking. And obviously a resident wants their home. They're going to park for the day, for the evening, not for a limited period of time. What was interesting is there was the public outreach component that we talked about, and many residents admitted that their garage is used for storage rather than for parking, and that increases the demand for already constrained on street parking. I'm looking at the data all over a majority. Most of the buildings in Alamitos Beach were built before modern parking requirements, so they have significantly less parking than what the zoning code requires today. This is a map of parking availability within Alamitos Beach. And again, we went block by block to understand what that data was telling us. So this study provides data and it provides a point in time. But what's happening within public works and we're glad to assist here. And Development Services is a day by day progress and continual attempt to increase parking availability. So downtown, that's really about signage and wayfinding, but it's also about changing the angle of diagonal parking. It's about parking being added through various roadway reconfigurations. It's about prioritizing red curb and yes, having necessary red curb every moving it where unnecessary to add additional parking. And it's also about using technology such as various apps too, so that people do know where the available parking exists in terms of public outreach. So we mentioned that all Taps was involved in every step of this process, but we wanted to reach a broad section of the community. More than 4000 online surveys were completed, but we wanted to make sure that we were reaching folks that maybe did not receive an online notification or advertising. So we did what are called intercept surveys. That's the low tech solution. That's someone with a clipboard at specific locations throughout the study area asking people about their parking experience. The public generally favors increasing parking supply, not unsurprisingly, changing parking restrictions, having specific parking that's residential restricted and providing alternative forms of transportation. So that could be a traditional transit, but that could also be scooters and bikes and the next thing that we haven't seen yet. So summarizing the findings of what we found, the study had found that Alamitos Beach has a major parking shortage or has a significant parking shortage. As a reminder, most structures in Alamitos Beach were built before 1952. That's a critical day when the city started requiring parking. And even that data in 1952 was not until the 1980s that we required significant amounts of parking. So 20% of survey respondents noted that they use their garage for storage, not for parking. So it doesn't account for is folks that tend to want to be forthcoming about what they're using their garage for. Um, residents and businesses are competing for parking and Alamitos Beach in a more significant way than we find in other parts of the city. And that results in existing on street parking being oversubscribed, varying from just slightly oversubscribed during some daytime periods to very oversubscribed during the kind of dinner period where restaurants are competing just as residents are coming home and looking for their place to park. So the point was not just to document the problem, it was to see where we go forward. So there are recommendations that are attached to your staff report, both for downtown and for Alamitos Beach, and these are things that we're already doing. So adding supply of street parking and then things that we will be doing over the longer term. So looking at robotic parking facilities and use of technology, working with parking applications to help those technology providers provide the public with information about where they are and promoting making it as easy as possible to understand our parking signs and where you can park and when and when not. So that work is already happening. On the development services side, we've made substantial strides in the last two years to allow for parking, lifts and automated parking, and you'll see that reflected in the marketplace over the next couple of years. So as we talked about, there are different recommendations for downtown, as there are for Alamitos Beach and downtown. The issue really is helping people understand where existing parking resources are already available. And we're working in partnership with the LPGA to do some of those signage improvements, among other improvements. Whereas in Alamitos Beach, it really is about providing parking as we can, but also finding ways to encourage people to that do have access to garages, to use those garages for parking and improving transit service so that if folks do have to park out of area, that it's easy to get to their destination within Alamitos Beach. So as part of the settlement, there is a Parking Solutions implementation fund. It will fund some of the improvements outlined in this report, but it will not fund all of them. The report itself does talk about longer term funding strategies, and there are budget implications to many of these recommendations that would have to come back to this body. So today we're here to present this report and you're being asked to accept this report, but that is not the end of making parking improvements. So as a partnership between development services and public works, the work will continue to get additional parking resources, but also to provide funding mechanism for the Parking Solutions Fund going forward. So with that staff does recommend that you receive and file the parking study. This will conclude our obligations under the settlement agreement, but as I mentioned, will not conclude our efforts to increase parking supply in Alamitos Beach and parking accessibility downtown. So with that, we look forward to your questions. Public comment. You guys are going to come in first so anybody become an item to please come up. 3 minutes. Please. Uh. 3 minutes up. Yeah, right. No questions at public comment right now. Yes, Larry, good record because he addressed just a comment. When you're dealing with parking, it is also then parking meters and heard an interesting comment. From two dogs walking down the street. And I think it's important to understand how they view parking meters as paid toilets. Thank you. Thank you. It's video. Uh uh. I live downtown in the East Village, and some of the people in the East Village have parking meters in front of their apartments. So it's not fair to them to be paying a parking meter seven days a week to park for their own apartments. Also, too, you're putting all these new high rise. Buildings into the downtown area. ALAMITOS Enough. First Street. I mean, second Street. You have the tallest building coming up on a on a Alamitos and ocean. You got the tall building right there. Opus Pacific and others. And most people. Today have 2 to 3 cars. Per unit. So if you're putting one car per unit in these buildings, what does the other oh, the other two cars go? Thank you, sir. Hi. My name is Beverly Lifer and I live in Alamitos Beach. I'm fortunate enough that I found a home when I moved here eight years ago that has a garage that I do use for my car. But I think we need to look at other alternatives. I can't take credit for this, but so on our next door there were complaints about people parking at a shopping center during the day. But then someone said, What about taking that parking lot in a shopping center, that all the stores are closed overnight and have some kind of paid parking? That is organized between the city, the property owner and the stores, and can be from five, six, 7 p.m. to six in the morning the next day so that people, residents will have parking. Also, there are plenty of empty lots that used to have buildings that no longer have buildings, and I've seen a few of them. And I don't know if it was through the city or privately that have opened up as paid parking and you see cars that are parked or ARVs for days, which is fine. It's a parking lot and that's what they should be used for. So I'd like to see the city coordinate and work with property owners of these empty lots and shopping centers to have some kind of overnight parking provided. And it's paid or a long term parking. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next, bigger. Okay. Hi. My name is Debbie Tobias. I live at 100 Atlantic and Long Beach. I'm president of Long Beach Taps. Long Beach could be a shining example of how to do parking right while still accomplishing its mobility goals. Many new parking programs can pay for themselves and fund others. We are asking for your help and need your leadership to do this. After four long years of trying, we failed to get the city to look at the parking issues and solutions. The lawsuit asked for a court order that would have required the city to follow sequels. Not following those laws would make parking problems worse, resulting in more traffic and air pollution. Taps did not ask for money. The city's attorney led the city to settle. When we agreed to the settlement, we gave up something valuable. The court orders. The intent of the settlement was to bring data, professional valuation and new options to you. The city agreed in the settlement that the parking study would do certain things, bringing an unusual opportunity to make things better. The study was required to be solution oriented, comprehensive and close inclusive of all users of parking, identify funding, recommend pricing strategies. Find ways to integrate private parking for public use, protect existing residential parking, review all existing standards, and make any recommendations deemed warranted based on the data analyzed. KOAT and City Reps. Tom Modica, Eric Wood Strand and Kerry Tai are professionals who are trying to address the parking issues. They had thorough, creative, open and honest discussions on multiple fronts. At some point, something changed, especially on the subject of the downtown parking regulations. When Draft two came out, it looked like big holes had been punched in the study. There is a parking problem in downtown Long Beach and we do need to address it now. The city is concluding the study without adhering to the work scope, leaving out things that are crucial to planning for $250,000. You got something that looks more like a staff report stating little more than what the city was already willing to do. History tells us that very little will change regarding action on parking if you turn over further action to staff. Now, unless you decide to help out your residents and really work with us to find solutions, we ask that you hold a study session on parking with the Planning Commission, include Michael Kodama because he has more expertize on parking and toady than anyone on city staff that has worked on parking. We ask that you declare a moratorium on accepting new development applications until you have the data and professional evaluation that's needed to plan better for parking. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening. I'm Laura Greco. May addresses on file on it for Alameda speech as more people are added to our area the planet for them this study will make it very well make very little difference in our ability to park. This is not just our opinion, but also that of our parking consultant Michael Gadamer, who taps paid to advise us and give us feedback to the study team. We've provided you with his written opinion of the parking survey. In his memo, he states that important elements are missing from the study that are needed to make the recommendation work. His he points out some of the key conclusions are not backed by data. Data, for instance, it should be noted that field observations stopped at 6 p.m. and therefore the analysis missed some of the impact related to residential parking needs later in the evening. He also says that a false statement. It's a false statement to say that there is no parking problem downtown. He explains why it does not analyze blocks, but rather only looks at total numbers for a large project area. Please consider asking for alterations to the study. Don't just receive and file. The study relies heavily on parking management to self-parking issues without four key needs to accomplish that. Management. A parking plan. Parking for new buildings. And a funding plan. And a funding plan. Parking Management. The study only describes how parking management is currently spread over multiple city departments and tells the city how to go about hiring management should they decide to do so. Kodama says it is important that the city of Long Beach find a parking manager to focus on this complex issue. I cannot think of a large city without a parking manager or parking department. It is critical that the parking management program not be seen as a one time deal. It must be continuous, collaborative and comprehensive. The parking plan, the existing downtown plan considers visitor parking, not parking for residents and employees. The area needs to be a comprehensive parking plan that is balanced to include the needs of all types of parkers. Kodama points out several things that should be considered, including using incentives rather than more enforcement in the area that has parking issues regarding residential permits, he says. We need a new approach to develop residential. Parking programs and management options beyond the concept that the residents should set up a parking assessment district or hire their own management operation firm themselves. Thank you. Thank you very much next week. Lane car crash of Atlantic Avenue. This parking study probably will not make parking easier for people because there's too much missing from the study. The study relies heavily on parking management to solve parking issues of other four key needs to accomplish that management a parking plan, parking for new buildings, and a funding plan for parking for new buildings. Parking consultant Mike Adams says this As members of the city, how can they find no evidence that a new development in downtown Long Beach has triggered any parking shortage or that there is no need to consider parking requirements for new development without an analysis linking parking requirements and utilization to existing and proposed square footage. This analysis is incomplete without that. He also says it is not a comprehensive program as it does not address the extremely important issue of residential spillover. Parking does not set parking priority users in some areas around the downtown commercial core, nor developed an evaluation mythology based on parking data. In addition, any analysis of future parking demand must consider the loss of parking spaces usually associated with new development in a dense downtown environment. As for funding, many parking studies include an analysis of new revenue streams from parking programs they can buy. They combine that info with an analysis of parking pricing. The result is a planning tool that allows the city to create a funding plan to improve parking parking improvements. Besides big parking structures, structures are available like automated parking loan programs and partnering with developers. The study does not provide such an analysis. Mike Goodall also says this in his Memo to the City. It is also suggested that potential parking revenues be reinvested back into a parking management system. This can be from the parking management program. This is not a new concept and has been effective in cities such as Portland, Seattle, Ventura, Pasadena, San Diego and many other places. It creates transparency and opens up a willingness to pay for parking, knowing that it is being reinvested back into the community with the parking issues. Thank you. Thank you very much next week. Hi, Robert Mills, 100 aspirants. Mr. Mill, I think you answer my questions right. You wanted to ask some questions? I don't. Know. I just have a statement. Okay, fine. Thank you. Go. Gwen. 100. Esperanza. I went to the meeting where you unveiled your plan for Long Beach, and I must say, I thought it was very, very impressive. Just like the homeless plan or the plan for the homeless. Rather very, very impressive. Some of the words that were used included thoughtfulness, foresight, the minutia of the plans, the meticulous planning, and uptown, downtown and Midtown plan. There's a lot of fodder there for a new Bruno Mars song. But, you know, with all of this planning, it just seems like we're getting short shrift when it comes to parking in Alamitos Beach . I hope that you guys use the same due diligence with the homelessness and any other plan on our own parking in Alamitos Beach, because you are talking about our quality of life. And government is supposed to work for everyone, not just select neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You know, I think. Speaker Hi, my name is Romeo Pineiro. I live here in Elementos Beach. I've been visiting Long Beach since the park was a big parking lot. I just recently became a resident of Long Beach about a year and a half ago in which I've collected over 30 parking tickets. Because I am a self-employed, I come home at whatever hour of the day. Sometimes I come home at night. I have to circle the block from bonnet all the way up to Esperanza, maybe up to Second Street, Pass Broadway, maybe even parking. As far as where the Vons is over here, because there is no spots. Not only that, but heading down all ocean. Or even friends living up towards Long Beach and PCH. Or all the way up to. PCH and Redondo are those problematic parking spots not only for Alimentos Beach, but everywhere else? If you take a drive at 3 a.m., at least in Alameda Beach, you'll find a lot of cars parked on red, which should be actual parking spots. There's a lot of red curbs that can allow maybe two or three more cars parked. But it's a red spot. And we're giving. We're getting tickets at night. Sometimes we residents, our friends around my area, don't even want to leave their house over the weekend because we don't want to lose our spots to where? I have to tell one of my friends who has a motorcycle to give me a ride down the street or give me a ride to the grocery store or Hey, let's go eat at Marina because I don't want to lose my parking spot. And this goes. For everyone that's impacted by the parking problem. My main thing is take a drive at 3 a.m. around these impacted places and you'll see all these cars not bothering anyone. Just trying to look for a parking spot. Just getting tickets left and right as I accumulated over 1300 dollars worth of tickets already, where I was happy to be moving into Long Beach. And I'm just sad that I might be moving out of Long Beach because of this. And I have a beautiful apartment on Ocean Boulevard that I don't want to give up, but. Worse comes to worse. I maybe I should give it up because nothing is being done in the area, at least Alamitos Beach area, and paying over $600 for a parking permit to park behind the the main building here or at the Marina Green. Waking up at eight in the morning so you don't get a ticket by not seeing the meter. I mean coming home from work late still have to get up to. Move your car to another parking spot doesn't seem pretty fair. I just ask that you guys take a look at that and maybe just make those red curves actual spots and and and see that for yourselves, that it could create a better solution than just keep giving us tickets. Keynote speaker, please. Hi. My name's Kelsey Simpson. I'm a resident in Alamitos Beach, and I've gone to a lot of the meetings that we've had. We've talked with Councilwoman Pearce about the parking issues in our neighborhood, specifically. I live on Cherry and first. So what I want to do is kind of humanize parking for a second because I feel like the study makes it look like a bunch of numbers and a bunch of data, and you can count cars and count spots and count, you know, garages. And much like the speaker before me talked about what happens a lot in Alamitos Beach are people are having to rethink their entire life based on parking. So it's what time do I have to leave work? What time am I going? Where am I going? What's going on? And then if you are fortunate enough to find a spot on the street, it's happened to me the other morning. I'm leaving to go to work. I'm a teacher. I work in Downey. I was leaving at 6 a.m. and there was a car just parked illegally behind me because I'm guessing that they circled for hours and hours and hours and couldn't find a spot. I waited for 35 minutes as much as they allowed. I knocked on people that I knew. I mean, it was super early in the morning. I also don't want to be an extremely rude neighbor, you know, and unfortunately live. With somebody else who I just took their. Car and sent them in taxes and inside I left my keys for you. This is where my car is parked. I couldn't leave. What's happening to is I know that Long Beach in that specific area has done, you know, adding more spots. So they repainted the diagonal lines and change the angles. What that did is allowed the the guy on my street. Who collects hearses. He currently has six of them. And he's just added actually, I think a seventh I counted on a bike ride the other day and it allows him to continue to add to this on street parking problem. I'm guessing that he doesn't drive a hearse in his normal car. So then that would add an eighth car that a resident is storing in our neighborhood. And the more you circle around, the angrier you get at the hearses. Then it also allows and people that live in Alamitos Beach know exactly what I'm talking about. They also turn old. School busses into cool busses. Literally scraping off, you know, the letters to make it like that as well. And those cool busses end up taking up three or four spots on the street as well as like ambulances that people buy, I'm guessing, in auctions and whether they're living out of them. And that's the larger issue. But what the issue is, is that these these are. Taking up our spots, basic things in place like residential permit parking. Which was discussed, as well as having somebody in the city who who's specifically. In charge of parking and has a parking planning background that has a lot of the knowledge of what is being spoken about and written about in the study would really help and be beneficial, I think to everyone. And we've talked about that with Councilman Pearce at the Abney meetings with Alamitos Beach and we've gotten community support, we've got the we were a huge part in getting a lot of people to take the online survey. We want to live there. We want to like actually live and not, you know, live to park in, park to live. I apologize to you on behalf. Of most of Alamitos Beach residents who couldn't make it tonight because they didn't want to lose their parking spot. So I make you last speaker, please. Hi. My name's Christopher Hassler. I'm an urban planner and I'm currently serving on the board of the Elements Peach Neighborhood Association and here I City Council to amend city code so that residents can band together to create overnight breaking for districts in Alamance Beach just as city allows residents in other parts of the city to create preferential parking districts that keep out commuter traffic. As you've seen in the parking study, our curb parking has been abused. The point where you can take a resident 30 minutes or more when they return home or turn home at night. There are a number of factors at play here, but the most important is the waste of off street parking space. As you saw in the presentation, at least 20% of residents with garages do not use those garages to store their cars. Given that most residents would be reluctant to admit that it's safe, say that the percentage is much higher than that. The city's inappropriate policy of asking residents to report on their neighbors garage use has been ineffective. Furthermore, the season action on our breaking problems has led some residents to try to take matters into their own hands by leaving threats on their neighbors windshields for, you know, the father of this person in park well enough or some other perceived issue. Others use junk cars to claim extra space. And then there's a few residents that use collect hearses and other recreational vehicles. Since there's no room to really increase the parking space in the neighborhood, we need to focus on reducing parking demand as recommended by Highway and overnight Premiere district. That limits demand and encourages more residents to actually use their garages for their cars would go a long way in relieving the intense competition for curb space. From speaking with Councilmember Pearce and other members of the community, there seems to be some concern about Coastal Commission approval. But plenty of plenty of coastal neighborhoods and other cities have established similar parking restrictions as long as enforcement powers are kept within the hours when our beaches are closed. We aren't interfering with public access to the beach. By creating an overnight policy. The city isn't forcing a permanent district on anyone, but instead giving residents a tool that they can decide to use for themselves. Residents would need to gather signatures. Just as they do for the existing. Preferential parking districts. Overnight parking permit districts are crucial to establishing a more equitable system of parking. I would love for the opportunity to sit down with Councilmember Pearce and her staff to form a new policy that works for Alamitos Beach and that can serve as a model for so many other neighborhoods in Long Beach that are suffering from the same issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bob, a comment is closed. Oh, sure. Please come forward. No, no, no problem. It's good enough. Yeah. Name is now g livin. Let me no speech at five o East Ocean. Um the young lady earlier when she say that the comment and next thought I was I was on I made that comment. Some business high rises or businesses says the parking is empty all night whatever the cases what if he could work something as a Long Beach transit so to have some kind of shuttle gone up and down so that way the tenants or whoever the looking, the parking, it's not like we're going to be parking for free, but they will pay some kind of fee. So at least the shadows would be going all the way around. Pretty much. Until the morning hour. So that was a win win win situation. So the office building, their will or the business area there will get some kind of income. The tenants are willing to pay for this money on this one. So that just one suggestion I have. Thank you. Thank you for that. Let me go and close public comment. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. And thank you all for all your efforts through the years for staying here through another discussion, a lengthy discussion. And I want to thank staff as well. I know that this is kind of house with development services. It started with public works. And so I know that there's been a lot of conversation. And so ago, similar to our homeless challenge, is that we've got a lot of great ideas, but having a way to kind of lead those ideas and making sure that we're implementing those. And so I want to start off by saying, obviously, parking is has always been a big issue for me, transportation, making sure that we have safe neighborhoods, making sure that people feel safe walking, you know, five blocks from their car to their home. And so it's an issue that I take really seriously. And I know this my council colleague does as well. I want to start. I guess by saying that I do know that I did see I don't know if it was a first draft, but with the maps it had, like the timing of when you guys were looking at things. And so I recall looking at that. And if we break it down in between downtown and I made a speech that downtown did have more openings, as is relayed in this report. I'm curious, what is our housing vacancy right now in downtown? I know we've got a lot of new developments. I know we have a lot more coming on. I don't know if you have that answer off the top of your head. We we know that citywide the vacancy rate is around 4%, somewhere just under 4%. But we don't have specific vacancy rates. For. The downtown area. Okay. Because I know that there's some discussion around the difference in between, you know, how full downtown is and how full Alamitos beaches and downtown. We have new residential units. We have different type of of folks that are living there versus in Alameda speech, which is almost 100% renter. And it's basically stacked on top of each other without any parking requirement. So I just wanted to identify that difference in between the downtown and Alameda speech. I have a lot of notes, so let me try to start off with the conversation around having a parking czar or a parking manager. This is something that we've talked about since I've been in office. I know that we have a lot of mobility items, whether it's bikes or transit, the free ride. What would it take for us to have one person that is committed to a parking management plan that can lead across all departments? Then what that would take, I would say, would be funding. Because right now we do have a staff in the public works department that devotes a substantial amount of time to parking issues and managing and operating some of the city's parking garages and even the multi-modal means of transportation. However, we do not have a staff that's dedicated full time to parking. And if if the council were to consider that, that is certainly something that they could consider in the upcoming budget to fund a position for that. Great. Thank you. And I think the reason it's great that we have somebody that's in there dealing with it, but it's even better to have somebody says, this is our point person across the entire city that can work in trouble. Areas can look across and say, okay, this works in Bixby, this works in Belmont Shores, Alma's beach. We've never done anything. And, you know, I'm glad that this I meant to say at the beginning, I'm glad that we're to this process because I've felt like my hands have been tied from being able to do big items. So I'm very happy that we have this today so that 2019 we can really be focused on implementing some of the strategies that are in here and putting teeth to them. And so one of them is I definitely would support having a parking person that would help us across the city, particularly because we are developing a lot more residential units. We've got 4000 planned in downtown. We've got the land use element with everything that's coming up with that. So I think it's an important time and that's something that I would definitely support to the comments around the open lots. This is something that my staff personally went lot by a lot my first six months when I got into office. We know that Didi's on seventh is open to having their lot out. We know that the Thai place on Alamitos and Broadway is open to having their lot. One of the questions we've always asked was, What would that take? And we've had the conversation between insurance or is it putting in a meter like we have at fourth and cherry? And so I hope that I can get an answer from staff today so that coming in the new year we can give some direction to because that's very low hanging fruit. So is there a comment on what it would take to make that happen? In order to make that happen, it is actually something that staff is already working on. Economic development staff is actually currently contacting various property owners with parking lots that they don't use overnight and currently exploring the option of establishing some kind of contractual relationship with those organizations or those property owners so that we can use those properties on an overnight basis. And we think something like that, along with some of the other initiatives that we've talked about here tonight, we think that those can start to make a dent in that that that parking issue. Okay, great. And I think one of the I don't want to go through the entire report today, but I think it's there's a lot of recommendations in here and similar with the homeless issue is knowing where we're at and giving some timelines and saying, you know, with this issue and Alameda speech, I'll commit one of my whole staff members to say three days a week, you're only working on parking with development services. And just to make sure that we are engaging and moving quickly. And so that's one area that I think is low hanging fruit. And we'll make sure you have the same list that we have of those businesses or economic development. Parking, homelessness. Ah, there you go. And one of the conversations I'd like to have with talking about opening up those private lots, we just had a transportation committee meeting last week where we talked about free ride and talked about some of the funding sources. So if we're identifying lots like this, if we're saying, well, part of that funding, if we have a contract share where they get part of the funds, the city gets part of the funds, that those funds would go toward something like free ride that would be able to take somebody from Alamitos, you know , into the downtown or vice versa. So getting to the permits so I think is great to read through the idea of the permits and understanding that nighttime permits are more likely to get passed through the Coastal Commission, which is something that I did not understand until recently. And so curious on a timeline, if we wanted to, to look at this in looking that it's resident led but that the city first has to change its code. Correct. I'm not sure that right now there is a prohibition. It really would be initiated by the staff, but certainly I'm sorry by the residents. But staff is certainly available to sit down with them, work with them and come up with a program that we could at least direct and guide them into the procedures to establish some type of overnight parking program. And again, I think to the point that many of the commenters spoke tonight, I didn't I don't think that I heard many suggestions that we aren't already working on or that we think are fairly low hanging fruit the. Staff could continue to pursue. And that is certainly one of those. Okay. So again, I mean, I think it's great that you guys are working on it, but understanding, you know, this is three months out, this is four months out. And I know that timelines are tough. I know that this was supposed to be in front of us in July. And but if we can have a benchmark and we say, okay, we're not where we thought we should be at this time, what staff resources need to change? What community resources can we engage in so that we can get it get it done? I don't want to have this same conversation in two years. The last thing I will say is that I expect in January I'm going to work with with Taps, with Alamitos Beach, I'm going to work with staff. And in January, I hope to bring forward some of these items that after we have a conversation that we understand , need a little bit more council direction to get done, whether that's a committee or task force, whatever that looks like, that's short term that we can make sure that we implement quickly. I know there are a lot of other things on here, but I do want to just thank community members, especially those that that that reach out . And I, I know that this is a challenge I have I'm a rancher myself, live in Alamitos Beach, have walked blocks in the middle of the night and understand the safety issues that are of concern for us. One more thing on the garages, I do have a question. So my house that I previously lived in had a garage. The neighbor called code enforcement on us. Our car didn't fit in the garage. And so is there an opportunity for us to create a register of garages that would be available to rent should somebody's car doesn't fit or they don't have a car? So you know what? My neighbor can rent out my my garage. Like, just some challenges that we have with old garages. Sure. So the registry is not currently on our implementation list, but certainly we can take a look at that. But just to clarify, for the council and for the public, the requirement under the city's codes is that the garage should be available for you to park in, and we can't force an individual to park in their garage . So even if I don't know what kind of car you drive, but even if. Chevy. Even if you know your car doesn't fit in the garage, a different style of vehicle by. Name. And they said, you can fit a motorcycle in here so that we don't drive a motor. So that's why from a code and enforcement standpoint, even if your particular vehicle doesn't fit in that garage, the requirement is that the garage should be clear enough that it be available to park in. And that way, whether it's a third party parking in that garage or some future different toys and vehicle that we can get those cars into those off street parking spaces to relieve the on straight parking demand. Great. Thank you for that. I'm sure I have lots more comments, but I fully expect to have an agenda item in January following up on some implementation with us. So I've got Connor here. He's going to come over and connect. I think we had a challenge with getting our most recent meeting on the calendar, so I want to make sure that happens soon. Thank you guys very much. And thank you, staff. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. And thanks to everybody for being here. I know I met with a couple of you yesterday, so I really appreciate the time. And similar to what Councilmember Pearce mentioned, you know, I really hope this. Stay is a living document that we continue evolving it. I also believe we do need to consolidate resources and definitely reevaluate policies and so I look forward to working with Councilmember Pearce in the coming year. So first and foremost, I think the parking revenue sort of the parking revenue plan, it seems like historically we've been very reliant on parking meter revenues only as the only source and increasing the parking meter revenues which, you know, we have to do every so often. But it just seems like that's the only thing. So I know this plan looks at other options as well, which I'm encouraged by. So I that's one sort of thought. In addition, I know private lots, they're being managed by various different companies. And I don't know what kind of conversations we're having in terms of consistency about rates. Consistency about. You know, everything related to accommodating residents. Can you give us a little bit of update on that? Because I know that's been an issue historically. And where are we at with just private lots and. I'm sorry. You mean private lots? That private parking lots? Yes, private parking lots. And their rate, the rates that are being charged, I mean, from what I remember and when you look on the website, there's various different rates. So I how where are we at? I'm not sure where we are on that. The parking study did a fairly comprehensive job of identifying a different private parking lots and parking structures, but I'm not sure that it actually went into the actual parking rates. That's something we would have to go back and take another look at. I don't think we have that information currently. Okay. That's one thing that continues to come up. I know with businesses and residents in downtown just the seems like there's an inconsistency with rates and it just one area might be $25 a month. There might be another area that might be 50 or $100 a month. And I think that it's just not consistent at all. So if we can look into that a bit more, that would be great. And I am of the same mindset. I believe we need a parking manager. I remember Luis Maldonado back in the day for all of you have been here for a long time. It was nice to have somebody that had the experience to go to, to talk about parking management and just where can we reassess and reevaluate policies? Where can we add meters, smart meters, or not take them away, whatever we need to do. I think I would like an emphasis on on that next year as we look at our budget and you know what it is that we can do and I know that we're looking at that currently. Yeah. And council member just to go back to your question, so in your report, um, it's on page 97 of your report, we do survey what's being charged as far as off street parking that's available on commercial lots. And certainly we're working with economic development to make additional commercial spaces available overnight. The city's regulatory arm doesn't reach regulating that parking rate, but certainly we can have those discussions with the parking operators. At. Least to recommend, you know, those. And I know that's always very difficult, but thank you. And to that point as well, in terms of talking, I know John Kaiser's team is working on that and talking to private lot owners, private property owners. I would also like us, and I think we've done this in the past. I mean, public public partnerships, you know, perhaps some of the school districts. I know sometimes it's a little bit difficult that through our joint use committee options, that could be an option. In some cases, they have often 200 spaces at any given time. So I think that's something to consider as well if we're not considering that already. And I'm also just interested in sort of revamping our preferential parking policies, looking more towards an overnight parking district, I think is great, especially for areas like the West Gateway, right by the courthouse. They have outside impacts. Most of the residents come in at night and there's like no parking. So that I think, could be very fruitful on the point of outside impacts like the courthouse. I hope that we can do a little bit more in that respect. Outside impacts and events. That's one thing I think we don't plan well for. I know when you go on the special events website, it says some of the events that we have in downtown, but it doesn't showcase all of the events that we have and that doesn't make a good experience for tourists coming in and looking like there's how do I know that there's parking for, you know, the I don't know. I'm just going to pick on myself the day of the event. Not good for them, not good for the residents coming in or the residents that are already there. So I just think we need to streamline that process as well in terms of events and overflow and what that looks like. And then again, outside impacts like a courthouse, like for instance, a temple on seventh, you know, that has constant flow of people every single Sunday and impacts the neighborhood that we know, that special temple that we love that does that. And I just think being able to be a little bit more proactive and finding solutions for these and these owners and these agencies and organizations would be great. Relative to the garages, I think. You know, we have a lot of that in some areas. And I'm wondering if we can cross-reference the parking enforcement data. So. We know that in some areas like in the Wilmore around like eighth and Magnolia eighth and Chestnut area, there are tons of owners who have garages that they use not for parking. And I know we can't necessarily enforce that, but I'm wondering, like tons of people are getting parking tickets in that area. And I don't know. I think we just I don't even have a solution right now, but maybe getting a little bit more creative on cross-referencing that data and being able to provide some relief. I don't even know what that looks like. I've tried to study other cities and I don't really have a good answer, but I just I really worry for those those residents. The last thing is just the consolidation of our sites. We have a city website with parking information, Easy Park, LP, Park, MLB.com, an app that not too many people know about. So it's like we're all it seems like we're all over the place. It'd be nice to have everything consolidated into one a bit more. I know. We know that. And then just lastly, I will say this. Better coordination with Long Beach Transit. You know, I'll tell you from experience in downtown. Not only is it parking impacted in certain areas of North Pine, but then language transit cut lines for seniors in North Pine at the same time. So it's sort of a double impact in that sense. So I would just hope we can coordinate a little bit better given these parking impacted neighborhoods. And I know we know that. I just need to see that. Other than that, thank you very much. I hope to work with Councilmember Pearce on many of these issues and along side many of you as well on these issues to continue the discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. I just wanted to add, and this is a lot of these. Comments that that I'm listening to are obviously issues in Belmont Shore as well and other parking impacted areas in my district. And one of the items that we brought to council and I don't know if staff has an update on it that my team drafted was an item to look at whether we could streamline the process for people to remodel their garages so that they can fit modern day vehicles in their garages. And I don't remember. It was right around the time that we did the Belmont Shore parking study and we came back with a series of recommendations. One was we actually had public works come out and help with a resident garage cleanup day where people were cleaning out their garages. And we put huge bins throughout the district in certain areas so that people could dump large items and clean out their garages for parking. But I do know that we also explored the feasibility of streamlining the garage conversion process, and I don't know if staff has done any work on that. Maybe this is an opportunity for us to revive that with discussion, that this would be an opportunity. It's something that we have on our work program to go back and take a look at that, given the number of small garages that are in the city's housing stock inventory. Yeah, that would be great. I know our home was built in the thirties and our cars certainly could not fit in our garage today. So we did have to do some some minor work when we remodeled. But if we can help residents with that by streamlining that permit process, I think that would go a long way as well for folks who want to utilize their garages. So Councilmember, we can definitely look at the permit process, but part of that is also working with, I guess, our partners in the architectural and construction industry because for a lot of folks, a project like that can seem very intimidating. But the issue isn't actually the permitting process. It's finding an architect, finding a contractor so we can do a lot better on the communications front and making that easier for the property owner. And that's already on our work plan for 2019. That's great. It would be great if there was an architect that specialized in that and parking impacted areas and they could have some, you know, some packages available that made it worthwhile for residents to do that. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Pearce. Sorry, I just had two more things I left off. I was wondering if there was anybody on staff that could give us an update on Mola. I know that I've pushed pretty hard and I know that they're in the middle of revisioning their. Their property, but. I think. Economic development. Will be the only person. And I don't know if John has an update on Mullah specifically. John, do. You? Wah, wah, wah, wah. Okay, let's let's. So it sounds like the discussions are in process. Okay. Thank you. And then my other question is, going back to Salinas, Councilmember Gonzalez's point, have cities ever said we're not going to ticket for red curbs in between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.? I know. That's. I'm just asking. I'm not saying that I'm going full speed with it, but in parking impacted areas, we get a lot of people to park in the red. Councilmember Pearce, to my knowledge, know that if you look at how the code is written, it's illegal to park in a red curb area regardless of the time of day. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to rates and charges for water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising water rates and charges, and credits to low-income customers; and amending Sections 21.04.430, 21.04.440, and 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09132021_CB 120130

Gender. Adam 12 accountable 1 to 0 132 Rates and charges for want of services of public utilities, revising water rates and charges and credits to low income customers and amending sections 21.0 4.4 30.4 40 and 21.70 6.0 40 of the settlements for Coke. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilor Peterson to walk us through this bill. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, my previous comments on utility rates apply to this bill as well. This is for fresh water. And I do want to take a moment to thank council central staff Brian Goodnight for his his hard work on these bills with Seattle Public Utilities. Again, the committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Peterson Yes. So what? No. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez I noticed. Yes. Morales. The most Jetta I. President Gonzalez. I. In favor one opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the short title of item 13 into the record?

Recommendation to Approve the Design Concepts for Up to Six Public Access Pathways Along Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive. (Recreation and Parks 280)

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7191

Thank you. Okay. We said we'd start at 845. It's 845. We are moving on to item six C. Recommendation to improve the design concepts for up to six public access pathways along Front Side Boulevard in Eastridge Drive. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. So to give you a little bit of background as part of the title Canal Transfer Project in 2016, six public access pathways were identified along three on fern side and three on East Shore Drive, and they were identified as needing further community discussion and staff was directed to do a feasibility study of the recreational opportunities at those pathways. With that, we conducted an extensive public input process. We in September and October of 2018, we had 44 people attend two community meetings and and 494 people complete an online survey. We also did more detailed analysis and learned that all of these six pathways are not owned by the city, but in fact, we have a public access easement over the ownership of these pathways. However, the one at Myers, the last one at Myers, and I'm sure the city neither has ownership nor is it subject to an easement as part of during these community input meetings. There was community request for the police department to look more into security aspects of these pathways. So subsequently, the Alameda Police Department staff who are certified in what's called crime prevention through environmental design, affectionately known as Supt, had conducted a thorough assessment of all six pathways using the September criteria and issued report that's included in your packet. This information helped inform our recommendation in response, also in questions at the meeting of the City Attorney's Office after the public input process concluded, conducted further title analysis to clarify boundaries, ownership and other property rights, and also did further analysis by the risk manager. So all of this information also with meetings with the public information officer, planning and building and Transportation Department, City Attorney's Department, Risk Managers, department, police department, all of those staff in these aspects informed this recommendation before you tonight. In addition, the Recreation and Parks Commission supported the staff recommendation at its June 13th meeting, as it appears to as presented to you tonight. So jumping into the recommendations before you, this is just the overview of all six pathways that have been analyzed on pathway A the first pathway. It's on fern side near High Street. It is the recommendation is to leave it open as a viewing area to the water in its current condition with minimal improvements in the short term. If you've walked it, this is a very narrow and winding path, very decorative, very easy to walk by if you don't really know it's there . It's not in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, ADA Due to its grade and its width, it's fairly steep. It goes up and then down and ends you on essentially the back deck of the house there. The feasibility study consultants concluded there would be at least $750,000 to do improvements to get it to ADA compliance. And really it's a high number because it requires significant grading, significant amounts of retaining walls and earthwork, especially because the houses on either side have access to two, two front and side doors directly from the pathway. So what the recommendation is, again, is to leave it as a viewing area to the water in the short term to install a fencing that's 35 feet wide at the water's edge in a cone or funnel shape back to the ten foot easement to also add safety, lighting and address to the landscape there for safety. The September guidelines for landscape is that you trim bushes up. So the I'm sorry, trim trees up. So there's a three foot view clearance and trim bushes down to three feet. So you can see over them. It's essentially creating sightlines for as people walk down the path, they can see what's toward the end. And as police are driving by, they can have a better view corridor down. So longer term, we would include this pathway in the design work of the overall pathway design project and we would seek funding through grants, but it would be the last priority for funding overall for this project. Pathway B is located at four inside below. Art and Mona Vista Avenue. This also is recommended to be improved as a viewing area to the water with the 30 foot 435 foot wide at water's edge. You can see it in the blue lines here with the cone shaped back. It's about 30 feet back to the ten foot wide public easement and each of these 30 foot wide cones. The intention really is to create landscaping on each side. I kind of think of it as defensible landscape. And actually, I think that's a I think that's a term the police chief came up with. Be it thorny bushes, things like that. So you sort of have it because with residential so close, you want to create something that softens the edge there. So creates a more pleasant viewing area, but also discourages people from heading the direction they're not supposed to go toward residential. It would also include, you know, benches, trash and recycling and other potential amenities that would be designed for a water public viewing area. Pathway C is recommended to be vacated to vacate the easement. There are significant safety concerns that staff has for this pathway. I'm going to show you photos in just a second. But essentially the risk manager went down here and had had significant liability concerns because you're having the pathway open, encourages pedestrians with a blind walk up to where cars are backing out in a tight location. And what I'm going to do, skip ahead for a second, because what I did here is took this is as if you're walking down the pathway. So starting on top left is basically at street side and then you start walking closer and you have this tall hedge to the side which is on private property. So that's the owner's right to have that heads. There's nothing we can do about it. If you keep walking closer, top left again to top, right, bottom right and bottom right is where you just start seeing the driveways to your right. So if you can imagine, you have, you know, a kid on a school bike, whatever, and you're encouraging them to come down this pathway. It takes a while because of the blindness of this hedge before you can actually even see the cars that might already be pulling out of the driveway. And it's not until you're at this point where you actually see the cars coming out of the driveway or the parking garage. Plus you can see the driveway on the other side. It's been this pathway has been compared to, well, what about in park parking lots or what about in long driveways? And I really see the difference is when you're, say, the Lincoln Park driveway, if you're a pedestrian walking down the driveway, first of all, you know you're in a driveway. Secondly, you're walking parallel to where the cars are coming versus walking straight down a pathway and a cars coming out perpendicular to you unexpectedly. So one option, though, that I wanted to offer up that's not in the staff report because it just came to my attention a couple of days ago. We had an onsite meeting with Bccdc as well as some other staff. One option would be for a deed in vacating the easement to create a restriction so that there is the owners have to maintain a view corridor and that could look a lot of different ways. But essentially it would be mean that the owners could put up a gate, for example, but maybe it is only a three foot gate so that you still from street side can have a view corridor out to the the water. So that was something that could be considered. Pathway D This is a short drive and liberty. It's already a very well used public pathway. The recommendation is to improve it as a water viewing area and remove existing encroachments where you see the dotted line there on the on the on the photo is where there's an existing tall hedge and then a fence. And the recommendation is to remove those, put a fence that's pulled back closer to the edge of the existing public easement and open up that area for the public, which makes it approximately about a 40 foot, 45 foot wide public access area. We also recommend installing benches, rocks and logs for decorative seating, trash recycling. Also there you can kind of see it on this photo. There's a real rough lee poured concrete out at water's edge. Some folks think that some contractor years back just dumped some extra concrete out there like that's it looks that bad. So we would recommend removing that concrete, making it a better entry way to the water. We'd have to work with an architect in regards to sea level rise and all of that for all of these projects. But in this case, I think there's opportunities to make it in an informal access to the water for kayakers, canoes. Stand up paddleboarders. They're already using this point to access the water, and I think we can make it just an easier access for them. And without putting in a formal kayak launch, I'm recommending as part of this and the idea came up actually at the community meetings that the formal kayak launch and by formal I mean actual where there's parking and there's accessibility and there's actually a gangway to a kayak dock that kind of a more built up amenity. I'm recommending that be it to Water Park, which is at the base of the bay from Bridge. It's an existing park. There's existing parking. Rather than trying to squeeze a formal kayak launch into a local neighborhood, because a formal kayak launch really is going to draw people from all over the island. Whereas I think an informal kayak launch is something that the local neighbors can walk to and use, but then we can use an existing park for something that'll draw bigger crowds. In addition, just want to mention I did consult a local kayak operator as to where some of the best spots were on the island to launch. And he actually said to Water Park was one of his favorite spots to to launch. And I think that's an important point because he knows these waters. And also it's important to note that water park is closer to deep water. You can even see in this photo all of the mudflat there. So you'd have to if you're going to do a formal launch, you'd have to really get it out there pretty far . It's about 80 feet to deep water. Lastly, almost lastly, we have the pathway at East Shore Drive in Central Avenue. There's a pump station here as well. It's already pretty wide open. It's nicely landscaped. And so there really are no significant encroachments over the public access easement for the city to work through on this one. It's a really well-used pathway. And so we would recommend to keep it as public access to view the water and improve it with similar public amenities I've mentioned before. And then pathway F is it mires and as we've talked about, there's no city ownership and no city easement. So this will remain closed to the public. So next steps are that we would adjust the boundaries for next steps. One is to adjust the boundaries and we would survey the modified pathway boundaries to create new legal descriptions, sell the unused easement areas to the owners that are to the owners that are the underlying owners of the area. In the case of the fern side, those three pathways we would also sell the submerged land. There was submerged land that was put around people's docks as part of the tidal canal transfer. And these six owners have been waiting for this process before they could purchase their submerged land. So that would be bundled together. With this, we are will be recommending to keep the submerged land that extends out from the city easement under city easement, but allow existing docks to remain. But we can certainly put caveats that there's no future docks that can be built and added in that area. We also be recording easements with clear legal descriptions and clear statements of obligations such as city obligations to maintain these areas in an appropriate way. Lastly, we'll be implementing supported staff safety measures like fencing, lighting, landscape improvements and possibly surveillance cameras. So that's the boundary issue. And then we'll also be working on concurrently is engaging an architect to design all five pathways. Once we have a design, we'll need to submit for regional permits. As you know, we'll need to submit for the the Bccdc Army Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board. And so that permitting process for the public's knowledge takes generally at least a year. And then we would start construction once we have permits. And I just want to be clear that, you know, we have a little bit less than $1,000,000. Money goes fast. So what we'll have to do is prioritize funding based on uncertain improvements with the goal to get grants and other funding to eventually do all of the improvements. But as I mentioned before, that we'd be prioritizing on pathways B, D and E, so, you know, A, the one that's small and winding would be the last priority of the bunch. And that. My report, I'm happy to answer any questions. Do we have any clarifying questions from the Council before we go to public comment? Councilmember Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. So you mentioned existing docs, which would remain, but no new docs. What about maintenance? Because that was kind of a big issue with the whole tidal canal. Like, if somebody's doc needs to be repaired, are we going to allow them to repair that or. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we we haven't worked out all the details of the submerged land, but the goal really is to to to just like the other owners had, give them ownership of the land around the sorry around their existing docks. And once they have ownership of the submerged land around their existing docks, then then they can go do get the permits through the city for improvements. We didn't put any any restrictions on those property owners on, you know, adding a dock or anything. Like I said, I just want to make sure we don't have any issue. If somebody says, well, I'm repairing it, well, maybe they want to extend it two feet or, you know, replace every single plank with, you know, something recyclable instead of wood or whatever. I mean, I just wonder how we draw the line between what we consider new or improved versus what's considered repair and maintenance. Sure. The intention is not, and the details aren't all worked out, but the intention certainly is not to impede, repair and maintenance. The intention was that you have these viewing areas. We want to maintain views of the water. So certainly. So the restrictions would be more on if you have a dock that ends here, you can't extend it another ten feet this way that now impedes that now is in the city. So the easement of submerged land. Okay. Thank you. If you further maturity. I mean, I'll have something later. Okay. This mayor, this may not sway. Yeah, sir. Thank you very much. Very helpful staff report. Really happy to see us get to this point. So thank you for all the work you've done. Just two questions. So I know that the recommendation is to to release the easement on on pathway C, but what are the other options the city has beyond giving up public access to the waterfront in that location? The only other option staff has come up with. We can certainly do signage. Signage has limited capacity in terms of people actually looking at it. We see that in parks all the time. It does have some capacity in terms of kind of more legal coverage. There's also the option I mentioned in terms of putting a restriction on. So there's a view corridor. You know, we would have to look I haven't looked honestly in significant depth at other potential, you know, in terms of public works and May has knowledge about street safety and things like that, like ways to warn pedestrians. We'd have to come up with some pretty creative ways, given the blind view of how to warn pedestrians that a car is coming out. So I guess I'm wondering if there's possibly if that's not where the council wanted to go today. Is there a way for us to maintain our easement without actively improving it or actually encouraging the use of it at this point in time? I did my initial conversations with with legal counsel was that we could if we were going to maintain it but not do anything to it, we really should close it off and then simply maintain it. Because if we're not taking care of it, then that creates other issues. Okay. But within that case, we were essentially the property owner or whoever could use it. Well, while the city is not using the easement in a future time, the city decided to come back and say there's an easement there that we would like to use. That could be a did, I guess. I'm sorry, I don't to look at you and even. But I'm looking back and forth between you. And me, right? Yeah, absolutely. That would be. Yes, I believe so. That that would be an option. What we'd probably would need to do is put a gate beyond the driveways so they can easily access. But that's something we would need to work through with the neighbors. Okay. And then you mentioned the fact that we may not have enough money in the money from the sale of the properties to. Fix up the water park idea really hasn't nothing here. You're just saying we should do a doc or something? Right. I wouldn't fund it out of this. There's actually a a great funding source specifically for not for KAYAK launches through division of boating and waterways through the California Parks and Rec. And I've spoken to staff there and they actually don't get enough applications to even spend the money they have. So I'm happy to spend it. So I think there's other funding options for that. I'm offering it up because I know when we started this process there was a lot of interest and drive and energy behind a kayak dock and a kayak launch. And I'm offering this as an alternative for a more here's a better place, I think, to put a more formalized kayak launch. Right. And so for the folks who live, because there are a lot of people who live in this neighborhood who do have paddleboards, kayaks, canoes for somebody who wanted to get on the water. Right now, you can't go out at low tide because the mud is, you know, my texture. And it's kind of dangerous to walk there. I mean, you can actually get stuck. So in the current proposal, we would not you would still have that you can use. You can if you time it with the tide, you can use it. But if not, then kind of what's being called the informal access to the water. That's correct. It would still have to be timed at the tide. Okay. So but tonight we could decide to say we'd like to see something. I'm going to call it more formal, not necessarily designed, you know, in the in future plans, knowing that there's no money to do that today. Yeah, that's absolutely in your purview. But you know, did you ever hear that when you go first, I'll go back. But let me ask this question, though. We as a city weren't do we contemplating affirmatively encouraging activity like paddle boarding starting at the end of any one of these pathways? And I raise that because. I mean, are we going to like put notices that says paddle boarding is allowed or whatever? Yeah. I mean, well, so what it what's the and I'm actually raising that question because just if we're like potentially setting us up for some liability issues, I mean, I mean, there is a lot of mud out there when the when the tide is far away. And there, unfortunately, was several years ago a kid who got stuck in the mud and I think passed away. Granted, not on that side, but near the bird sanctuary. So I guess the question is, do our do are we contemplating actually affirmatively encouraging some kinds of active uses there or are we is it best to remain silent on that matter? So the intention was to essentially leave his existing condition, but make it just a little more appealing location and easier, slightly easier access, but not to put a big sign saying kayak launch, not to advertise it as a kayak launch, but there's informal kayak launch locations all over the island here that were places where people launch their kayaks and paddleboards that don't have a dock. It's all over the place. At their own risk, though. Yeah. Yeah. And just to tag on to that. Have you talked to the city attorney's office about the legal implications of doing it, too, at a park? Or if if we were to do a formal kayak launch? I don't see any legal implications with putting in a formalized kayak launch. I mean, we're putting in a kayak launch yet and small boat launch facility right now. So as long as you are. See, I didn't mean kayak. I meant paddle boarding. But, you know, maybe it's the same concept. But you're talking about it to water the more formal one. Mm hmm. Yeah. If you're putting in the formalized launch, it's got. It's it's has to conform and go through bccdc. And all of the regulatory permits has to be, you know, accessible. So at that point, it suffices to all of the safety and other standards that that we would need as a city. I know the city attorney's office has been working on this. I mean, certainly on the lease, in the easement aspect of it. Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. Shen? Sure. I think the way that, um, our community recreation staff is proposing to improve these park these pathways will likely reduce liability to the city because the city currently owns these easements. And to the extent that we can make them ADA accessible, remove hazards that will probably produce a positive benefit with respect to liability to the city in the long run. Okay. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions. And so to Ms. Wooldridge, if you know, what are the approximate sales costs of the remaining portions of the ball boats and submerged lands? So we haven't determined the final costs. However, we'll be basing them on the cost of the submerged land for the other parcels, which was $10,000 per parcel. And then it will be an additional fairly nominal cost for the land side for the vacating of the of the easement. It's considered non developable land and that's a pretty nominal cost. Okay. But some some revenue will be realized. Yes. And it will all go back into this project just as the sale of the other submerged lands did. You may have anticipated that next question, but I also emailed that earlier today. But what happens if, say, a property owner doesn't want to buy the submerged lands around their property? Well, for the submerged lands. Or the additional. Rights from. The bob out. Right. I think there's pretty high incentive for homeowners to purchase the submerged land because that's where their docks are and they're needing to to to do maintenance, to councilmember out his point regarding if they're not interested in the additional nominal fee for the vacating the easement on, say, those small areas on each side. I've talked it through with staff and really we think our best option at that point would be to put up a fence around what's the full city easement, but not open that whole area to the public. Still only open to the public. The area that we're proposing. For safety reasons. Okay. And then I think I heard you say that the city may install security cameras. This was certainly one of the recommendations excuse me, of the OC community policing. Crime prevention through environmental. Through environmental design, that one. So why wouldn't we just decide to do that? Because it's such a good deterrent. Yeah, I think it's certainly something that that can and should be done. Sometimes there's a sensitivity to putting in security cameras, but they would be something that would be on a 24, 48 hour loop and kind of similar to your nest cameras that people often have at home and in their front porches and would be targeted very specifically into the pathway and not near any neighborhoods. So I agree it's a good idea. Okay. Councilmember de SAC. So the idea is ten feet wide path. And then when you get to the water, kind of. Go out to 35 feet wide, which implies ten feet plus 12 and a half feet. 12 and a half feet. So what does the addition of 12 and a half feet to the right or 12 and a half feet to the left? What does the addition of that? Give to the ten feet with respect to the person. I mean, what's the theory behind? I mean, why not just leave it at ten feet? Because it seems to me not many people seem to actually partake in these areas. So if you just leave it at ten feet, it's still an area that person is going to enjoy. In the same way. I mean, they're just they're looking at the water and absorbing it. So I don't know. Is there a theory behind why 12 in this way, 12 and a half feet that way? Not to the specific amount, but the theory is to to see when you are at the water's edge, you don't feel quite so much in a tunnel. And it's just a more pleasant experience, especially if you put landscape on either side that it just feels a little more open once you get out to the water's edge and a little more pleasant. Sitting there rather than ten feet is pretty narrow. Once once you put in a bench that's six feet wide, you know, there's not much room to work within. So it was just to create a little bit more space. So you have room to put in a trashcan and a a bench and have and have a little bit of room for a nicer experience. Thank you. And Councilmember Vela. Um, so I was listening in and I think the mayor asked a few of the questions, a few of the questions that I had had about the legal liabilities around this, and also the decisions about what to have public access to versus decisions maybe to have take ownership or have the easement, but not grant access. Um, my, I know there was a lot that we looked into in terms of visibility and natural surveillance. How much was that aspect of, of, uh, the natural surveillance and the kind of the design of the built environment? How much was that factored in to staff recommendations in terms of what was put before us? Sorry, I'm not quite following that question there. There was in the in the staff report, one of the things that gets looked at or that was considered in terms of how we were creating access and and what was recommended was visibility. And one of the factors that was looked at was natural surveillance. So the design of the built environment that that allows for bidirectional visibility. Right. So the I mean, in regards to September guidelines and the existing built environment, it depends pathway to pathway, but it's really making sure that the landscape there's a visible corridor of above three feet above shrubs and, you know, three feet below trees. In terms of built environment. On Fern's side, there's much less vehicles visibility than you have at the two pathways on shore because you have this ten foot wide corridor. So in terms of that built environment, it is less, you know, police car stopping at the end is going to have less visibility all the way to the end than you would with a pathway that's 40 feet wide, 45 feet wide. That's where our goal is to, you know, put in things like surveillance cameras and lighting to hopefully help with the security at the end of those pathways. So to answer your question. Yes. And in terms of the the cameras and the lighting, obviously, that will will capture some of it. But I think that there's been some concerns about, you know, what to do when something's in progress as opposed to after the fact or investigating after the fact. Do we have a plan for how to actually make sure that enforcement occurs in real time so that we're not waiting for people to. He victims of a crime. You know, where police have this on their mental radar and as once we build it out more, that they'll still need to be driving by and walking it whenever possible. But it's similar to our parks. People shouldn't be well, you know, should not be there after dusk. It'll have similar hours. So we discourage people to be there after after dark or before dawn in terms of during daylight hours. You know, we encourage people to report, but it's it's similar to parks where we can't be everywhere. All the police can't be everywhere all at once. And so they do their best to to respond to calls when things are in progress. Anything further before we take public. Mr. Modi. Sorry, thank you. My colleagues comment. So I heard you say we can't be everywhere, anywhere. But I mean. Well, first of all, how many people do we know use these? Do we have some estimate on those on that number? I don't. I haven't we'd have to hire someone to be a counter to come out. And say and I guess, you know, if you if you're looking at a path and then it bulb's out 12 and a half feet, as my colleague mentioned, on each side. I mean, you really can't see what's going on in those 12 and a half feet. So I just wonder, you know, how much consideration we gave to keeping it at ten or some other number on what was it, B or A, you know, some other number that's less than 35, but not quite. Well, certainly the council can choose any width it would like. If you'd like to keep it at ten, we can absolutely do that. I agree that that's a more clear visual corridor. If it's just ten feet all the way to the water. Staff goal was to try and come up with a compromise really that that addressed the interest of quite a number of people that we saw in the surveys in the meeting who wanted us to open every single square foot of what's under the public easement and then the concerns of neighbors and others regarding safety. And so the recommendation is aimed to be a compromise, really, of the two. Because not I mean, not all of us live there and have to put up with some of the activity that goes on at the end of these parks. After hours, even though you're not supposed to be there, people are still there doing stuff that, you know, I wouldn't want my kid to see. Okay. So is that all the council comments for now? Then we have five public speakers and so we have five public speakers. So you can take up to 3 minutes. Don't feel you have to, but you have up to 3 minutes for Speaker. Bob Shannon, then Kevin Pad Wei, then Jeff Wasserman. Madam Mayor. Council members. I'm vice president of the. Will you be sure to speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you? My name is Bob Shannon, and I'm vice president of the Issuers Homeowners Association. I was also an active member on on Carp, going to all the task force meetings, talking about title rise as well as FEMA and other things that would affect the issuer neighborhood. And out of those conversations and doing all the studies, the issuer neighborhood is the number one neighborhood in Alameda that is supposed to be addressed for title rise out of the whole city. And our park, I think happens to be number four. And the reason I'm here is because the work that Amy did was was excellent. What their staff came up with was excellent. However, it was short sighted in the the embankments on on site D and E, site D is is going pretty park and river. And if you if I'm sorry you don't have the FEMA maps, but on the FEMA map, which would be the same access for water as title rise and whenever that happens. In fact, the theme of what could happen before or after title rise, it's a one in 100 year event. So it could happen this winter. But what happens is the water has access through those parks and the land on liberty, the house to the left and the three houses to the right allow water into the neighborhoods that affect 300 homes. And Lincoln Park has been reaching out to Central Avenue. So any work on that seawall is going to have to include what William's idea is, which is part of flood prevention and tidal rise. And the idea of spending any money on a seawall that should be done in conjunction with public works so as not to waste taxpayers money is critical in these projects. Access to the water is also important not to happen because it's only maybe 8 hours a day that there's even the availability of excuse me, ability to even touch the water because it's an estuary. The water goes out, comes back on a king tide and there's no mud there for hours. Even the Coast Guard has been stuck out there, out there in the rowboats and which our fire department had to come in and go out and rescue them. It's important to realize that even a little bit of access off of liberty or central will cause liabilities, lawsuits, danger to kids who don't understand the tide, the tides, how they come and go, how fast the water comes and goes, because that water actually comes in from the right side or the east or the south side to the north side. So it's important to realize that even on Central Avenue, the house to the left and central, the park on central will allow water into the neighborhoods. So we need to make sure that before anything is done to those seawalls that there that the rec department is working directly with the Williams team in public works to properly design a seawall that goes across the homes and the parks at both locations. Thank you, Mr. Shannon. Our next speaker. Is Kevin Pettway, then Jeff Wasserman, then Rob. Burke. Hello, you two. I wouldn't have recognized you. My children went to preschool with these gentlemen a long time ago. You're all grown up. Good evening, counsel. My name is Kevin Padua. I grew up in Alameda, and I'm a homeowner here in town. My brother Scott and I appear before you today in lieu of our mother ly Duleep Radway, whom this council spoke about in January. My mom was a resident of Alameda for 40 plus years in Love Island. She fundraised for the building of the new Alameda Library, volunteered in Alameda schools and other organizations within the city and would always pick up trash. She found when she was out and about in town, she genuinely cared for our island and the individuals in the community. One of my mom's favorite things about the island was the parks and open spaces that are accessible to nearby residents. She frequented a Jersey Park, Linkin Park and Crab Cove and was thrilled to see more open space being made available to the public. With the creation of Gene Sweeney, so much so that she kept newspaper clippings on her fridge of the progress of that park. Tragically, my mom was killed by an impaired driver this past Thanksgiving and her presence is missed every day. For the last two plus years of her life, my mom dedicated time to the shoreline access, as we're discussing here today, meeting with fellow residents and city officials. She felt very passionate about creating additional space for the public to enjoy Alameda Parks for something that brought joy to her life as she would frequently meditate, send positive vibes and just enjoy such a space so close to her home. She knew that Parks created joy in other people's lives, too, which led her to advocate for these forgotten rights of way to be used to their full public benefit as quiet, small and peaceful parts. When these front side accesses were finally open to the public and there was this condition, she visited them often and enjoyed the view . I've also visited Jackson's accesses many times and luckily I was able to share some visits there with my mom. Now, while I visit alone, I feel the calmness that these accesses bring in a breath of fresh air, bringing a style of parks to our neighborhood that is different from Lincoln and cruisy. So as I've shared with the Parks and Rec Commission, my brother, family, friends and myself, we'd like to donate three benches, one for each of the front side accesses so the public has a place to sit and enjoy. Just as my mom had always hoped. My brother and I recognize that the plans for these parks have not been finalized and we hope that these benches can be accommodated. On a quick side note, I know there was a lot of talk about pathway, see? We hope that the city doesn't vacate those easements. I imagine would be quite difficult to ever get future access to the shorefront and just wish that it's to the highest and best use for the public. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Jeff, thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. Wasserman. Come on up. Hi. Good evening, counsel. My name's Jeff Wasserman. I live on a short drive between Meyers and Anthony. All. Regrettably, the public access that used to existed and tonight was given back by the city to the homeowner years ago. So that doesn't exist. Now, unfortunately, we're learning that the one closer to me on Meyers is also doesn't belong to the city, has no legal right away and can't use and the public won't be able to access in the future, which I think is unfortunate, but that may well be the reality. That said, I'd like to advocate for as much as possible for keeping all of the other waterfront access as they were. They were designed and implemented for a purpose. The people that live along the water and I'm one of them, are very fortunate that we get to have waterfront access. But our neighbors, our friends and neighbors will live across the street on the other side of the shore, drive the other side of our inside. Those who live on Hanson and Central and Tunnel and a block or two away from the water have no access at all if this water, public waterfront access isn't protected. I've heard a lot tonight and sort of inferences by some of the council members. I know a number of the people who are going to speak after me because I've watched them in previous meetings raise this amazing specters of gloom and doom and crime and homeless encampments and zombie apocalypses. If we leave these waterfront access it open. And I can tell you, I've lived in an issue for 13 years. I walk my dog there regularly, I kayak and paddleboard regularly on the water side, and nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, not to make it the make it more obvious and is, but it is the short drive. And four inside are the whitest and richest neighborhoods in Alameda. And there is no crime where we are. There's very, very little crime and certainly no more crime than we have anywhere else in the city. And I think the other people that are going to speak tonight are going to keep raising the specter of this of this crime wave and this homeless encampment, the threat that's going to that's going to crash upon our community if we open up and leave these parks open for the public that they were designed for. There's a reason that these parks were designed and and should be left open. I do agree that the the kayak area could be at the nearby park in part because on East Short Drive, it's very tidal. And you'd have to make a very long excuse me, a very long dock out into the water to get past the mud and on unfurled side. It's not it's not as tidal because it's a because of the canal but because of some of the ADA concerns. There would be a fair amount of engineering that might need to be made in order to create waterfront access. So I like that idea. But I think unlike what Amy is suggesting, I think most of her suggestions are very, very good. Let's open up central. Let's open up liberty to the public, the people that use them. Moms, dads, kids go there on bikes. Parents take their kids in strollers. It's good people. That need to master. There. Before we go on to our next speaker, I would just note that we are all here to speak for yourself or maybe, you know, like two brothers get up together. We don't need to preview what we think other people will say. I'm just here to hear your own comments. So who's there next? Speaker from Ferguson, Dana Fisher. Mr. Barracks and the Ms.. Fisher. Hey. How you guys doing? Uh, so it's been, I think, three years and three different councils that we've been talking about this. So a few of you have seen a bunch of towns, some new. I'm not really going to address the past silliness. I have a lot to say about it. You guys know that I send you emails. I got receipts for the, you know, various things that happened there so that that stuff is real. But, you know, we've never been in favor of closing the walkway that we live adjacent to. We just want to make sure that is developed in a way that doesn't become a public nuisance, attract more so in the recommendation, uh, the 35 foot my ah one objective is that 35 foot is the 35 foot. I sent you guys an email, you know, whatever the number is, less than 35 feet. We're looking for something that has gives us a little more visibility down the walkway for the police officers, for people to come and check it out, not build in hiding spaces behind our houses for stuff to happen. If that's done with thorny bushes softening the edges, what director Wilbur is talking about, those kind of things. Yeah, we can talk about that stuff. So in general, the recommendation we're we're okay with it, but we just want to make sure that what we're putting in there doesn't cause more of an issue than what we already experience . In the last couple of things I want to say, our public information officer, Sir Henry is kick ass. Director Wooldridge is awesome and go is. Duly noted and Ms. Fisher. Good evening Counsel. I'm Donna Fisher. Full disclosure, I am on pathway C. Not at the moment. I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but I'm really only speaking not in totality, but to address a few of the council questions. And I thought this would be my opportunity. First one is on the liability and insurance issue that Amy brought up, and we have consulted with insurance advisors. Amy and Lisa are aware of that. And like the city's risk managers, we were informed that the city cannot cover us for a public park. It makes sense. And we have also then asked the city, please indemnify us via the same. Form that you would. Have us indemnify you if the tables were turned. Basically, I believe the answer is, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but the city self-insured and will cover you. But to us that's not indemnification. I want to point out we're the ones with the three garages we also have on our property in front of one of the garages that shows in Amy's picture a parking space slash driveway separate from the path parallel. So you could not possibly fence it off. Meaning on either side of the ten foot wide pathway, you could not put a fence to block off our parking space and garage because we wouldn't be able to get in at all . I mean, there's no way to fence off our property. I leave for work at four and I live to go rowing actually at four in the morning. Sorry, I'm retired now. I leave at four and five in the morning. I get up at four and I always now have to open the garage, slip out and make sure one of the late night party goers we're not talking homeless people. We're talking actually people you said you weren't doing things you wouldn't want your kids to do, but to make sure nobody is blocking it. I don't like walking out there alone in the dark. I like to get in my car, lock the doors and then open the garage. I've stopped doing that at five in the morning. So I do want to tell you the liability issue is real for us. It's parties. At the end of the dock we did or at the end of the pathway we did put in motion sensitive floodlights back there. We also have them at the garage, but we put them at the end. They go on several times a night. It's in my bedroom windows. I don't mind that it wakes me so much. I mind that someone's back there. It scares me. But one other thing I want to point out, because this has been the subject of some prior meetings, is about encroachments. I will tell you, in our case, it's important to note that all of the improvements have final, unconditional approved permits. They were all done before we actually purchased the property. And none of these are encroachment permits. They're total building permits, swimming pool permits, deck permits, gate permits, swimming pool requirements. So I want to end this with saying we have come a long ways. We all of us since 2016, when this first reappeared, after two prior times going back about 65 years. It's time now to bring it to closure. Thank you for listening. We hope to get good resolution. Thank you, Ms.. Fisher. It was our last public school year. Okay, so I will close public comment now and we will deliberate as a council. So who wants to go first? Councilmember Odie, I think I see your hands, which. I will go second. Okay. Well, I just wanted to quickly band on my comments about the 12 and a half feet to the right. 12 and a half feet to the left, and the ten feet in the middle. To me, it seems as though that whatever is at the wings should be less than ten feet. I don't know what the number is, nine feet or eight feet, because it's the center that is the place of attention, so to speak, of the person who's experiencing that area and whatever as to the left or whatever to the right is just an opportunity to kind of like. You know, move this way or that way. Whereas if you make it 12 and a half feet this way or 12 and a half feet this way, you're basically saying that that is a place of enjoyment that is equally to that or if not more so than the center. So. So to me. The edges can't be greater than the center width of ten feet. You know what? What the number is? Nine feet, eight feet, whatever. I don't know. So that's just kind of my observation. I think the most important observation for me is I see this as basically a neighborhood passive park where people are, you know, go there to enjoy the serenity that this has to offer. So we are not and I don't think we are, by the way, but we ought not to put any expectation that this will then trigger, you know, more of the city enjoyment of these areas. If people of the city, citizens of Alameda want to enjoy our waterfront, we've got many areas to enjoy our waterfront. But I think this is really for the residents who live out there. And I think actually the data bears that out. The data shows that, you know, there were those pie charts in the pie chart shows that, you know, people who responded online. On average, you know, they only went to the place one time a year. Well, it's not average. The median, the 5050 percentile person. If you calculate, if you do the math, you know, they would only go there one time a year. Now, the people who attended the workshops, you know, of course, they're going to you know, they're more active. And maybe there are residents who live closer by. They. Access any one of those parks no more than 1.9 or two times a year. So two times out of 365 days. So to me, that's kind of like quantitative expression that this is truly a neighborhood kind of place for and, you know, passive enjoyment. So so to me, when you add that observation with the first observation as to why the edges have to be less than the middle ten feet. Well, it's compliments that always supplements or whatever. So those are my two observations. The Passive Neighborhood Park and the edges should be subordinate to the middle. Ten feet. Thank you, Mr. De SAG, Mr. Councilman. Rudy. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks to the speakers who came out and everyone who worked hard on this. I think Donna mentioned we have come a long way on this. I mean, I remember back when we started there was you know, we were all the city was all righteous in their belief that we owned the property and people were going to start tearing stuff down. And I thought that was a little excessive and a little punitive. And I suggested that we take each of these individual parcels on a case by case basis. And I'm glad that that was done because we see, you know, that each of them will have a different solution. There's no cookie cutter one size fits all solution. So I appreciate all of the staff work that was done to get to that point. And Amy and Lisa, I think you also did a lot of work on that, too. I understand. So just quickly going through this, I mean, and path a, I mean, I, I think that's a good recommendation. You know, I'd like to see us get grants sooner rather than later if those are possible. That's kind of a winding hilling one. So whether the con is 35 or 30 or ten or eight or whatever, you really can't see it. So I mean, I'm pretty comfortable with a staff recommendation on that one. And B, you know, I do think we should cut it down from 35 feet to, you know, my colleagues said ten and now I think he's saying eight. But, you know, I'd be fine with ten. Could be convinced of some other number that's less than 35 on C it's kind of hard to tell based on the the drawing if you know some type of gate is is feasible like a wrought iron gate that still preserves the view. So I don't know if that's feasible, if it is. It'd be something to think about. But if it's not feasible based on the way the driveways are, then it's just not feasible. So. And then d any, you know, minor improvements that I think will enhance those. I spent a lot of time on that end of town last fall and I found these little areas very refreshing and a nice place to stop and take a break while I was meeting all the neighbors that lived out there. So I'd like to make sure they're still there next time I do that. So I am concerned. No, the whole reason they started was because people had deteriorating docks and there was an issue that they're built with permits without permit, bccdc blah, blah blah. So we decided to resolve it so people could upgrade and fix their facility. So I just want to make sure that we don't impede that by putting any undue restrictions on this, because we still want to make sure that, you know, those those structures are safe. So those are my comments. I'm supportive of pretty much everything I'd like to see B B, smaller, you know, perhaps back to ten feet. And I would like to see if feasible a gate on on C whose name. I'm sorry, just a view gate. Not like a entering and out gate like, like on Lincoln Park when we have that, that beautiful fence. And now Councilmember I mean Vice Mayor Knox way. Thank you. Can I ask a quick question? We're not voting or giving direction tonight on the on the water side parcels, correct? I mean, I know that that came up, but it's not noticed and that'll come back at another time, correct? Yeah. That's correct. Councilmember. I will I will save my comments on that later. So I would like to thank staff, you know, that this this this discussion started at the planning board when I was there. And I'm pleased to say I think we're ending up almost exactly where the planning board in that first meeting where we discussed these parcels, suggested it should not for the most part. You know, I think there have been I appreciate all the all the all the speakers, Kevin and Scott. You know, I met your mom through this process. She it turned out she'd been swimming with my mom, with my wife for years. And somehow they got talking about this and realized that there was this connection. So I'm really glad to see you here. And I've been thinking about a lot about her as well. You know, I. I think I agree that we can talk about the 35 feet and bring it down. But I think that the goal here is we have people paying $10,000 to access the water, to protect the access that they have to their water, at their house, at their houses. And for me, I come at this from a different I have what I think is a slightly different perspective, which is, you know, we have the opportunity to provide people in this neighborhood is, as Mr. Desai mentioned, as Councilmember de SAC mentioned, access to the water as well. People who don't who don't live on the water, I don't think it has to be called a gold plated and whatnot. I think benches and just a nice places is enough. But I think sitting on a bench that is one foot from a six foot fence and one foot on the other side from a six foot fence is not a very compelling place. And so, you know, I very much appreciate Director Orange's presentation and description of what she's thinking, whereby there are these wings, but they're actually planted so that they create kind of a sense of space, but they are also planted with thorny bushes and whatever else. You don't have people inhabiting that space. So whether that's, you know, a 30 foot wing or 25 foot wing or something like that, I think what we want is a space where just like at the end of Central and just like at the end of Lincoln Liberty, people feel like at certain times they would like to go and just spend some time and feel like it's a place where it really is a respite and whatever else. So I would encourage us not definitely not to go less than ten feet, but I think that we will be very disappointed with ourselves if we if we if we go down to ten feet, we're going to find out when that space opens that we've created an inhospitable space that was supposed to be a rest of it. You know, I personally believe that we should protect our public access to the water. We don't know what's going to happen in the future. I don't necessarily mean that we have to build it and what not. But I think that we are making a mistake that a decade from now or 15 years from now we will regret in giving up the easements, these easements along here. I mean, we're already talking about one that, you know, one that's disappeared down on East Shore, another one that everybody thought existed. It didn't. Right. And there's some disappointment around that. I think we should protect protect the easement. And I'm happy to say that that can be one of the last ones we look at, whether or not we want to do something, commit if we need to, that we're not going to do anything with it for a while. I would also like, you know, I hear about I hear the mudflats, but the water boat launches near the place where people have had problems in the mudflats. I mean, I, we live on an island and I think creating places for people who don't live on the water to access the water from their homes is a good thing. And I think we should not foreclose that idea at the at the Liberty spot. Again, I don't know that we have we don't have the funding to build something there. But I definitely think that we should keep open the idea that someday we might put in a boat launch so that we don't have to worry about the tide in that area. For people who want to walk down there with a big plastic kayak or a paddle board or whatever else. So I would encourage us to to to keep that open. And I'm not sure, again, if the water plan is actually on the council. I know it's a recommendation in here related to Pathway A, but it wasn't you know, I'm happy to support that as a recommendation as well as a separate one. But beyond that, I really I think the staff recommendations are great and I'm looking forward to supporting this moving forward. Thank you. Councilmember Vella. So I think that I want to thank staff and the community for all of the work on this. I think this has been a very much an evolving project and process and I think where everyone's learning more and more as we go through this exercise. That said, I want to make sure that what we do is done in a in a thoughtful way. And I think that there was a little more given in the presentation than I think was reflected necessarily in the in the staff report. And so I want to make sure that that's captured some way so that it's not just there was a comment made at council that this is what it's going to look like. I think we need to make sure that it's a little more clear in terms of what we're going to do relative to the landscaping and things like that, to make sure that that these are usable spaces. Because I think that that's ultimately the goal is to have a functional, usable, safe spaces for the public to enjoy. So I think that we maybe need to come up with kind of more clear direction about the landscaping to make it safer, that sort of thing. Or even just I think I think we've all we all appreciated Amy's comments on that. I think there's a way to capture that a little more in the direction that would be helpful, I think the other. Thing is that, you know, the the the bigger areas that we want to give water access. I do think to the vice mayor's point, we do want to preserve these. But I also think that we need to caution people who are using this. I, I grew up rowing on the estuary. I've seen people get stuck out there. I also think that some of these issues can be addressed with good signage that lets people know this is tidal. Be careful, enter at your own risk, that sort of thing. And that we design it in a way that's adaptive. So we are doing a lot of work on our on our seawalls. I'm sure Amy can work with Liam to address, you know, sea level rise in terms of pathway B, I think narrowing it, it seems like that's part of the plan as far as what Amy's. In terms of the usable space, I want to make sure that that we don't have kind of these areas that are hidden or places that just aren't going to be safe. I also go out for a lot of walks over the four month old at home. He's been making us walk about 5 to 6 miles a day. He likes to be outside. So we've been exploring the shoreline all over town. And I one of the things that I I've noticed, even with myself, is there's certain areas where where I'm not as comfortable going down just because once I get down there, I realize , oh, wait, there's, you know, somebody over here, one of, you know, doing different things that maybe make it feel a little less welcoming after that one time. I don't want somebody to have that experience where they go down one of these pathways and they go, I don't ever want to go back there again. I want these pathways to be inviting. And so I think we really need to hone in on the design for pathway, be a little more. I think that there's a way to kind of deal with that space a little more uniquely so that it's not just kind of 35 feet and whatever happens. I don't I don't necessarily want to narrow to ten feet. I don't think that that makes sense. That might be a little claustrophobic. And I think that there's a way to to design and landscape it so that it's not just kind of these open wings. Some of the comments that we've gotten from from folks in previous meetings were more around, you know, 18 feet, 20 feet of usable space and kind of making sure that the landscaping is a little tighter around those ends. So I think if we can do that for Pathway B, I'll feel a lot better about that. And then I want to make sure that we keep our options open for, for liberty and and make sure that we have plans that are going to allow for us to adaptively reuse on the water side if we need to in the future. Okay. So I thank you public and colleagues and city staff for all of the input. This is an item, an issue that we have looked at a number of times over the years. And it is another opportunity. Where or a. Situation where the council is called upon to achieve a balance of a lot of different competing interests. I will say that I am pleasantly surprised to hear neighbors who held some very strong views and come around to realizing that a compromise can be achieved. And I and I do just want to say to the Padre brothers that, of course, I knew your mom from the time we were you kids were all in preschool, and she was one of my stalwart volunteers when I co-chaired the library campaign. And you might or might not remember, she actually designed our float in the 4th of July parade one year. It was a bookworm and it was really cute and a lot of work. But anyway, so I and I, you know, I'm certain that we will find a place for those three benches that you all want to donate in her memory. I think that's just fitting. So I, I, I think so. The competing interests that we, we need to address are that these are public paths in public easements and rights of way. And we do need to keep our waterfront open to the public. We're an island. It shouldn't be a well-kept secret, and. We. Really try hard not to put one end of town against another. These do happen to be in the east end of town. But anyone you know, hopefully you get in your bike or hop in a bus and go explore different parts of town. But we also want to be respectful of the safety of the neighbors, safety of pass users. But I think that staff has done a really good job of striking that balance. And I tend to agree with the city manager's recommendation in the staff report where he says that he concurs with the recreation parks directors recommendations. I believe this is a difficult issue to work through and that the recreation parks director and others worked through to come back with the best possible solution solutions that meet the competing values facing the City Council. So I am prepared to support the and again, these are, as I understand it, design concepts. The next steps, as I understand, are that an architect would be brought in to actually design the paths. And I think that might be the time when the finer grained details like landscaping come into play and does this. Well, these plans go back to the planning board. What are what are the different steps in the approval process? Yeah, thanks for asking. I wanted to clarify that. So what we've done in past projects, what I've done in past projects is so that we're currently at the very high level, 30,000, 35,000 foot level. We would do what we call schematic design, developmental design with the architect first, where they come up with some, some design options for each of the different pathways that would go before the Recreation and Parks Commission and then would come to you before as council for final approval on the general design concepts. After that, we'd get into the the detailed designing and construction drawings. So you would have a chance to look at those details of landscape and exact width at water's edge and all of that before it's finalized. And not back to the planning board. I certainly can. It's not generally in the purview of the planning board. Not all park projects go to the planning board, but I'm more than happy to bring it. Okay. So yeah, I don't want to hold up the process unnecessarily, but I think for council there's there've been some differing opinions for instance about the width of the ball about I'm one who supports not narrowing them, but Vice Mayor, you want to chime in? I'd like to make a motion. Could I finish my sentence? Yeah. You have the first opportunity. Okay, so I. And maybe you will cover this, but again, I am I think a lot of time has been spent not only by staff, but also. With public outreach and we are never going to find that project that everybody is on board 100%. But hopefully we find that solution where we've listened to everybody and come to the best possible compromises. So with that. Vice Mayor. Sure. So I'd like to make a motion in its six parts. The first part is that we recommend that any wings in future designs. So the part that's beyond ten feet be planted with, I believe the term was defensive plants, but to keep people out of them. Right. So the idea is that the ten foot area is the place for people. Site A, we approve, site B, we approve, but shrink the cone from 35 to 24 feet. The idea being that at the end of the cone there's six feet for planting, but that allows for some space for planting as the cone narrows, as it gets back up to the ten foot length. So you're essentially of six feet on either side and then a ten foot lane site C that we maintain but not actively pursue the use of the easement site D that we approve the staff for. Can you repeat sorry? Yes. C would be to maintain, not to give up the easement. Not not to vacate. Okay. To go back to your second and third ones, I was saying I wasn't expecting quite so much detail. So go slow. The number two. Side approve as as as proposed by staff. Okay. Three site B approved as a as proposed, but with a 24 foot. Cohen That'd be ten. 12. So six, six, ten, six. So you'd have a six foot planting at the end? Ten sixes. 22 sorry. 77 so we could we could call it 22. Sorry. Yes, math clearly not working at this time of night sight. C would be maintaining the easement but not actively pursuing its use. Site D would be approved the staff recommendation but also identify the site for future onsite on water access. So just not for closing. This is on water access and site e would be approved the staff recommendation. I would ask staff a question and I appreciate the um, what was number six. Did you get that. You. Approve, say you approve. Okay. So my only concern about being quite specific about this specific footage in this area is going to be planted with defensive defensible plants or defensive plants, whatever they are before the architect has even had a chance to consider. I just I don't want to tie the hands of I think I understand the concept you're trying to get at. You want to make sure that it will only be put words in your mouth. I think what you're saying is that you want to make sure that areas that are out of direct sightline from the street are going to not be used. For. Ulterior purposes. So that's why you input things like defensive plants in know but I'm just wondering whether that's whether maybe the concept rather than the actual footage is specified. Well, the footage is specified in the staff recommendation. We're just changing 35 to 22. And I guess I was trying to find a place between eight feet and 35 feet that seemed to, you know, to just seem to come up with a space that probably is, you know, nice. I heard no no support for 35 and on the other side of you. So yeah. And I, I don't have architectural training, but I do think that you go out and look at a site and then do your design, but does anyone else want to? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So sorry. I mean, I could support almost all of this motion. I think if we're going to. If ten is too narrow, then I mean, 18, I'd be comfortable with voting on four for B C, I guess that kind of keeps it in limbo. I mean, my my whole thing is I think we need to get the title on these properties resolved, so we need to pick a number. I kind of agree with the mayor. I'm not sure if we need to design what pushes go where from this dais at this point. But you know, there can be a suggestion. I like the idea of keeping our options open on DH, so I appreciated that part of the motion also. I mean, see if we're keeping it closed. I mean, I'm not sure why we wouldn't just vacate it, but I mean, I could go either way on that one as long as we keep the view available for people. That's all I care about on that. Nancy. Thank you. Three other comments. Yeah. Councilmember de SAC. You know, in terms of. Pathway B, I'm in favor of having four, ten, four. In other words, eight. Now, I'm not altogether opposed to 24 because that was my my. Actually, that was the first thing I penned down, which 24 would be seven, ten, seven. But the reason why I support for ten four, which is 18 feet, is because. At the end of the day, we had a member of the voice of Alameda, a citizen, you know, bothers to not only email us that this is what he'd like, this is what do you think his family would like when he also attended the meeting? And, you know, there's something to be said for showing up. So for me, I'm okay with four, two and four. Frankly speaking, I think that for purposes of elegance, which is a word I will use one more time. I do believe if we're going to do four, ten four on pathway B, then we've got to do 410 four on pathway. That's just that's just my $0.02. Finally, I think in terms of Pathway C, um, you know, we just, we just have to vacate it. I think it's time to move on. I think there's been given plenty of reasons why we, we need to vacate it. Um, so I will accept staff's recommendation on that as well as on staff's recommendation as well as on pathway D and F. Um, so I. I don't think you were intending that as a substitute motion. I don't think you were taking it as such. Is that correct? I'd be happy to try for 20 feet, but I know that I am. Okay. So. And I'm just wondering whether we should be going through this pathway by pathway and if the city manager wants to chime in with any thoughts? No, he doesn't. But I just I'm hearing such different things from different people, and we've got to give our staff direction. And but again, remember that the schematic design will come back to us. But I mean, I guess we need to tell the architects. Okay. I'll wait for the conversation to end. Go ahead. If someone wants to speak, please do. I was just asking you a question. Okay. Councilmember Vela. I'm just wondering, it does seem like we have an agreement on several of these. If we could maybe move that portion of the motion and then continue deliberation on the. Okay, to my point. Let's start one by one and just go over and I think that we might be able to set aside the ones that we need to come back to. Okay. Okay. So starting with, uh, pathway. Well, actually, there's a table that helps us with that. I'll start by withdrawing my motion. Okay. I'll start fresh. Stand by. You might make a substitute one, but the summary report. Okay, everyone. Pathway A, this is the one that is not ADA compliant. Approximately $750,000 to make it ADA compliant. Recommendation is keeping it open to allow public viewing, but it would be our last priority for funding their agreement with that. Yes. Yeah. Okay. If we move approval and e because I think everybody said they approved. Gosh, do you mind if I just go through this? Just hear me. I don't want to jump around too much. I want to get through this list. Okay. Is there agreement on on pathway A, because we'll vote on it. But go ahead, Councilmember decide. My only concern is I don't think it should be 35 feet. I think if we're going to do something that's pathway B is something much south of that, then for purposes of elegance, you know, we should be the same. But, you know, people can vote the way they wish. So like a motion. Okay, let's can I have a motion and. Oh, yeah. And everyone, be sure you're speaking into your microphones. Okay. Do I have a motion on approving pathway, a per staff recommendation move. Approval pathway per the staff recommendation. I'm sorry I didn't finish what you're saying. It's it's a wholly different thing. It doesn't have the visibility issues, the pathway B has because of the Hill, etc.. I think we should maintain access to the water. Hey, do have a second? Second. All in favor. I that's three in favor I oppose. That's four in favor I oppose. Abstain. Okay. Pathway A is approved is recommended. That's a 4 to 1 vote. Okay. Pathway. Um. Okay. Pathway B this one. Uh, improve pathway is viewing area of the water modified bulb out to be cone shaped extends approximately 30 to 35 feet wide. It's what is engineering 210 at the pathway at viewing amenities such as benches, trash, recycle receptacles, uh, create safer configuration, improved visitor experience at safety improvements council. Vice Mayor, you had, you said of this one. I would move approval of site B as per recommended by staff with the one change of 35 feet to 20 feet. Okay. All right. And thoughts about that. That's actually a motion. So 35 to 25 feet, you're saying 2020. Okay. Councilmember de so given. Yeah, I'd like to offer an alternative motion simply again, just to honor the fact that the resident bothered to show up and, and email us and contact us to and just make it for 10th floor. Although I'm sure the resident would love they would be satisfied with five, ten, five or ten four is what we got in the email. Okay. Is there a second for that substitute motion? Sure. Okay. All in favor of councilmember deserves to understand what it is, but say it again. Recommendation except at the width. Making it for ten, four. Or 18 feet. 18 feet total. Okay. Okay. Um, we have a motion. A second. All in favor. I ah, vote in favor, I. Okay. Well, that's 3 to 2, so. Okay. So pathway B is narrowed from 35 feet wide to 80. 80. Where is it? 18 or 20? 18? 18. Right. Okay. Um. Okay. Pathway. See? Um. So, uh, this recommendation is to vacate the easement via a recorded document. Sell the vacated easement area to adjacent property owners. This is the site that has the driveways on either side. Counsel Uh, Councilmember Vela. Madam Mayor, I believe the Vice Mayor had previously made a motion which I was prepared to second, which would be to maintain and not vacate. I do hear what Councilmember Ody has said. I think that there's an opportunity for us to, um, do exactly what he's proposing, which is to allow for that, that public viewing of the area. But I also think that doing that doesn't necessitate that we vacate. And so I think that this allows us to, um, you know, adapt in the future should the need arise. Uh, and, and for that reason, I'd be willing to make the motion. Okay. So so that motion again is that the set to be maintained by the city but not vacated and notwithstanding the concerns about pedestrians and cars backing out? Well, I think we can we can work on those issues. I think I think exactly what we're I just don't want to. I think that we can address those issues while still maintaining these. How I'll second the motion so we can discuss it. Okay. Thank you. Ever motion a second? So can you can you amplify how you would how you would address those conflicts? So I'll say. I mean, she's looking at me. I'm not interrupting her. I got, you know, in my 43 seconds, we have places all around the city in which driveways back, garages back out directly over sidewalks, etc., that have very low visibility. I'm not compelled by the safety concern that is raised in this. At the end of the day, these things have existed for years and there have not been collisions that have happened. And I think that we can put some safety and safety things in there to make it easier. But I don't think the safety issue is, you know, we have people driving and walking through parking garages all the time. Like, I just I don't think the safety issue is is as great as has been raised. Okay. Other comments, Councilor? I guess my comment is if we're if we're not vacating the easement and there might be three votes for that, I would like to narrow the the cone on that one also, because we're narrowing the cone on the other one. We should narrow the cone on this one down to 18 off. So and I don't I don't have a problem with that. Okay. So that's an amended motion. And as the second day. Well, I will second that amendment. Okay. Uh, any other comments? Okay. Hearing no further comments. All in favor. I. I. Opposed. I oppose any others. Oppose. I'll vote yes. Okay. So the motion carries three to what do you. Where are you, Mr. Tantrum? A basic recommendation of vacating. Opposed, oppose. Okay, so the motion carries 3 to 2. Okay. Pathway D, this is the East Shore Drive at liberty. Uh, recommend expand with the public path. Make improvements for viewing the water stress, existing encroachments complete pathway fencing. Just existing fencing is needed currently use public pathways. Um. Expand width of pathway on southwestern side. You all have read this. Um. I'm of approval of the staff recommendation with the one addition that we identify this site for future on water access. I'll second that. Okay. There has been a motion in the second as as noted, amended and just amending the staff's recommendation all in favor. I. I was that unanimous? Yeah. Okay, that one passes five. Oh, okay. Pathway E, this is East Shore Drive at Central Avenue. Recommend improved public viewing area with amenities adjust fencing if needed. It's already well-used. Public pathway to the water include increased public amenities such as benches, picnic tables, trash, recycle receptacles. Motion move approval the staff recommendation for city. As is. Right as it's okay. Do have a second? Sure second. I was motion is second in discussion all in favor I any oppose abstain measure e passes unanimously. At a mayor. Yes. I'd like to have reconsideration of the the C just because I wanted to hear more what you your thoughts on it. Oh, um. And I think as. Opposed to you put in the majority so you can okay. B you need someone else to, um, don't you? Well, yeah. And you need three votes to reconsider. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll vote for that too. Okay. Um, you want to hear more from. Oh, I mean, I thought you were gonna vote yes, so I was just curious on. Oh, I didn't really hear your your not. Okay. She wanted a chance to convince me. Um. I, I'm kind of on the fence on this one, so. Okay, well, um, I would. I would go with the staff's recommendation on this. I have walked that path and I know that area. And, um, I respectfully disagree that it's analogous to walking across a driveway or walking through a parking garage because this is an area where and I think the photos were pretty clear that you could be walking along way up. Maybe you're a little kid. You didn't even realize that a car is about to come out. Um, it's just there, and there's driveways on both sides. And I. I do think that we should be opening up as much of the waterfront and these public access paths as we can. But I'm also a realist, and I just don't see a scenario. I mean, maybe, God forbid, an earthquake, you know, makes the houses tumble or something, but I don't want to see that. But those houses and those driveways and those garages are going to continue to be there. And they're very close to the pathways. And so and I listen to Councilmember Vella and I'm picturing her pushing her stroller or, you know, having that cute little baby in the snugly. And I want her to be safe just like anybody else who uses it. So that's why I mean, I love that we're doing this, but I just don't think this one is our best candidate, because I also am concerned with the safety of pedestrians or kids on tricycles or, you know, moms with babies, dads with babies, what have you. So that's my thought. Okay. Anybody wants to make another motion, I would entertain it or not. I would like to keep some type of view access. So I'll try a motion. Try a motion. I will motion to approve the staff recommendation but pursue somehow maintaining the view if feasible. Um. Yeah. Um. This, uh, council. Ms. Wooldridge, did you want to, uh. Um. Well, the city has an access easement. Do you want to. Do you have any thoughts about maintaining a view corridor or anyone or what city attorney's office want to come? I connected earlier with with Miss Maxwell and she looked it up today and it confirmed that we we can vacate the easement. So then we don't have liability and other issues, but put a restriction on so that we're still requiring a view corridor. Think of it as kind of air rights. Right. Like capture that correctly. This is Lisa maxwell from the city attorney's office back there. Okay. Can we please hear from Lisa. Coming up later? Yeah. Ms.. Maxwell. Sorry. I did. A little quick. Reset. Please talk right into the microphone. Sure. I did some research just that this afternoon. This microphone that. Yeah. Maybe introduce the concept and it is comparable to a covenant or a recorded easement. He would just record. A documentation, a. Document that basically covered the property that allowed us to limit folks from putting up a very tall fence or trees that block the view corridor or just prescribe some parameters so people could see straight down. So it doesn't sound too complicated. Thank you. Questions for Ms.. Maxwell. Does that does that satisfy you? Yes. Okay. So your motion again is. To approve the staff recommendation with that extra instruction to maintain the. Into the microphone. So I'm sorry. If I forgot. I know to. Just remember what it was. Yeah. What you just said to prove the staff recommendation with instructions to maintain the view. The Oak View corridor if you want to. Yeah. I'll second. This. Councilmember Vela, the motion has been moved and second in discussion. Councilmember Vela. Well, it's not. I just want to make clear that the staff recommendation is to completely vacate. And so what Ms.. Maxwell talked about was, you know, adopting a covenant. So I just want to be clear that it doesn't seem like we're completely vacating. We're actually still putting some sort of restrictions on the land. So my thinking would be we vacate the existing easement because it accomplishes different things than what we're now trying to accomplish and instead work with adjacent property owners to record against the property a easement that accomplishes the purposes we're currently discussing, which are to maintain the view. Okay, I get that. And Mr. Lovett. I'd recommend, if we do that, that we negotiate this alternative view corridor easement before you start the fire. Oh, yes. Good, good sequencing. Yes, exactly. It would be a condition. Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you for your both. Thank you. Thank you. So I believe I had a motion in a second. Okay. So any further discussion? May I have 0 seconds? Can I have you? May I'm just I'm not going to be supporting this because I don't think giving away public easements to what the water is the right thing. But also, I just want to call out, there's not much of a view here, so I don't think this is a very long, narrow tunnel. I just want to be careful that we're not really adding huge value. The view is when you get out to the end and we're removing that ability. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I write the motion on pathway C passes three to I was at 3 to 2. It was okay. And now we are on pathway f, which should be easy. I think the city has no rights to this pathway. The recommendation, no legal interest, no ownership, no easement. The recommendation is that pathway f remain closed. As a recommendation, so. We have to take action. Um. I think, I think the point was. Take us to. Do. Okay. Well, but we do we agree with. Okay. We're not going to get past it. So is that sufficient for. It might be helpful for the Council to just affirm staff's recommendation? I think. The move affirmation of steps recommendation on pathway. F. Okay. I have a motion to have a second. And sorry. Now I'm not understanding a. Second. Mr. Chen said. He said it would be helpful to have affirmation of staff's recommendation. So that's what we're voting on. But if I if we don't have legal. It's an affirmation that we don't have the ability to take action. Yeah. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I oppose abstain. I'm going to abstain. Okay. That was approved for a yes and one abstention. Okay. I think we have. Oh, you know, I have one question for Ms. Wooldridge before we close this one up. Are we going to need an increase in recreation Parks Department budget to cover additional maintenance? Because we're taking on maintenance of these pathways, as I understand it. That's correct. And I can't express how much I appreciate you think about maintenance. Well, we worry. About a lot of things. Right? I've preached it enough. We'll be bringing something back in the midyear. Thank you. All right. Okay. I think we've covered it right. Okay, everyone. Thank you. That was not easy, but thank you for getting through that. Item six C is close. We move on to six D. Introduction of ordinance amending the Elimination of Civil Code by adding Section 13 Dash 12 use and occupancy of damaged buildings and structures. Use of placard or signs to Chapter 13, Article one.

A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Robert Wexler, Hearing Examiner Case Number CWF-0149, from the findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law.

SeattleCityCouncil_10192020_Res 31974

Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31974. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Robert Wexler. Hearing Center Case Number CW f0149. Thank you. I'm moved to adopt resolution 31974. There a second. I can. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Council member. That's me. As the sponsor, I will address the item. This bill sets the time and place for a hearing on what appeal to the hearing examiners findings and recommendation report of the waterfront lead or local improvement district number 6751. This resolution sets the hearing of the appeal to January 5th, 2021, and the regularly scheduled Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. To meet the requirements of the quasi judicial rules. Council must take action this week via this resolution. And this is a mandatory procedural matter, and we have voted on this in the past. I recommend council confirm Resolution 31974. Second. Okay. Okay. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Salon? Yes. Strauss Yeah. Herbold? Yes. Lewis. Yes. Where else? You know, that's. Sarah, I. Peterson. Yes. Councilmember Suarez. Yes. Vote in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? That's the game you hear over there making comments. Slide show that. Oh, okay. So other business. Are there any other further business to come before the council? Okay. Well, I have some there's no objection. I will be excused from the October 26 city council meeting. Hearing no objection. I am excused for the October 26 council meeting. Okay, colleagues, this concludes the items on a business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, October 26 at two. But before you go, before we adjourn, we will return at 530 for our Metropolitan Park District Board meeting in which you are all board members for public comment, a public hearing. We're going to review two resolutions and have a presentation by superintendent basis again today. And with that, we are now joined. Thank you very much.

Consider Directing Staff to Re-establish the Economic Development Commission. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Continued from January 20, 2015]

AlamedaCC_01212015_2015-1271

Consider directing staff to reestablish the Economic Development Commission. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Madam. Okay. I'm having technical difficulties. What to do? I got checkerboards instead of my referral. Thank you for paper. Oh. Oh, thank you. This is better. Anyway. Been there. Done that. Given. The. Allen made a point to say, as a creator of jobs, given that we are still largely a bedroom community, dependent largely on residential property taxes for revenue, and given that I had a good experience and I think Council Member de Song and I started off at the same place on the Economic Development Commission that delivered a strategic plan to the city that had some successful outcomes, and particularly on Park Street. And given the future of. I would like this council to consider reestablishing the Economic Development Commission, and this would be in order to have a body that recommends policies and plans to the City Council for bringing businesses to Alameda and replacing jobs . When the Navy left Alameda Point. This body could work with current businesses and business associations to attract and retain businesses in Alameda. And could work and coordinate with regional efforts to grow the local economy and to increase almeida's commercial tax base of. Thus relieving some of the pressure off of residential tax base and perform economic development activities at the direction of the city council. These can be very specific activities and I was further intrigued with the agenda items from the last two meetings with Right Spirit, Right Speed that came to town. They actually make something. And they're renting a building that they have a lease with option to buy. And it's a cutting edge business and a green business. And I'm curious, because they chose to come here without the essentials that have been described in many reports of things that need to attract a business like that. And I'd like to know why and how we can repeat that. And I'd also like to know how VF Outdoor it chose Alameda. And how Penumbra before them chose Alameda. Again, absent of some of those things that have been said to be absolutely necessary to bring these well-paid technical jobs to Alameda. And in the past, that was part of the function of of the Economic Development Commission. And I don't know if council member de SAC had the experience, but I certainly did as the chair to accompany the then mayor, Ralph Pizarro, on calls to prospective businesses to bring to Alameda and other members of the commission had that opportunity and other members of the council had that opportunity. And there was a concerted effort. Following a strategic plan that the Economic Development Commission prepared and presented the Council for adoption. So I think the time is right for this and I hope my colleagues will support it. So I'd like to go to staff next week to share to share the history of this committee. Is that the. Commission? The commission. Would you like to? Madam Mayor, I'm sorry. I didn't recognize the. The question that you had asked me when I was going to provide you with was just this a little bit of background that this item did come on October 1st, 2013, back to the Council? It wasn't that long ago, and there was a whole set of discussions at that time about why the Commission it was recommended that the commission go away and and what should go in its place. And I'm not sure that this council, because it was not included in the package week and that's part of the referral process. Right. But to go so that you all are aware of what actually was presented to take its place and I think that the council should have an opportunity to discuss that because it wasn't that we would just eliminate the EDC, it was that something else, a more nimble process, take its place. And I think it would be helpful for the Council to have the benefit of that conversation with with economic development manager Dale Doan, who's, you know, who's more recent, who's just been with us now nine months and has really done a lot of legwork in on economic development in general as well as Debbie Porter. So I think it would probably be better to have that come back and we can talk about it. And I know the vice LG member Ashcraft also had met with staff member Doan. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. I did. And I also was I looked up the. The agenda item. I mean, that the previous council voted on this. A lot has happened since the Economic Development Commission was created. And I believe Mr. Matter City and Vice Mayor was one of the founders. I served on that commission too briefly before I went to the planning board. But as the staff report mentions, the the role of the Economic Development Commission was greatly reduced after we lost redevelopment money because that took away a lot of projects in the pipeline. Fortunately, some of them, like the theater, did get completed. But the the projects that the Economic Development Commission, their big projects were things like the Bayside Shopping Center, the historic Alameda Theater Cineplex and parking structure, Alameda Landing. And but by the time this council got around to eliminating voting to eliminate that particular commission in January of 2012 , the EDC had decided as a body to reduce its meetings to six times a year because they just weren't doing that much. There weren't that many projects coming to them. And in 2013, two of the four meetings by the time we got to October had already been canceled due to the limited number of agenda items. I even remember that a little bit when I was on the EDC and then in place of the EDC, because remember whenever we have a Border Commission, we have to have a staff member, staff it and a deputy city attorney attend the meetings and in the case of the Economic Development Department and Darrell Doan is our manager , there are 2.5 full time employees, including him. And so then to take them off of the work that they do, going out and recruiting and attracting businesses to prepare staff reports and staff meetings, I would question is, you know, maybe not the best use of their time, but what was brought up in their place, what was created in their place, and we've seen some good results in recent days. Recent years is the use of ad hoc committees and task forces. And we remember the Fiscal Sustainability Committee was one of them. And then more recently last year, I guess now it was 2013, the America's Cup Ad Hoc Committee. And in that case, it was chaired by a highly respected and effective CEO of a local company with committee members from the maritime community in Alameda who brought their expertize and personal connections to this project and also created was a Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel composed of high level Alameda Businesses and Business Association executives. This is a seven member panel. So it the and I guess maybe this is one that needs to still needs to be staff because we have a we have a new mayor. But the idea and I think this former damn used the term being nimble was important because they could draw from different specialties and had, whether it was life sciences, specialty beverages or the maritime industries. And there's examples of local executives who helped the city in those capacities. For example, at at Saint George Spirits, we have Lance Winters, the master distiller who helped bring Faction Brewing Brewery to Alameda. And by attracting some of this talent, we have been able to leverage that because these folks in business know others and that is how we got right speed to the table. And so what and I I'm mindful of the concern that we continue to attract attract and retain business in Alameda point though I continue to believe based on the evidence we've heard from the businesses out there, that our biggest challenge is not so much attracting businesses. It's keeping the ones we have with the failing infrastructure. We heard last night and we heard last month about phone lines, electricity, water, sewage failures. It's hard to keep businesses. I understand that we've got some really exciting tenants out there now, and I think I'd like the council. I would like to see us find a way to kind of introduce some of these great, exciting tenants that I'm always surprised. I've seen lists, but I just think, you know, a little more information would really excite you. However, what I'm also hearing from meeting with a number of them is. Hey, you know, we came out here, it was kind of the Wild West. We were up for an adventure. That was 12 years ago. We can't keep doing this. It's costing us money. We've got to. As much as we love Alameda and we see the potential, we can't wait forever with Penumbra. I know the CEO. I've been there on a number of occasions and I will tell you, their employees wish they had more amenities. That CEO, because he's a big fan of a burrito place on Lincoln Avenue near Paisanos. Don't worry, they're staying. They're not leaving. But he's enticed him to open a burrito place out at Panera, well, adjacent to Penumbra. So his people have a place to go for their lunch because they know this is a busy company and they don't have time to go off, you know, to the main island. I will say just about the penumbra lunch room. The only place you've seen more microwave ovens is maybe at a Best Buy because they have so many employees and they can't, you know, leave very often to go for lunch. I've been to a food truck summit once a year. They'll do a food truck event for their employees. But no people out there. If there were more amenities, they would like more amenities. It's part of the reason the Harbor Bay Business Park still isn't fully occupied, so I'm mindful of staff time. Maybe this is another conversation to have, but I think the reasons that the EDC was discontinued are still valid and there are other things we might look at doing, sort of revitalizing a commission that was was terminated. If the economic development part of the general fund is in need of updating, we could look at that. But I, I am very hesitant about reestablishing this committee at this time. Thanks. Yes. If I may add two quick points. There is also a very practical reason for disbanding that one commission. Our city staff attend regular monthly meetings of various business organizations, and it turned out that they were meeting regularly with the same people that they would occasionally try to schedule for the EDC. They were seeing each other regularly anyway. So we're trying to make it more efficient. I think this if I could ask the vice mayor, these four points you have here A through D, I think the issue is wanting to know that these tasks are being performed. How is it being done? Who's doing it? And I think if we can have Mr. Doan bring a report back to the Council. To discuss this and. Some of these other issues that may satisfy what you're looking for. So if you might consider perhaps just tabling this referral for now until you hear that report. I think I'm open to that. I did hear a litany of of issues that I think the commission could work on. And I think the reasons of. For the commission, at least in the past when it was active and and it was truly accomplishing things where it was it had direction from the council to work on specific things that the downtown plan for parks. Park Street before that the blighted shopping center at the Fruitvale Bridge, which turned into Bridge Side Center, was not a redevelopment project. It was a a blight remediation project. And the commission has sufficient work. And the the deficiencies, both at the point and of the deficiencies at Harbor Bay were it's a matter of retaining businesses. Business retention was a big a big part of that commission back in the nineties and the early 2000, when we went from Silicone Island to something else. And it was kind of boom and bust time. And and I think that was the. Redevelopment was a small part of it that was trying to grapple with that, that recruitment and retention portion as well. So I'm willing to table this pending that information of. But I'd like to preserve the ability to bring it back with more justification. This is not enough for the council. One member already. If I just had a few comments. Actually, I'm not quite ready to dismiss this idea. I mean, I think it's it has a lot of merit. And I think if we were to vote today, I would probably say, let's go ahead and find ways where we can have a productive economic development commission. Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought. Right speed. Weren't they attracted by. Another tenant out there at Alameda Point. And then Councilmember Ashcraft talked about the the burrito place, you know, was attracted by another another tenant at Alameda Point to relocate. So I mean, that's kind of what I would envision the Economic Development Commission doing is business people in Alameda working to attract other businesses. And, you know, it's worked. So I know there were some issues with it in the past, but, you know, I'd like to see if we can kind of overcome those issues and reconstitute the commission. And, you know, I know this is a very diverse, you know, council. I think if you look at, you know, our backgrounds, our supporters, where we live, you know, we all probably know different people. Maybe between all of us. We probably, you know, know almost everybody in Alameda. But, you know, one thing that I think may be helpful also is that, you know, each council member probably knows a business person that they think would be an ideal person to help, you know, cheerlead for Alameda and attract businesses to Alameda. And if if we do reconstitute this commission, I would like to see, you know, each council member at least have, you know, an appointment. Maybe the mayor gets three or five or whatever it turns out to be. But, you know, so we can share some of the resources that we have. And, you know, I'd be inclined to support this vice mayor if he went forward with it today. But, you know, I'll defer to you if you want to if you want to continue it to another day. Sorry. Do you want to? Well, I was going to ask through the through the chair, if I could just ask Councilmember Otoo, your question. Yes. Thank you. So what I heard you say about the ADC who were brought back could work as businesses, attracting other businesses. It's my understanding that that's what our Chamber of Commerce does. One of the functions that that they do and they're quite a broad based organization. And we. If many chambers of commerce, from what I understand, I still think, you know, I think it's a good idea. That we have one chamber of commerce, we have other companies. Businesses. Associations. Yes. I still think it's an idea worth considering. And you talked about redevelopment. The state actually did a replacement for redevelopment. Hopefully, we'll have a staff report on that soon. You know, I have our DS and and see if that can it can play a role in in some of these projects. But. I'm still supportive of your idea. Mr. Vice Mayor. Member Daisuke. Thank you. You know, for me, it's really a straightforward matter. A year and a half ago or so, we had established the Mayor's Economic Ad Hoc Economic Development Task Force. And on the night that we and his staff talked about it and established it. What excited me about that was. When I envisioned it, the names of the persons and the organizations that they represented. And the I mean, these were marquee organizations operating here in the city of Alameda. And what I envisioned was just what power, how powerful it would be to have a letter, I mean, from the mayor of Alameda and on the side of it indicating all the top flight businesses that are part of part of that task force. Because when it comes to attracting businesses to come to Alameda, I think that would be so. Impressive. The nature of the task force. To me, it's with actually the recent experience of Alameda in attracting businesses. For example, let's go back to write speed. Right. Speed was attracted to Alameda because they went to a conference in Healdsburg and at the conference in Healdsburg they met a person from Marconi last Google and that person they made Mr. Right interested in Alameda. So that is an indication of how networks personal contacts, the influence of such things. Even VF outdoors. I mean you know it was SRM making sure to do their due diligence in attracting the right businesses. That was a professional contact, to be sure. I mean, that's his job. But nonetheless, is is having the right people in the right networks. I kind of see the mayor's task force as as exactly that. I mean, if you can have on your letterhead someone that represents Wind River Intel, someone that represents Google slash McCartney, someone that represents the Oakland Raiders, I mean, these are national brand entities on your on your letterhead. That's powerful. And I think that's a model that we haven't built. I know Anne-Marie Gilmore was, you know, gung ho on that, and I think we need to continue that. So it's a model that I think we should continue. I hear what you're saying about the Economic Development Commission. But. I feel that we still need to give. That airs economic development as. And I'd like to I'd like to share. So I have the document that where this was the change occurred and and I really appreciate all of your comments but to share this, it said to create a mayor's economic development advisory panel composed of high level Alameda Business and Business Association executives. The purpose of the advisory panel would be to enhance the business climate of Alameda, business parks and commercial districts and support the growth of Alameda is identified commercial and industrial business clusters by providing both strategic policy and tactical business attraction and retention advice. The seven and it has a seven member panel would be appointed by the mayor to your terms and report to the City Council. In contrast to the EDC, the advisory panel would be a more flexible and informal structure with the city assessing this rich pool of experience and personal contacts by working with the advisors individually or in subgroups. And here it says that the advisory panel may officially convene once or twice per year, but it would be and there are differences in regards to an ad hoc committee and a commission in this, really. And that's something I, I support the I actually think this is progress. That's when this decision was made by the prior council. And I appreciate having the inside of the council members that were on the council when this decision was made. So and I'm not sure that other people knew that this conversation had or that this had been discussed. But I, I would agree with Member de Song in regards to this. And, and I don't know if we'd want to, you know, at this point what you would like to do. You'd want to have Mr. Doan come and speak with us about why this change was made. I, I think that we can all read why was change. I prefer a more formal and public process and I think a better plug in to the city. Um, I do think, though, that I don't want to. I want to table this for the moment. And come back with a I think, a more compelling argument. Because now I've heard the objections to it and. I don't think we need to take any more time at this point. We've had a we've had the issue heard. And I will come back with some additional information. And in regards to this, so it's my understanding that this is something that has been agreed upon. And we are we can move forward with this. Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. It is my understanding, yes. That this is something that. Hurts. My heart. So I in regards to this issue, it is something that I am proceeding with. And I and I really do think, you know, I'm looking forward to this. I think this is a good step moving forward. Do I need to make a motion to table? All right. So next item, actually, our regular agenda item. So we just I understand is we just completed the items from the last meeting, except for if I'm sorry, five, eight, five, eight. Yes. Which is the designation of a voting delegate and alternate for the League of California Cities. And do we need a motion to address that now? Because I'd like to move that up. That was something that was on the agenda at the last meeting, and it's something we really do need to. This one gets appointed by this, I understand, is by discussion of the council. It's not by my appointment with a vote of approval. And I want to share the League of California Cities. I was provided with a document about what it is. East Bay Division. But while the meetings are held, monthly media announcements in locations are sent to the representative. The designation of voting delegate at annual conference requires council motion, which is why we're here. The mission is to expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. And it's my understanding that the liaison had been council member TAM and the alternate had been council member de SAC. And at this point, as member TAM is no longer on our council, I would actually like to pass the comments to Member de SAC. So if he wanted to discuss any more about what it is and I personally, if you if you were interested would support this moving up and I don't know who else is interested in this, but if you could at least share what this is. Well. A-League. I was the city's representative also for the league to the league between in the years 2000, five, 2000. And I appreciated serving as alternate, which allowed me to attend meetings in Sacramento. The thing about the League of California Cities is that. As a group, the cities, through the various policymaking committees that they have actually influence major legislation. I'm a member of the Housing Community Development Subcommittee, and one of the things that that we really worked hard on was the massage parlor ordinance, because what many cities across California were concerned and that the state had basically taken over ways in which massage parlors are allowed to operate in locally. You would think that this should be a local decision, but this by state rule, they preempted that and this had been a concern over a number of years. But finally, when I started on the Policy Committee, members there had not only worked with state legislators, but they actually got the law changed so that the policymaking committees do have effect. So so being a member of a League of California Cities, I would certainly. I would like to. And you would like to continue as the liaison then as opposed to the alternative? Yes, you are. And I don't know. What else to say. I have a I was attending the East Bay League division meetings. Councilmember Tim and I and sometimes Councilmember de so great would come in those. Those are held at various you know, monthly meetings at various cities around the the East Bay. And I'd be happy to continue as that person representative of the East Bay League meetings. So I'm not sure what that is. If we could discuss this item first. I think that's a separate. Issue, not actually in what you were reading. But for this. But this is different. I think it is. I mean. Yeah, I'm sure it is. Because I wasn't. I would I would very much support. Councilmember de sag as being this the representative to a voting delegate for the league and this is on the state level. What I was saying is I just attend the more local ones. So we also need an alternate. My understanding for this one, we need a liaison and that would be member Dysart and then we need an alternate. Is anyone interested in being our alternate? That's something we need to decide tonight that we have to vote on. I just want to. Yes. Well, I got the. East Bay is. That's a different. Bigger cities. It's the League of California's Cities is bad division. But we we hear and we are informed of the pending legislation and we and various items and we, you know, go back to our cities a couple of times, Leon. And I would bring matters to the council, sometimes even to vote on or to get a letter from the city. But it is not the same as going to the statewide meetings and actually having a vote at the state league level. But no, it's the the more local version of the state league. I'm I'm sorry. That's the clarification. I think Linas served as both, so we kind of had one representative on the league. And I think the league is looking for an East Bay division representative and then the actual and and and they'll have a voting delegate for that one, too. And then the actual voting delegate for the actual conference itself is set. They give you a timeframe when they want you to take that motion and have you decide that person. But there is the overall arching decision of if you wanted to break it into two different representatives in the past, typically been one, you know, done both sides. So it's my understanding that we being asked to did you want to expand what I was told? Because I think that's contrary to what Steph told me. Oh. Right. So what you have to do here is is designate a voting delegate to represent the city of Alameda at their annual conference. That's in September, though. But with this. Well. So let's just make it straightforward then. And we'll iron out the East Bay matter when we can iron it out. But maybe. Or the voting delegate because that's what that's the question on the floor. That's what I want. To make a motion to. So. Nominate. So before so actually staff talk to me about needing something and it's my staff. So I want to make sure we're doing what we need to get done. And the East Bay, that I think is actually separate from how it was explained to me. If you could tell. Okay. So and we remember dates. As far as I'm aware we don't need to a council vote to. Have representative attend the East Bay meetings. Okay, so they're. Reading something different. Yeah. City clerk. Yeah. Well, the reason why this was brought up is the East Bay. The East Bay division actually got in touch asking who the voting delegate is. So they consider one in the same person. This is what I'm thinking. That's what I tried to explain earlier, and I'm sorry if I wasn't terribly clear, but they were looking for who the voting new voting delegate would be and to serve it, I think because. Because I do know that we have these dinner meetings, which I've been also there's a Mayors East Bay something also. Business Conference County. But there's dinner meetings that are like monthly that that I'm invited to is that there is one that I think council has to vote on. It's my understanding and that's. According to that email. It's the East Bay division of the league, not the state. And the next meeting is the 29th. Right. But they're looking who specifically who the voting delegate was because the voting delegate had left. And I mean, that's why I'm trying to read it. And that's for the annual conference. So I think that's why I'm saying I think it was always one in the same person. I don't think it has ever broken into two people. I'm sorry that sometimes. Well, Lina Councilmember Tamara. I would attend together. I think the reason they may want to know who the voting delegate is now, even though the conference isn't until May or until September, is that there are often these emails that we get about pending legislation and they may just want to, you know, I mean, very understandably keep us up to date on what the issues are, because all through the year, they do a very good job of keeping in touch with the council. So, yes, I guess. Well, what. If we did this? What I again, I'm more than happy to serve as the voting delegate. What and if we do that, what if we continue the practice? The way the way in which you had worked with Lina will be the way in which we and you and I work together. And I would add that. I'm going to want a role in the East Bay Park and the East Bay issue. We can work that out, but I think that. We should actually keep it separate. I wanted. Clarification. And then if they're going to have to wait, should we. Bring this back? So, you know, we need to decide this. And it's my understanding we need to vote for this voting delegate for the League of California Cities. And the way it was presented to me was we had a liaison and an alternate. Okay, so can I read me the exact email and maybe it'll help? They were they're going to be having an election of executive committee members at the January 29th East Bay Division meeting. So in order to be, I think, on the executive committee, you would have to be a voting delegate. And and so that's why they needed the information so that in case the city's voting delegate ends up on an executive committee. A. Okay. So I guess the question is, is the executive committee of the East Bay Cities separate from being a member to the east to the East Bay, bigger cities. Because. All right. So is this the one that goes to the meetings that are held monthly then? So at this point, I would I would like to make a motion to nominate Member de SAC as the liaison. The member Ashcraft as the alternate. Any comments? All those in favor. I and I will make sure to maintain the release the way that you had worked with. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. Now. Yeah. And we'll. We'll do better in the future on that. I'm sure we're learning. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, we have for a which is actually I'm coming from the school board here in the past. On the school board, when we welcome new members, we would have a workshop where we would talk about our vision, our mission protocol, the just really an open workshop, welcoming the members and then including myself and then allowing us to

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing; Adopt resolution approving and certifying the Environmental Impact Report Addendum (EIRA-05-20) to the previously certified Midtown Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015031034);

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0082

Thank you. That concludes consent counter. We have two hearings, as you hear them. Item number 11. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing. Adopt resolution approving and certifying the Environmental Impact Addendum. Declare ordinance approving a zone change on nine lots located at 2012245 West Pacific Coast Highway and 1827 Pacific Avenue. An An ordinance approving zoning code amendment to the Midtown specific plan read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District six. I'd like to think. So, but I'll let the. Here and go out and start stuff. Like to introduce Christopher Coons, the deputy development services director for this item. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, vice mayor and members of the council. This evening we're talking about an important housing project in the Sixth Council District. And it's also important because this is our first project brought forward pursuant to the land use element that was approved by the council back in 2019. So with that introduction, I'm going to hand it over to Patricia Defender, who is our planning bureau manager, and she will guide you through the presentation and take any questions. Good evening, Mayor and council members Patricia deepened over here. So this project, as Christopher noted, is a project located at 201 Pacific Coast Highway. I. The proposal is for a zone change and a zoning code amendment. This project was heard before the Planning Commission on November 5th of last year. At that time, the Planning Commission approved a site plan review for a new, new five storey buildings with 138 units, a mixed use project and a lot merger of nine lots into two separate lots. So at that time, they approved. They took those actions to approve the site plan review and the lot merger. And they also took an action to recommend that the city council approve a zone change, which I'm going to tell you more about, and also to approve zoning code amendments to expand the boundary of the Midtown specific plan. And that would be an expansion to one block west of the current boundary of Pacific Avenue. This is the site here in question at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific. And you can see that the colored area on the map is the proposed extension zone change area and boundary extension area. This map here shows you the existing zoning. You can see from the map on the on the right that the zoning is a combination. The site currently consists of zoning. That is a combination of C, H.W. K and R2. And the first two zones are commercial zones that do not allow any residential use uses. And the second, the last of the zones that are two one is a low density residential zone. Important to note here, as Christopher mentioned, this is one of the first projects or the first project coming in using taking advantage of the newly adopted land use element. The proposed zone change would go from. Sorry. The proposed the general plan land use element identifies this area as what's called Tod Yellow, a transit oriented district low. This place type encourages mixed use projects that mix commercial industrial uses. It encourages a development pattern that's designed to foster a pedestrian friendly and invite environment and encourage transit use. And it also encourages transition so that larger scale developments transition and step down to smaller scale developments that may be existing. The current zone being that it does not allow mixed use and each of those those zones allow only single use are inconsistent with the toddler place type. And as a result, you know, this is one of the reasons why this zone change is an appropriate zone change for this property. The general plan land use element map additionally permits seven stories at this location as you can see on the on the map shown here. The subject location is identified also in the U.S. as a major area of change and as seen on the map and as shown on the inset map on the slide, and is described as an area where transit oriented development is anticipated, given its location on a major bus corridor and its proximity to the airline station at PCH and Long Beach Boulevard. This slide here shows photos of the existing condition at the subject location. The photos are looking north at the north side of PCH and west of Pacific Avenue. The subject locations and under-used site largely vacant or occupied by surface parking. It also contains a longstanding vacant building. The site has been a nuisance attractor and contributes to blighted conditions in the area as shown particularly on the bottom photo there. The fenced off vacant lot. This slide shows the location of the proposed zone change. So the zone change would be to the Midtown specific plan, transit node low. That is the zone and it is a mixed use zone that is consistent with the Todd Low general plan place type and would be extended west to the subject site . To apply the zone. The Midtown specific plan would be extended to the subject site, as you can see here on the map. Consistent with the general plan. The table shows the consistency of the proposed specific plan, transit node, low zone with the Todd Allawi place type. So you can see the general plan identifies this area for mixed use at seven stories. The zone is a mixed use zone that allows five stories, and the project as proposed is a five story project. So this slide shows the general plan goals of the zone change helps to implement and is consistent with so it for there's a number of different general plan goals and accommodate strategic growth and change. It encourages degraded and abandoned buildings and properties to transition to more productive uses and it diversifies and the housing opportunities and provides new opportunities for housing that is located on corridors and near transit. Likewise, the zone that is proposed better aligns the zoning of the parcels with the goals of the top low place type. It facilitates the construction of mixed use development consisting of commercial and residential uses, and it facilitates construction of new housing consistent with state laws, including Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. And finally, it facilitates the citywide rezoning efforts to bring the zoning into alignment with the new land use element. The city is currently undertaking a systematic geographic rezoning program citywide to bring consistency between the general plan and the zoning. And this request in the meantime, is consistent with that effort to rezone in a manner that that does implement the general plan. Just a quick note on, you know, state law, this particular in particular this bill. Senate Bill 330 was passed in recognition of the current housing prices. The proposed zone change facilitates construction of new housing units consistent with this bill, which gives substantial weight to the general plan and essentially says that when the general plan, the zoning differ, the city is required to apply the objective zoning standards that are consistent with the general plan. Just very quickly, I wanted to kind of run through some of the benefits of this project and what this project does. It increases housing. It increases opportunities for access to shopping and services it will replace, as proposed the current grocery store, which is located on the site. It creates an active pedestrian environment with ground floor commercial uses and an activity to pursue. It promotes walking, biking and the use of public transit and reducing number of vehicle trips, which is something that the general plan aims to do. It replaces underutilized surface parking with new commercial opportunities. It reduces building massing adjacent to low scale residential uses by stepping down in height. And it improves safety in the area by creating eyes on the street. The this as I noted previously, the planning commission did approve site plan review for this project that's contingent on this zone change in the zoning code amendment. Just wanted to show a rendering here of the project. This is the front facade or elevation of the project that would be facing Pacific Coast Highway. This is another rendering that shows how the building steps down to a existing low scale residential use that is directly to the north of the project. So you can see that the building steps down to a height of as low as 19 feet as it approaches the single that the single storey residential uses to the north. This slide just summarizes some of the public comments. There was a significant amount of public comments at the time of the commission and some of those issues related to height and compatibility of the project to the to the neighboring development. In terms of noticing or pardon me, an addendum to the Midtown specific planning. I r was prepared for this project in accordance with sequa and it was duly noticed in accordance with the municipal code requirements and notices were mailed to owners and tenants and site was posted in publication in the newspaper as required by the code. So in closing the City Council, the recommendation is that City Council from approve an addendum to the Midtown specific plan IIR. They did approve his own change from the existing zoning to the Midtown specific plan transit node lo district and approve a zone text amendment to the Midtown specific plan to reflect the expansion of the boundary to the subject area. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Council and the Mayor might have. Thank you. Well, thank you for that. Let me first close out that part of the hearing. I don't believe there's any public comment for this hearing. Mr. Roberts. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. That's not true that you do have public comment on this hearing. So let me go ahead and have the court call the public comment and then we'll go back to Councilwoman Sorrell. So public comment, please. Mr. Mayor, this is Mike Brooks. Before we call public comment, just a reminder. We're going to need three separate votes. On this action. The first one is a resolution certifying the EIA and then a separate vote on each of the two orders and. Forward. Thank you. Well, we'll do that. Thank you. Madam Clerk, public comment. Our first speaker is John Dike's. Thank you, Mayor. City Council. I am the project manager for the project and we have been working on this for three years now and we're proud of the project presented to you. Architecturally, we think it's a significant move in that area and. We think it's going to make a big difference in helping the continued progress of that corridor, especially that Pacific PCH corridor. So those are the only comments I have. Other than we thank you for bringing this to council and we appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rebecca Davis. Rebecca Davis. Our next speaker is Todd Loomis. Hi, this is Todd Lemons from Pacific six, along with John Bendis. We also are pretty excited to get this corridor up and up and optimized. You probably know our company, Pacific Six, we are we're doing the Breakers Hotel and the Ocean Center Building where we re recently negotiated to be the developer on this project. We're a Long Beach developer and we're really eager to connect with the neighbors and members of the community. And since we just recently signed on, we really haven't had a chance to do that yet, but we certainly plan to and are very excited to do that. And as with all of our projects, we are certainly committed to build a great project and and we believe that the project will be a real asset to the community. Thanks very much. Thank you. Your next speaker is Rebecca Davis. Rebecca Davis. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I'm turn it over to Montoro. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank all of the residents and many people who care about the current market. That's right there. It's a high personal market. And I appreciate Mr. Lim is calling in as well to introduce himself as the new property owner. I just wanted to share that, you know, the owner wanted to make a public comment but wasn't able to do so. But I just wanted to make sure that I hear that those who that he's been serving the community during this pandemic, as you know, essential business has been providing groceries as almost kind of a little bit like a bodega in the neighborhood. Right. And so I know that he has expressed a lot of concern, as well as many who shops at his market, and that I want to make sure that he knows and many other knows that I'm committed to working with council members and danger as well, since we have, you know, residents that are just right neighbor that that are neighboring residents of this market and that we're committed to working together to ensure that we work with Mr. Specific six and anybody as well as residents to proceed in a way where we can continue to communicate about this development and this project as we proceed forward and just want to make sure that, you know. That it is. We have new owners that that's how I would like to proceed and appreciate all the comments and concern people have shared and looking forward to hearing the discussion and conversation with everybody. Thank you so much. And that I motion to I don't know if we have to have a motion for a hearing, but I do want to express that. I do want to support this project and that it's bringing housing and affordable housing into our neighborhood and meanwhile, wanting to address many of the other public comments, concern that was provided in the slideshow. Thank you so much. Well, thank. Thank you. That's a motion for the hearing to approve. Can I get a second on the motion, please? Set in by Councilwoman Allen. Any comments? Councilwoman Allen? Councilman Allen, any comments? I do not have any comment. Customers and day has. Think, Mayor, I just want to say how grateful I am to Councilmember Sorrell for her partnership and her willingness to to involve me and my residents in this project. I am super excited about this project going up. I think it's going to going to be fantastic for District six, but not only for District six, but for District one as well as we are the neighboring district and we share a lot of the things across PCH. So and I also want to thank all of the residents that have gotten involved in in this project and that have been concerned. I know that it has been a great concern for us to see the displacement of a wonderful grocery store that has been providing affordable food for our our residents, both in the sixth District and in the first District. And I want to thank Mr. Kell for all that he has done. You know, up until now, providing our residents with with not only great food, but also being a staple in the community and serving our first district residents as well. I'm very excited that Pacific Six has come on. I know that they have great partnerships with the community and I know it hasn't been like that in the past couple of months and that the community has felt that they were left out from participating in this in this exciting project. So I just want to say how encouraged I am by Bay and Pacific six coming into this project. I think that they're going to be fantastic and that our community is going to absolutely benefit from having them. I think that, you know, it's it's really hard for my residents and the residents of the sixth District to see our El Bassano market be this place. But I know that, you know, working with Councilmember Sorrell and working with Pacific Six, I'm hoping that we can provide some some good, good guidance and and maybe hopefully come up with another. I know that there's going to be an additional grocery store there. So I hope that it is tailored to our to our neighborhood. And I did have a question. When we send out notifications of projects, are those are those notifications also sent out in Spanish for the neighboring communities to understand what's going on? So Councilmember. Our. Notices typically include the bulk of a text is in English and then there is portions of the notices in other languages. And then on a case by case basis, we obviously have projects and locations where there's a lot more need for Spanish language. So when we have a meeting on those particular projects, we staff accordingly and have staff able to conduct that meeting in Spanish. When we do specialized outreach, we provide additional notification in Spanish, but the legal notice is provided in English with text at the end of the end of the notice that in Spanish and provides the option for the individual to request a translation. This is an area where the department, prior to COVID, was doing a lot of examination and looking to update our noticing and to to better multilingual our notices. That's a project that's on the shelf that as as COVID abates and we get back to staffing we can return to. So to answer your question, the notice is primarily done in English, but we do supplemental in situations. Where Spanish is helpful. Okay. And obviously it would, you know, in this area would be Spanish. And my so I thank you for that and for looking into that. And I thank you for for hopefully getting back to it. I think it's going to be important with other projects that may come along. And I know that there's a lot of development going on, so that's going to be very important moving forward. So I just want to say thank you to all of my residents that have been submitting comments and letting their their opinions be heard and also those that have continuously called my office and who have partnered also with with District six. And I think this is going to be a really good project for for the city, but especially for District six and District one. And I look forward to supporting this site. And thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I think that concludes when we check here the council comment. We have a motion in a second. Let's do a roll call. Vote, please. District one, i. District two. I. District three. District four. I. District five i. District six. District six. I District seven. I District eight. District nine. My motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. We are hearing item 12, please. We have two more votes for that item there. You're absolutely right. Let's take that second vote and then call the third one after.

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, and City Attorney, or designee, to review questions regarding a proposed Long Beach ordinance to enact rent control, a rent board and eviction limitations and report back to city council on April 17, 2018 with responses.

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0272

Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. I mean. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 15, please. Item 15 is communications from council members. Subpoena. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Mango. Councilman Andrew's recommendation to require city manager and city attorney to review questions regarding a proposed Long Beach ordinance to enact rent control and report back to City Council on April 17, 2018. Councilmember Super Now. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to my council colleagues for signing onto this item. My comments are going to be very brief, and I'd like to ask my colleagues to keep their commentary to a minimum. We are coming off of two back to back meetings where we went past midnight and I think would be great to avoid a three peat tonight. Actually, I have to get Pat Riley credit. I think he has the trademark on that term. 3 p.m.. The other reason for brevity is the specific nature of this agenda item. It is simply a request for an informational report on a proposed ballot initiative. Unlike our last two lengthy items, the Louie and the Values Act. This item does not involve a council policy decision. It is simply a request for information. The request is for the city manager and city attorney to report back to us on April 17th, which is with as much detail as possible in that time frame. Finally, I would like to ask my councilor colleagues to agree to restricting public comment to a minute and a half per speaker. This is not an attempt to abridge anyone's First Amendment right. It's quite the opposite. With 3 hours of public comment during our last two council meetings, many people informed us they did not have a chance to speak because they were unable to wait the length of time necessary. Therefore, the abbreviated time for each speaker should give everyone a chance to share his or her comments. Councilmember Andrews. Wait until that day. Okay. He wants to defer. Okay. So we're going to line up and call for public comment at this time and I'm going to acknowledge the requests. Let me let me see how many people are lined up here. Yes. Just a moment before you begin. Okay. Clearly there is a lot of interest in speaking. So I will that translators will get double. We always do that. You'll absolutely get that. So we're going to we're going to respect the request so that everyone gets an opportunity to speak. So let's queue up 90 seconds and we'll have our first speaker. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. My address is on record. I'm here on behalf of rental property owners, investors, people that care about this community. They have cared for a very long time. I want to thank the mayor and the council for being supportive of not supporting rent control. Thank you all for being on the record of saying no to rent control. And as councilman super nice said. And I'll do it faster than 90 seconds, Darryl. I'm asking this council to support a very straightforward item. Get the rental property owner our community back as fast as you can. The investors as fast you can. The answers to these questions. We need these answers so that we can explain. To everybody in Long Beach why this is bad policy. I encourage you to support this tonight. I encourage you to have a coming back April 17th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Vice Mayor and City Council. My name is Anthony. Anthony Walker. I'm the managing broker of Buckingham Investments. I'm a local real estate broker and a housing provider. Well, I think we can all agree that improving the supply of affordable housing in our city needs to be a top priority. We must understand that rent control is not the answer. There are numerous examples within our own state and country that demonstrate rent controls, damaging effect, and not only the real estate industry, but also the very people that seeks to aid my business and the business of my clients is to provide clean, safe and in the vast majority of cases, affordable housing to the residents of this city. We are the opposite of the proverbial slumlords. This ordinance will immediately cease virtually all reinvestment into our existing renter communities, as landlords will have no incentive to improve our housing stock. The quality of living conditions will decline. Vacancies in rent control units are likely to rent only to the tenants with the highest incomes and credit, removing opportunity from those with the most need. The economic effect on our city must also be considered. Rent control would severely damaged the real estate industry and all related businesses in Long Beach, which make up a huge component of our local economy. The number of different skilled jobs required to sit for the sale finance, operation, maintenance, construction and management of our housing stock is immense. All of these workers risk unemployment as our market stagnates under rent control. Let us heed the warnings of our neighbors experience and the overwhelming agreement of economic economists on both sides of the political spectrum. Rent control will destroy what progress Long Beach has achieved in the 21st century. Thank you for your time. No. Mr. Lurch. Just a moment. Just a moment, Mr. Lawrence, before you begin. I know this is a sensitive issue, and there are very excited individuals on both sides. But respectfully, I would ask, do not hiss while anyone's speaking one way or the other so that we can conduct a very respectful meeting here. So just please show this respect in this moment. Thank you. Please. My name is Val Lerche, former vice mayor of the city. Before being on the city council, I had another life. For 30 years, I manage multiple family housing. Well, I'm active duty. I manage the facilities at base Petaluma. After leaving the. Military, I manage real estate for both profit and nonprofit organization. I was the chair of the Long Beach. Housing Authority for five years. I was a Los Angeles County Housing Commissioner for seven years. During my career, I managed property from Seattle to the Mexican border from Kansas City to Houston, Texas. I believe I do have some knowledge of this firsthand. Those cities and jurisdictions that had. Rent control I observed over the years. Did not work. That intended to do. And the rest of the. Gentlemen told me, we've said before this city just approved a land use element plan, which is. Heavily based on use of. Rental properties and multiple use family units. Many investors will not invest in rent controlled areas except for low income investors who rental housing. And which is always. Subsidized by the government. Long Beach has the lowest. Vacancy in 30 years. So it is obvious to. Me the market is being is bearing the cost of housing. Finally, imagine you have started a clothing business. The city comes and tells you. Thank you, Mr. much. Thank you for your call and continue to finish your thought. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. My name is Perry Pineda. And I'm. Actually here to speak on behalf of my. Dad. He's 72 years old and he. Recently overexerting himself so he couldn't be. Here. My dad. Fled Cambodia and was harbored here in. Long Beach and he was very thankful for the freedoms he received. Here as opposed to. Communist control in Cambodia. And he was very thankful for the free education. He received here. As well as help with housing that he received here. Six years, he took advantage of that. Very, very thankful for it. And after six years, he was able to. Achieve the American dream. He went to school. Graduated from Long Beach City. College, and within that timeframe, he started. Working for the county. Los Angeles. And was able to purchase a house for us. Before that time, we were all renters, six people. In a one bedroom. We know what it is to be a renter. We know the. Struggles. Of, you know, making the rent and rent going up and trying to fit as. Many people as you can in one place so that you can. Save as much money as you can. We understand. That. And we haven't forgotten that. So. In everything that my dad has done with a single income. I appreciate. The hard. Work that he put. In. Having received. All the graces of Long Beach City in. America in general. And he has worked very hard and was able to buy. Well, then conclude your thought. But thank you. He was able to buy a property here in Mr. Andrews District, and that is his retirement. So I just don't want. Him to lose that. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. My name is George Panetta. And I just want to remind the mayor, city council, that our. Country is a capitalist. Country. It's not a socialist country. I know we have some representatives from some socialist group, and I would like to remind you of that. My parents, my. Father. Fled Cuba. Which is a communist country, which is a form of socialism. Is the sister or brother sister of socialism. My mother fled El Salvador because of the. Civil war there, and they were the communists trying to take over the country of El Salvador. They came to this country because of the freedoms and the opportunity that this country gave them, the freedom to purchase property, the freedom to rent their property at whatever price they wanted. If their prices were too high, then they would have to lower their prices. We live in a capitalist country. Where we have free market. Rent control is a form of socialism that does not work. And I'm sure. You will do your due diligence in. Looking at cities like San Francisco, New York. So some people. Call it Beverly Hills. What about Beverly? Beverly Hills rent control has worked there. None of us could afford to live in Beverly Hills. May I add those of you that are. For rent control and use. Beverly Hills as a support? But anyway. Again, I, I think that that the market, you know, rents if somebody wants to charge you know a lot. Of so. That's been 90 seconds thank you for your thank. You very much appreciate it. Well. Let's go with this. Hello. My name is John Angel. I was born and raised in Long Beach and I've been in the housing industry for 45 years. Recipients of this measure are not being means tested, means testing means an examination into the financial state of a person to determine eligibility for public assistance. This measure this measure steals money from landlords and gives it to persons that may very well not need it. Does not make sense to only help people that need help. There are people that need help. Let's help those people. Let's not help everybody that doesn't need help. You can have a tenant. There's more wealthy and have more assets and income than the landlord that's going to receive rent control. This is very bad for the community as landlords will slow maintenance and stop improving properties. Property managing real estate is very time consuming and costly. Existing tenants will never move and new tenants will pay more. With no supply of available housing. This is economic injustice for all at its peak. Thank you for your testimony. Mexican police. Mark Panetta is going to come at it from a different perspective. I own rental property and rent control areas as well as non rent control areas. And you know, at a high level, it just doesn't work. Rent control. Both economists on the left and the right agree that it doesn't work. When you have a relationship with a tenant under rent control, you have to be very unforgiving if they're late on the rent, whereas you might work more with a tenant that's a non rent control area, give them more time to pay, upgrade their kitchen, maybe put in some ground it in a rent control area, you extract the maximum and you put in the minimum. You know, that's just the way business works and it does change the relationship. Also, we heard about homeless the homeless crisis. I've housed six homeless veterans in rent control areas. I could not put one in a rent control here because just in case something doesn't work out, you have no way to to give notice to that tenant if it's causing a problem in that in that building. And we have a duty to keep a building safe for all of our tenants. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Next week, at least. Good evening, Council. Mayor Garcia. My name is Johnny Weir, and I'm the president of Better Housing for Long Beach. Oh, no boos. We do support review of this proposal, and I want to thank the council member that brought this to the forefront. I'm also here tonight representing my amazing tenants in District one, District two, District three, and District four. In fact, some of them are here tonight. Thank you for coming. If this ordinance is passed, those tenants will be displaced. And if housing affordability is the true bearer, there is countless research that rent control raises rents. Rent controlled cities have the highest rent in the country Santa monica highest in the nation. I would like every person here tonight when you leave here, the highest rate in the nation and you'll find they are all located in rent controlled cities. I cut this down to a minute. 300,000 people, renters over there we've vacated out of their apartments in New York when strict rent control laws came into place. So where did this tenants go of the 300,000 tenants go anyway? Stand up against rent control. Stand up. Thank you. Let's look at blues names. Pat Kennedy from Fifth District. Thank you, mayor and council members. I was here in 2005, 2006 talking about, you know, with the need for a housing trust fund. The city council passed a housing trust fund and said, we'll put $500,000 a year from the bed tax into the housing trust fund. But and the reason we did that was because people, homeless people are living in motels and contributing to the bed tax each year. However, there was a clause in there that said if available, and for some reason the city managers never found the money available for the housing trust fund. So we've never invested in a housing trust fund to build affordable housing. We haven't done inclusionary zoning. We haven't created linkage fees. So we have a city that's failed to provide leadership in terms of addressing this housing crisis. And it's not just the city. Obviously, the market has failed us also, if you look at the subprime mortgage. Couple of things I'd like to see if you're going to do some research. How many absentee landlords do we have in Long Beach? How many how many dollars from monthly rent end up in the local economy? And the final question is, what would be the increase in community safety if we stabilize rental communities? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next week, at least. A little Brian Matheson, resident of Long Beach. I read some very insightful comments on. The petition and now. Fully understand why rent control cities so huge declines in rental properties. But of all the pages of Byzantine rules and regulations, I found the introduction in Section two in the preamble the most damning. There are 15 subsections in Section two and only five offer bits of data to back up their imminent warning of doom. The other ten subsections appear to be made up and completely subjective. It doesn't seem right that unverified statements can be made without documentations and presented as fact. To their credit, they did use correct facts when they referenced the horrible housing problems in Los Angeles. But a laughable lapse of logic in the petition in Section two, A and B makes reference to the grave situation in housing in Los Angeles as a basis for bringing rent control to Long Beach. If there is a poster child for the ill effects of price fixing rent, it has got to. Be Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the city. You use to prove rent control does not work and makes the problem worse. Price fixing fair rent is the same as taking the wrong medicine and finding out the proposed cure is worse than the disease. So no matter the changes in the House, which you might consider to the petition, you still are price fixing. At the end of the day, you have a program that will turn away investors and developers. You will have a program that decreases property values for apartments as well as private homes, resulting in a decline in value forms. Going to the. Thank you. Sir, for your testimony. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Even honorable council members and mayor. My name is Fred Sutton. I'm with the California Apartment Association. We represent housing providers throughout California and here in Long Beach. I want to thank the council for bringing forth this item. I think reviewing questions on this topic is incredibly important because if it's implemented. It will affect every single resident and person in this city. Price controls and eviction restriction policies are commonly associated with Byzantine bureaucracy, onerous requirements and counterproductive outcomes. It is important that clarity is obtained on some of the details as it will help us cut through the rhetoric. Community members should not be pitted against each other as we seek to find clarity on issues of shared concern. We thank the council members and we urge you to support reviewing these questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. An honor to Mayor Garcia and the city council. My name is Sybil Baldwin, and I am here for rent control in Long Beach. I am a child development. Supervisor with a Long Beach Unified School District. And I just wanted to share the impact that Long Beach. Without rent control has. Affected our Long Beach Unified Schools and our child development centers. We have over 25 child development centers under Long Beach Unified School District. Where we have closures. Because our families are leaving, letting us know they can't afford to live in Long Beach. Our enrollment in our and our. Elementary schools and all of our schools. Are affected. By the fact that our. Families cannot afford to live in Long Beach. They have left and we have classrooms closing. And I'm just here to ask. For your support for rent control in Long Beach so that we can provide the educational opportunities for our early. Early childhood. Children all over Long Beach and in our schools. To make it affordable, to. Live in Long Beach and. To give us rights. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Very effective message in under 60 seconds, I might say. Thank you. Next speaker, please step away. And so the Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach. I'm going to be very quick here because unfortunately, apparently, Darryl, despite only contending counsel three times a week and not holding office hours, doesn't want to listen to all of us. The elements of a local housing crisis can be summed up as this affordability, supply and habitability. The supply issue was addressed best by the land use element. Affordability is a more complex issue given the parameters of capitalism. Rent control is just one tool used to address affordability by ensuring that the rents paid by the working poor who cannot buy but also do not receive assistance from the federal government, can stay inside the city less strict and therefore less effective. Tools for including the use of contractor development agreements are already being employed by the City of Long Beach and are not doing the job. The problem of habitability remains largely unaddressed by this council, but it remains a serious public health and equity issue. My questions are as follows What ever happened to the preemptive inspection program? Wait. Why is this council still being concerned about the marketability of the Long Beach housing stock? This myopia is at best helping heal local housing bubble and is at worst a sign that you're ignoring your primary responsibility as a council, protecting the rights of the residents and not property. We all know that the large percentage of the parasitic landlord class here have 714 area codes, and frankly, their return on their investment should do the last thing you are concerned about, especially given the fact that, unlike them, we actually vote on your on your elections. Where are the increased calls for housing inspectors are credibility poor can be directly tied to the massive cuts the city has made to the city of Long Beach's workforce. Without it put more housing inspectors to ensure the safety and health and safety of our residents, we again are at the mercy of the private sector doing that. Engage in a race to the bottom. Thank you. And finally, if they can't afford a fixer six, how. Come they have an excuse to please? Good evening. My name is Sandra Krall and I reside in the third district. Actually, I want to thank you for your foresight tonight in preparing so thoroughly for the coming of rent control. Collecting relevant information gets the city ready to act as soon as the measure is passed. And it can also help to dispel some of those scary scenarios that are already being spun by the opponents. And I sincerely believe that this measure will pass. I'm getting enthusiastic signers to the petitions in the north part of Long Beach, in the downtown area and on the east side. As a member of the faith community and a church that is on the east side, most of whose members are I won't say most, but a large number of our members are property owners. And they're eager, eager to sign these petitions even are the landlords in in the congregation, because these are the local landlords. They have relationships with their tenants. They treat them fairly. They want to keep their properties rented and at a rate where they can keep up their improvements on it, but also get a fair return on their investment. So I sincerely hope that you will. The agenda item tonight. Truly does. Yield the impartial data and clarification it claims to. Seek. Thank you for your testimony next week at this. Before I begin, I would like to point out I don't think that Council member Andrews is aware that he's blocking the view of the clerk from here. Thank you, sir. That's the problem. Yeah. Garry Sheldon, again, before you and I've already lost 20 seconds of time. All right, you get that. That you have seven pages of questions here. I hope we're not limited to those questions to be considered as this goes to the staff, for your information. The council has it's not a policy, at least an urge to have less than 60% of the city as renters and more than 40% as owners. Somehow to shift that that paradigm, to use that word again. That's going to take the changing of thousands, tens of thousands of units of housing from renting to owning. And there's only so many tools in the basket. One of those is condo conversions. And I don't know if we'll ever solve it through condo conversions, except for one thing. I think you're probably going to learn that this rent control ordinance could result in the loss of rental units. And what will those units become? They'll become owned units. And so what you've got here is the opportunity to ask staff to report to you if we get rent control, which would be a good thing if we're really honest about trying to convert renters to owners, then we need to know what is the quantity. That rent control could change that paradigm here in Long Beach. Are we going to get maybe 20,000 condo conversions, 50,000 condo conversions? So that's a question that isn't anywhere in this list which could back you up for voting for rent control. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is tonight Ken Faye from the sixth District. Oh, man, this is crazy. Well, I just had a guy come up here and somehow masquerade the right wing death squads in El Salvador who can't fight with Romero and say they're a socialist. I don't even I'm. I'm I'm I missed that part. And then I had another guy who, you know, I thought, this is. A city, you know, built by veterans. I had another guy live. He just said he would rent to veterans. Because, well, rent control. It would be kind of hard to get them out. But, you. Know. I mean, maybe I was. In the same same chambers. Anyways. As you can see, I'm an African-American. It's a beautiful thing. And I bring that up because as a part of the black community here in Long Beach. It is a declining one. 6037 people, according to the. US Census of African-American origins, left the city. Maybe that's because 73% of the black population in the city are renters, and with the fluctuation in rent prices, we are most impacted, going from 14% of the population of the city to now 12%. So being that as in May, we need rent control. We need rent. Control because we don't need to be. Evicted from our buildings for Airbnb. We don't need to be evicted for our buildings for people who want to have demographic change in particular neighborhoods in this city, we need rent control. Thank you. Thank you. Campaign next speaker, please. All right? Yeah. I hope we don't get extra time for the claps in the middle, so let's just keep the moving. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Peter Hart, and I want to give you a face for the mom and pop of the world that have invested in Long Beach. I believed in Long Beach. I came here from Chicago, but 30 years ago, and I chose Long Beach because I believed in this city. And I invested all of my life's work and earnings into a housing unit so that I could perhaps live a good life here in Long Beach and retire. If this goes through, it will be taken from me, period. I believe that this is the United States where we have a freedom of choice. This takes it away and it puts on the backs of people that did nothing wrong except invest in Long Beach to subsidize the all the social ills that we're facing today. As far as, you know, housing issues. So I just ask that we look at this in a clear way and don't put social injustice on the backs of people that have invested here in Long Beach. Thank you. As we speak, the police. Good evening. And thank. You, Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Johanna Cunningham. And the. Executive director for the. Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. Tonight, I would like to thank the City Council for their thoughtful approach. To taking time to review the questions that have been submitted regarding. The proposed rent control ordinance, the negative impact and burden that this ordinance will place on the city. Of Long Beach. On development, and on the small property owners, deserves to be explored. Many of our owners did invest many years ago, and the majority of them were. And. Still are the work force that this ordinance claims to protect. The workers, your workers, the Long Beach workers, teachers, nurses, maintenance, grocery, hotel, retail, bus drivers, etc. Each of our owners invested in this city and this industry as part of their retirement goals, goals that are now being threatened. We encourage you to be thoughtful about all, including small property owners, that will be impacted because even those who are relying on this income. To take them to their and to their retirement years. Will be impacted. So tonight, I'm asking that you vote in favor of reviewing these proposed questions. And thank you for your attention. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Josh Butler, executive director of housing Long Beach, and I am one of the proponents of this measure to bring rent control to the city of Long Beach. And I want to. Thank the council members for bringing this item forward. Thank you, Councilmember Supervisor, and thank you to Mr. Murchison and the landowner to help write this item. We think it's great for. Understanding that this is commonly referred to as a 9 to 1 to report. This is something that the Council is allowed to do. Elections Code Section 91 to states that quote during the circulation of the petition or before deciding to adopt the ordinance or put it on the ballot. The legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on such matters as fiscal impact, effects on consistency with the city's general and specific plan, effects on land use, impact on funding and infrastructure. So it is my understanding that you all have three options once we bring the signatures into once the city clerk certifies those signatures. Option one is you can place it on the ballot. Option two is you can make it law. Option three is to ask a set of questions under elections code, section. 9 to 1 two. So we thank you for initiating that this evening. And we look forward to all the questions that the council members. Have, and we can get that out of the way now so that when we turn the signatures in. We can move toward certification as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Act and act. Can we fight President of District One? I'm really fortunate in that I have subsidized housing. But every day I see the struggles for other seniors and people in our community. Who don't. Have nice landlords. There's a lot of profit being taken out of our community. The goal of landlords is to invest, to make money. A lot of landlords are coming into our community and that is their major goal. We're seeing it in the conversion of units to Airbnb. We're seeing it in the corporate landlords that are coming in. A lot of the landlords in our community are absentee landlords. I would really like. To add an inquiry. How many absentee landlords that we have? I think that's important for us to know. So we look forward to having an open, honest discussion about rent control and how this can really make our community inclusionary and engage in the equity process so that we can keep the valuable, valuable population that we have in our diversity and equity across the board. Thank you all. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Deena. I live in the second district. I'm an organizing member of the Long. Beach Tenants Union, and I'm here in support of the rent control ordinance, the proposed rent control ordinance. I'd like to thank you again for. Proposing these questions so that we can get the conversation started about rent control in our community. We have for decades understood that the relationship between landlord and tenant is one that requires regulations from our habitability habitability laws to our Fair Housing Act. These regulations have become an. Integral part of our political. System because we recognize that the. Skewed bargaining power in this relationship by the decisions of one landlord could determine the outcome of one or more people's lives is important. So this decision, the decisions that lenders make, can determine whether or not people have roofs over their heads, whether they can afford to pay for food and other necessities after paying for their rent, how many jobs. They need to work to make up the difference, and what their health outcomes will be. One of the other few places we see relationships with this power. That can have great impacts on someone's life. Is an employer and employee relationship. And in that case, we have extensively regulated those relationships to prevent an abuse of power and protect the most vulnerable party in that contractual relationship. And so additionally, we have seen a false narrative of mom and pop landlords as vulnerable stakeholders in this discussion, while ignoring the real. Estate speculators who are driving the housing crisis. The mom and pop landlords are, of course, guaranteed a fair return on. Their investment by law, even in rent regulating cities, and continue to make well above a fair return in such cities. For any economic decisions through the plight of small landlords allows. Critics to question rent control without addressing the prevalence of corporate real estate speculation. There are, in. Fact, corporate. Real estate speculators in San Francisco that profit extensively by converting. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you. Next week at least. Thanks to the city council and the vice mayor. My name is Catherine Cox. I'm speaking as a second district voter and a member of the renter majority in Long Beach. I want to address some of the misinformation I've seen and heard tonight. Number one, rent control is bad for everyone. This is patently false. Just as this housing crisis does not impact everyone equally, neither does rent control. Displacement overwhelmingly affects low income communities of color. And in the 13 California cities that have passed rent control, these measures have prevented low income tenants from being displaced as market rents rise. That's according to a study by the Urban Displacement Project. Number two, rent control raises rents. Landlords raise rents. If this were true, the real estate developers in the room would be out there collecting signatures with us. The housing crisis is caused by land and housing speculation. Rent control. One can't help these rising costs, but it can curb the devastating displacement. That we're seeing in Long Beach. Number three, landlords aren't responsible for rising rents and shouldn't be punished with rent control regulations. This is opposed to rent control isn't a punishment. It's a protection for vulnerable renters. We as a community should not. Have to bear the burden of displacement and neighborhood instability so that a single industry can profit unfettered by regulation. Displacement causes trauma to our communities, its neighbors, our neighbors from their families, homes, schools, places of. Worship and. Community services. I ask the City Council to support the. Voters as we move. For affordable. Housing. Just because eviction and other renter protections in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you for your. But the truth. Obviously I have no say on whether this goes on the ballot or not. I just want to dispel the stereotype, number one, that the landlords are all parasites trying to take advantage of their tenants. When I bought my four plex in 2004, I thought I was on Easy Street and I would be living free and clear for a long time. That's not the way it works. I don't know if you realize this, but the average housing stock in Long Beach is about the 1920s. Have you ever tried to take care of a building that was built in the 1920s? This is my stack of receipts from 2017. I had the same from 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 all the way back to 2004. I am very hard trying to take care of that building and in the meantime, my taxes. I don't know who said that they're only going up by 1%. But in 2015, 2016, according to Zillow, it was seven and a half. Part of the reason the prices are going up has nothing to do with landlords being greedy. It has to do with the fact that people like me over the last 14 years haven't been adding anything to the rent. And I'm sorry, but there's a point where we have to catch up. Otherwise the building will be sold and my tenants would be homeless because quite frankly, it's on 5000 feet of land. Somebody could do something better with it than I could. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. But evening, everyone. My name is is that Velez, and I am a resident of the First District. I am one of many affected by a 60 day notice. I stand here with all my neighbors and friends to fight for our rights. I'm currently pregnant and I have to move by me. I will be five months pregnant when? When they have to move. I have been exposed to chemicals of pain and risk. That was done by me, by the new owners. Beachfront properties took no consideration in the news. Notices that they were going to remodel our apartments due to the smell of paint and rose grinding. I have headaches and coughing and I cramp every once in a while. I have become good looking for places to live, but I have found nothing new. The area. I do not want to move because all my doctor's appointments have already been sent. I already have my hospital where I have my baby. I hope my representatives can make a difference not only in the life of my town, but the life of other children who are being pushed out and exposed to toxic chemicals due to the way these companies are operating. I hope these companies are held accountable for their actions. Thank you. Next, could you please? Well, my name is Paul Babcock. I live in the fifth District. I own a duplex rental in the first District. Purchased that through blood, sweat and tears. I'm trying to make a return on my unit. Rent still go down in 2008 when the economy crashed. I had already rent 300 a month. Per unit on the two units. I'm still at that. Same rent as the man said. Expenses are going up, taxes are going up. And I don't wish to. I understand the plight of some people, but I don't wish to have that solved on my back. Our expenses include monies that were invested to remodel our properties. We'd like to have that return recognized or that investment recognized and considered as an expense, unlike the measure that's in front of you is excluded and there are protections for eviction. It's under California state law. The city attorney is well aware of that. So hopefully that'll bring out the address, the notion that there's no protections for renters. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go to Bruce. My name is Teresa Alvarado. I've lived in Long Beach since 1954. My parents worked for the Unified School District, and I've lived and worked in Long Beach the majority of my life. I've been a renter and an owner, and I feel deeply rooted to Long Beach and a stakeholder in what happens. My husband, Paul, just spoke. We have a duplex. We never intended to become real estate moguls or be millionaires from from owning that property. But this ordinance, if it's passed, is unfair to small property owners. It's poorly written. It assumes that in 2016 and 2017, the base years, there was a fair rate of return. In our situation, we haven't raised rents in many years and so we barely, if at all, break even. And now in order to do improvements that are needed and to recover, we need to be able to raise the rents accordingly, not to gouge anybody, but to just get a fair return. So that we can protect our investment. The result of this passes. Is that we will be directly. Subsidizing our tenants who are not. Needy or not, for by. Any means it will come out of our pockets and we are retirees with fixed income. So please don't pass the ordinance as written. Thank you. Thank you. That's what the police. Hi there, Jodie in seventh District. I first want to dedicate this to the people who are working double shifts right now to pay their next rent payment and the rate increase. I would also like to acknowledge Carol Price and my wife who have brought this forth. We're very grateful. That this is being brought to us so that we can dispel some of the myths that you see here tonight. So let's get some numbers here right now. Let's talk about the Stanford University. Study on rent control that happened in. November of 2017. There were multiple rounds of publication circulation that ended up trying to frame. This as rent control is bad. But let's look at the numbers. So actually, when the study first came out in November 2017, there was a net $2.1 billion. Benefit to renters in San Francisco. And there were also benefits net to. The landlords at. The very worst. There was no effect on the rental. Market whatsoever in San Francisco, as studied at Stanford University, this is. NPR data. What's interesting to note is that the actual benefits for tenants were cited as $7.085. Billion, and that's based on. The fact that they were able to afford the. Rents, they were able to build what they were able to save that money. What's interesting about that number is that that is only for one specific year, 1994. They didn't count any renters before that or after that. So there are literally billions of dollars in benefits to tenants in wealth building. And the best part about this is that the study. Also concluded that landlords didn't end up feeling any harmful effects. They continued to get a fair return on their properties. So thank. You. Please review these photos very much. Next week piece. Hi. My name's Annie NC. I am from District one, Lena Gonzalez's district, and I don't even know where to start with one a minute and a half. Should I start talking about the gentrification that's happening in Long Beach with the help of Robert Garcia? Should I talk about how the homeless the homeless issue between properties as my neighbors are all here, just bombed my building. I've been living there for 17 years. I go to school, I work, I'm doing the best I can. I do the best I can. I haven't seen my dad in three weeks. Why? Because he's in his fifties. Because he had to get another job to pay for the rent increase they are renovating and all they're doing is painting. Why are you so afraid of rent controlled? Because it can exploit us now. Because we can't take those out. Don't. And let's just be clear. They go into neighborhoods, to poor neighborhoods. You you choose to buy poor apartments and then you paint it and you double the price. And then you're saying that you are investing in this. We pay your buildings, we put the money in your pockets and stop acting like you're doing us a favor. And also, I just wanted to say thank you. I was giving you don't forget, these people are going to work at three, five in the morning to pay. What are you guys going to your house? So you're like rich house. Was you rich pockets? These are working class people that you're kicking out. I know these are working class people. And we also vote. We are all looking into how we're going to vote for Robert Garcia for our representatives. And I hope Lena supports this because this is all your district. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Councilwoman Ms.. Gonzalez. Everybody else. I would like to start off by introducing myself. My name is Kimberly Navas. I was born and raised in Long Beach. I am currently living in District one. And I say currently because sadly I will have to leave my city soon. I have lived in Long Beach my entire life. Long Beach is home to my family and I. I have been living in the same apartment for 20 years and out of nowhere the owners of my building evicted. All its tenants. And now that my. Family have to look for a new place, we come to find out it's nearly impossible to stay in Long Beach due to such high rent. We need. Rent control. Long Beach is. Home and I have to leave because my family can't afford it. I went to. International Elementary, which is. Now Oropeza Elementary. I went to. Jefferson Middle School and I am second generation Long Beach. Wilson graduate. I had the opportunity to leave my city after graduating, but I decided there is no place like home. With the help of Long Beach Promise, I am currently a student at Long Beach City College. Just like you both, my goal is to graduate from Cal State Long Beach. But because of such high rent prices, I am forced to leave and relocate and pursue my education somewhere else. I have a younger sister who one day I wish to see graduating from Wilson High School and become the third generation. But because we no longer can afford our home, we might never see that day with the cost of rent and property management evicting their longtime tenants. People are deciding to leave Long Beach not because they want to, but because they are being forced to leave the city they know as home. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Good evening, my. I live in the eastern one. My name is Christina. Mine. I haven't lived for 26 years. I'm here because my family and 25 more families from our building are being picked to a beach from Hong Kong beachfront. And different companies like this are kicking people out for Long Beach. They are raising the rents. They not be to they can't afford to pay higher ends. This is our city. We love our city families. Ah, this is. Sorry. I'm so terribly sorry. Because they cannot for pay rent. It's so heartbreaking to see seniors crying. To see where I'm going to go sleep tomorrow. Because I don't have money to move because they. This is our city councilwoman, Lena Gonzalez. Mayor Robert Garcia, people like me who fought for you to represent us. We need your help. Your Latinos need your help. So please do something for us because we know we make the right decision to put you guys in there. So we still believe in you guys. Thank you. Thank you. And just a moment, please. That's just a moment before you begin. Mr. City Attorney. So I have a request from some people behind the dais. Can we just sort of highlight what the scope of this motion is tonight so people can speak to it? Certainly the motion this evening, as proposed by the council, is to refer a list, I think a six and a half page list of specific questions regarding the initiative ordinance that is currently being circulated. There is no action that the city council can take this evening either for or against rent control. This is strictly a request for information at this time. So just to be clear, this is, you know, there's no action, there's no ordinance before us for the city council to consider. I just want to make sure that that's out there clear. City council will not be taking an up or down vote tonight on a rent control ordinance. Just want to be clear. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cynthia. Jesus, and I live in the second district. Mayor Garcia, City Council members. My time's cut short, so I'm just get to the point. This poster is from 1979, and the title says People who can afford to live here should move someplace else. This was from the press telegram sent by president, member of the Lumbee City Council. Now there's a war going on in Long Beach. This war amounts to one big eviction notice for the elderly, the disabled, for people on fixed incomes, for minorities, for unemployed and underpaid working people of all races. Long Beach Master Plan calls for righting the city of individuals families that don't have a lot of money to spend. Instead, higher income consumers are being invited to frolic in a new landscape shopping malls, condominiums, racket clubs, Jacuzzis. This new landscape is evidence of a city economy geared to profits rather than humaneness. It's 2018, but yet we still have the same problem. So, I mean, it's time to wake up and do something about it. I know you guys are just listening and all. They're not going to vote, but at the end of the day, you guys do have the power to make your city better and make life not same easier, but make it comfortable for not only the family but the children that are going to be a future of Long Beach. Hopefully, if not, they're going to be in Kentucky or somewhere else where they can afford to rent. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Next week, Bruce. Translation of a chance. A sure thing. Let's double up the time for trying it for interpretation. Thank you for seeing. Me emulate this Haslemere. Giving up royal control the rent that it is a local who stole from me. I mean, it's a local news. The publisher for me, the originals. It's just on the condition it is lucky. Opposite a member of a mental institution because your. In my venue. I'm Sally Everest. You're another MIA for the popular Missy Variety apology album. What the hell? He was in our consolation parody. Mr. Strahovski up the near you several venues in Ethiopia under religious apartheid. Mr. Dunham, the Rwandan military see them there. Bill Gigaba, the M.C. Anton of Anthem. Ms.. De la Renta. No, it's important, I think. But when we dramatically opening up in circuit, we see who's psychology come anticipo zero mal your stupid portrait, Mrs. Adams. People forget the personal things. So, hello. My name is Letitia Duma. I come here to support rent control and just cause eviction. I was evicted unjustly for fighting for my rights. These are some of the conditions I was in, in my apartment. The ceiling fell on me. There were snakes that came out of the restroom. I wouldn't sleep because I had to take care of my children and this process. I had to pay for a motel to protect my. My, my children. I lost my two jobs because the owners would lie to me and tell me that they were going to do a fumigation , but they never did. I would pay thousands of dollars for electricity because they would rob my electricity from my building for other units. This is also recorded in the city. I would pay 975 for rent and the electricity bill was 8198. Everything I pass and the apartment and the light. Bill caused me to have stress. And some of my children have psychological problems due to this. It was it was a nightmare. And I found depression. I also got sick from my gallbladder. I had to have a surgery. And I also had to also is very stressed up to this day, my daughters and son, I can still find a place due to the fact that there. Is no. Housing available. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And let's look at this. When I started. Murray Anthony, Antonio, your up there controlled our entire brigade. We will not departamento they will not a camera. And this cannot allow to elaborate on what they want. One sec. West America is my manager gave me a camera, the Departamento de Medici in the Gambia, but still getting Occupy out of me. This and on the power of mercy internment they single and your customers? We are on Siendo la. This is mutual case. They are not neutral animal person. Hello, my name is my Antonia. And my. Goal is have been no monopoly or control. I come to us for rent control together. Rent handling department didn't have a camera because. I rent a11 bedroom apartment. And the parliamentary looks cannot allow they have labor is not what the UN do. I want them to remain. In the room with my daughter. There's the ceiling is leaking. If the baby Armani had to make. I'm going to the parliamentary committee. I ask the manager to move me to another unit, but they're charging me 1200 a year. Get them in control. You're not trabaho e look at your thing. All the little guy. Your circle is at your tratando competition director. And I would like for there to be rent control due to the fact that I don't not work and I just survive half of what I make. Because I'm a young single with a mother Mexican. And if I try to move again just to get a new apartment, it's going to there aren't going to be a dozen, 100. It with billable, hardworking man. Okay. You are not going to see some of those times that people will control the rent. And I ask you to support the people as they ask for rent control. And I. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, the first thing when I'm not. Just the number of hassles, but I want you, we will see that. Yes, there's a street in law. Ultimately, my mother is real macabre, though. There's a lot of things so center the Esperanza responsibility e is move pocket the ample estate loans would be must also mammoth anesthetizing little of owners i.e. local school of permanent purpose plastic was over. But I'm. Okay. My name is this Bravo. I live on 10th and theater district one he looking. Good. Thing. Daniel he's he's been living there for 20 years and recently he received a 60 day notice to move out. The beachfront properties have started to do their renovations in which they started painting and covering the windows. While he's been living there. He was left of a no no center. No the island. But a limping. He. You place the fiscal in control of parliament and at the empl. It was when. He said that with the windows covered, it's really hard to breathe in there. There's no air circulation. And he's been looking for a new place. But it's really hard to find a new a new place to live in 60 days. It was rehearsal for that for you seniors. How you control the rental. He installed the glasses. And thank you. If you do support rent control. Thank you. Thank you. Let's look at this. Hi. My name is Guadalupe Rios. And when us not just calls her her little girl, this year will be doing me apartamento Ms.. The U.S. Attorney's Cassie Daniels. Amitabh Mian Mandela Notification Center. Yes. You're not doing well for a proposed idiot. Jesse. Don't clean up responsibility party for indoor girls. The problem is your age only party better accompany Anthony No Rosa Apartamento Don't nominate a particular center Poor woman All the name here we have a serious close Apartamento system in Muller's condition. This work also in La Renta Turtle no more mind your condo telecom pioneer There is not a castle in Mikasa Leo in know Newcastle initials in le Carré you will put up one particular track working miserable life. In the meantime, you see no melancholy you can be a joy to look at can be transformed by us. But it's Alfredo and not asthma. At the Liverpool airport April I would at all look Italian construction this purple is tan is on chemicals can not also line you can weather we will do quo but I just killed whether we meet competitors conduct on this camp whether we be a status quo to look after the animals under Lisbon the Luna casa no policy equals animals being hello dancer Lucas Lucas Cousteau cannot you know want temper tantrums in the scenario Camilla's current can know either annoy this hello who as you that your Bambi and be one of the distrito eunuch is here I catalyst concealer go by the protection of the loss interests is corporate cooperatives EU Then I'm Antonella Lombard All of our local metro the longest longest is meal how long this is those Latinos it percent Latinos this I say no little emails Cousteau Davos almost this my most mischievous animals follows and in my list let's put out Ambien veteran of stratospheric animal is gracious. Good evening, councilmembers and Mayor. My name is Guadalupe Berrios. I've been living in my apartment on 10th and Cedar for almost 20 years, and I as well have been given a 60 day notice and I don't have a place to go. I have been a responsible renter paying my rent on time and not causing any issues. I have done my part, but the company has maintained the apartments in an inhabitable condition in my apartment. A fungus came out, a. Mushroom out of the floor. This is not normal. And when I told the company they did nothing. No, nothing has changed. My carpet was never changed. I have had to change my carpet out of my own money. How many of you live with roaches? Rats? Bedbugs? They do neither. One time I have had to. Go beyond double. If you just summarize the. The rest of the message. Yes. I have lived in this district and in this city. I hope that you would protect us, not just the corporate interests. Please help maintain Long Beach an affordable place to live. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Let's be clear, please. When I look at Ramiro Vergara, everyone listening this year to the last year it ambiente then going to anyos I won't see any of my Nigerian Lautrec companion come home. Chaotic Newcastle little Cassie Robyn. That is nuevos personas. Yes. No. Lord Winehouse eloquent answer center. Yes. Baraka. Messala LaCour. Alistair your sterility. Diallo Yes. There are no apenas meal. Siento McKee Thomas yea pirate your cientos is getting so we may lowly mill city into lotteries the only Pueblo Sarkar in their. This is what I think. Hi. Good evening. My name is Ramiro Vergara. Vergara. I've been there for 20 years and this apartment and never left. I to receive the 60 day notice along with my neighbors that are here. And we are here to fight for our rights. It's not just that this company has the power to evict us and just to evict us to get more money. With no fair reason, these companies like beachfront properties, are destroying our city and are in this war thinking, okay, they're destroying our city and separating families. I implore you, I implore on behalf of our neighbors to stand up and not be afraid anymore to speak about these the way they manage these properties. The object is not to move us simply to raise money. It looks like we let you do this. Okay. And then just to summarize, he he wants to. He's pleading for you guys to have support for gun control. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Well, not just the number of mice, each of us. The millennial apartamento that lost the additional revenue and they work at home. And which of them is best, you know, setting, you know, go under on this you almost inevitably tequila company occupy the common payroll company of the Palm Beach them you know that element of my motto is a saint that he has nothing apparently to make is say, give me the NBA and Long Beach. I don't know whether they will get Bahamians status. So. CONTENTO Sacrificial lamb, an impressive touring Quinta Party, Los Apartamento, Caracas, 80 inches Europe. Dennis left Paris more, I think, on the really poor. Terms and at the lower so looking a lot more commercial into a language but. I. Hello my name is Moses Torres and I too live in the apartments of 1019 Cedar Avenue. Seemed like many of my neighbors I have had to live with in habitable conditions because a company doesn't worry about us. I have lived there for nine years and the company Beach Front has given me a 60 day notice and I have nowhere to go. I would like I would like to live, continue living in Long Beach, but I can't pay the thousand 600. That they are asking for payments. Know that the cost to move. I, too, have to live with cockroaches, rats and bedbugs. Well, it's already hard for me to pay the rent. I pay I own 1350. I want to continue living as a resident in the area and I would hope that our elected leaders do something for the community and perhaps in support rent control. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, city council. I know it's a very sensitive subject. Recovering. My name's Eduardo Perez. I've worked in the city of Long Beach since the 1980s. I had food distributing business, and after many years of work, I bought some units and in the north and the south part of Long Beach. And it's a day to day job. We don't have I don't have anything fancy. Fancy, but it's it's lots of work, not eight hour days as 12 hour days to keep things running the way they should be with property taxes going up and putting a cap on on what you can work with. As far as the rent is concerned, it makes it very, very difficult to keep to turn a product that tenants are comfortable with and come to expect. And if you have a fixed amount that you can only go a certain percentage and it makes it almost impossible to provide adequate housing in and keep Long Beach looking the way it is now. Back in the eighties, this area of Long Beach was not the prettiest or the safest, and every day I see much prettier. Housing is much better kept. The roads, everything is. Unfortunately, our property taxes go through the roof. So that's another thing that, you know, we have to be able to keep up with what's going on. But God bless and do your best. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Hi. My name is Omar. I am a resident for District District one Healthy Lives Matters for Low Income Families and Communities. The reason why I mentioned is that I have experienced displacement and homelessness many times in the past, and when you are displaced as well as homeless, you go through fatigue and lack of sleep. I mean, it totally distracts your daily life. You know, it's like being a full time student number of times. And I've been homeless during the times that I was in and in school. And most of us, all of us, I bet, been through lack of sleep, fatigued, have no idea where to go to do your homework and live a happy life. How how how were you feel? It was it was that you're in that position. How will you feel? How. How will it be to not have a roof over your head or a place to sleep it? Then the next day you have to work full time and and go to school or a nice school. Sarah. Sarah. So I say that housing is a human right and please support rent control. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name's Martina Chapa, and I'm a 25 year resident of Long Beach. I've been a resident of District four. And I want to give you a firsthand perspective of what it is to be an owner landlord. Regarding my residency in the art craft metro area, where the neighborhood is principally duplex, I also owned my previous residence, another duplex in Los Angeles that's under rent control. So I have experience under both systems. My tenant, a Long Beach I've had for five years, I was able to work with her as a single mother. I reduced the rate of rent that I was asking for and I cut the security deposit in half. Five years that she's been there, I've raised her rent on average of 2% throughout this period of time. She's still not paying the rent that I requested when she first moved in. I would not be doing those considerations if I was under rent control. And when my property in Los Angeles, if you pass a rent control, that leaves a lot of discretion out of my hands. I'm faced with property taxes. I'm faced with a lot of other expenses that isn't rent control, property tax consideration. I had those same issues and pressures. There's a lot of economics going here and I feel there is an unfair burden that's going to be placed on small time landlords, especially, to try to even out the disadvantages of a lot of poor people here that are disadvantaged. You know, my heart goes out to them, but also consider the small time landlords that are trying to make a decent living. The home is my home. I run it not as a business, but as my home. And I'm looking for a good neighbor. Don't leave that discretion out to provide those things. Thank you for your testimony. Let's look at this. Good evening, city council and mayor. Like all of you, I am a public servant. I'm a professor at Cal State Long Beach. My name is Dr. Chuck Harmony, and I wanted to give you the perspective of what it's like to be an instructor in a classroom at a university. And these are from 2017. Data. When one in five students are hungry and one in ten students are homeless. So I wanted to give you a picture, a face to what you see as homeless. It's not just destitute families that that you can kind of just shove away. These are my students and they are homeless because they can't even afford to live in a city where they're trying their best to get an education and to be civic citizens in this city and to give back and to be part of our future. And I wanted to leave you with three things that I, as a social scientist. Tell my. Students. And I would hope that as as civic servants like me, you would consider data that's holistic, not just data that is from one side. I think a gentleman actually gave really good research tonight, and I hope that you wouldn't use research that is quantitative as well as qualitative. We have a lot of anecdotal stories tonight that will help you inform your decision decision making. So just not just quality quantitative data, that's one side, but qualitative as well. Thank you for your time. Oh. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. My name is Steve Barong, and I live in the fourth district. I am a rental property manager here in Long Beach. I manage about about 330 apartments in the Greater Long Beach area and in every district in the city. And I just want to express my strong support for this agenda item, and I hope that you guys will pass it and ask these important questions. As a property manager, I feel a fiduciary obligation to both my tenants and my property owners, and I do understand that they are not always in agreement, but I do think that good compromises can be made. I know just yesterday I gave 260 day notices to tenants who I love because the property owners own condos and they decided to sell now because they don't want to pay a relocation fee. Other tenants. So I lost excellent tenants who got 60 day notices. So I do feel in my heart for these people. That's why it's really important that we take the time to ask these questions. How is it going to affect all of the properties in the city of Long Beach? I'm frightened to own my own house, but my circumstances could change. I could face homelessness. I actually became a property manager because I came three days from losing my house in 2012 and I was unemployed and I went to work as a property manager, and that's how I saved my own home. So both sides have good points, but we really need to examine this proposed ordinance before we move forward with. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next Speaker First. When I'm address, embrace America. So I go and then I go to Tampa is what I would say. Gillespie opinion. But I would control the Tampa so you know my mom and I family face personas this person I mean they think there's a rent. And an. Apartment in America. Men and women have become more but a lot of multiple apartments here because I'm in community centers and schools public opinion and I mean they came here and render and women panel for me him in a. Paralysis. Make it through thinking around me. Yes but I will. I mean, I'll pay the rent bill. I guess I better. If there is any men that are looking at him as an instrument, then they don't get an analysis. Hmm. Good evening. My name is America Antonio. I am ISO. I ask that I ask for help for rent control. I have a family of six and I pay 1200 and rent. My husband doesn't earn enough to pay for another increase in rent. And he would look for rent for he would look for other housing and he would fine of 600. 1600. 2000. And that's why. And we can't afford and that's why I ask of you in the name of all the families that work and all the children of those families that you support, rent control. I guess. Right here. We're talking about numbers and loss of money. But the generations and our children, where will they really stand? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the gentleman in the burgundy, some of the fire fire marshal told us the last of the people on the outside are now in. So I would advise line up now because we're getting close the speaker's list in a moment. So after this next speaker, whoever's the last person in line, that's who's going to be last speaker. Thank u next speaker, please. Hi everyone. My name is Benjamin Chao. I am a constituent of the ninth district. Fortunately, my family owns their home, but I'm also speaking on behalf of my grandmother and my aunts who live in the eighth District and Bixby Knolls. From the perspective of, you know, owning a home, I think we oftentimes forget that homeowners and renters share the community. And I learned the other day that the only apartment complex on my block has just been purchased by the same company, Westland Real Estate Group, that is also redeveloping the the Uptown, which is in the Artesia corridor in the ninth District. And I point that out, because private real estate speculation in our city is one of the leading causes for rents going up and is threatening our existing affordable housing stock. And so because of this, I want to ask Mayor Garcia and especially Vice Mayor Richardson to really reevaluate their stance on rent control and look at the facts and look at our community. I want to ask, how do you plan to advocate for home ownership in the ninth District without first addressing rising rents and the rising cost of living in our city? Please put people over profit and protect our renters. Invest in people, not private property. You have the power to protect your people from investors. We are not dollar signs. Please stop the bleeding by instituting and considering a rent hike freeze like Santa Cruz has done and let Long Beach voters decide their own fate. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm looking forward to getting a cup of coffee with you next week. Please call me. Oh. My neighbor here next week, please. Oh, because I work as a barista. That's why I thought. Maybe we'll come to your shop next week, please. Okay. I'm Mary DeSoto. A lot of people know me here. I am a homeowner. In the ninth district. As you know. And like I've said before, I also pay property taxes. My property taxes do go up and don't get so excited. I think it is absolutely wrong to want to make a profit. I can't make a profit if my. Community is not thriving. Equity is important to me and my property is important to me. One day I planned to maybe rent my property and I still don't think that it's okay that my neighbors are paying $1,600 for their one bedroom apartment. That's shitty I've seen. I've been inside their apartment. It's crap they don't. The landlord that lives in Orange County, she doesn't fix the apartment. She hasn't painted it. It smells in there. The carpets are bad. They it's roach infested and they pay $400 less. And what I do for my mortgage, I represent over 700 workers here in Long Beach at our hotel workers. Most of these workers live and work in Long Beach. And there most of them are renters. It is not and it is not a uncommon conversation that these workers can't afford to live in Long Beach. Let's not be the city that has to outsource to other cities to have workers. This is not about making this is about making Long Beach white. Again, let's be honest. Thank you for your testimony. Let's take a this. Oh, no, it's me again, piggybacking off of that. So it really strikes me how outrageously disempowered so many people in this room feel. We have people who have put in a lot of economic you bring a lot of their own money into owning one property and now they are severely compromised. And now we have a lot of people here who have either been pregnant, women who have been poisoned or people who have been sleeping on the streets, because we have, as correctly pointed out, corporate landlords coming in and putting their boots on the back of the people who make Long Beach. Long Beach. And, you know, in terms of the five year plan, I, I maybe we should just take the lesson rather than trying to make Long Beach sound sort of like a corny version of Los Angeles. Maybe we should invest in the people who are already here rather than inviting in outside influences. I, you know, in this really like ugly, exploitative, neoliberal thing because the abuse is so ugly, all you can only understand what it is like to not have control over the roof, over your own head, if you've experienced it, because I can't communicate it verbally, that terror or something, you have to live. And so many people in this room are living it right now. And you've got to take that into responsibility as public servants, the terror and the fear that these people are experiencing in this room. Thank you for your testimony. So raise your hand. The last person in line. Okay. So the young lady raised the pin. Last person in line. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Gregory. Dean and I reside in both the first district and the seventh District. I am the proud property owner of two vintage properties, one specifically located in Downtown's West Side. The other in the neighborhood of Wrigley. The Downtown property is a 1923 art deco four plex. It is a multifamily property first spotted in 2003. At that time, it was primarily low income and Section eight tenants. There are 14 people living in one small, two bedroom apartment. Since purchasing that property, I have become as an owner, I have replaced the roof, the ingoing, outgoing plumbing. I have refurbished all the interiors. I have completely restored the exterior of the property. I have repaired all termite damage. I have worked directly with the lawn and garden program to re landscaped the property and I've also benefited local businesses who I have hired for that work. Those those units are now what I take pride in as a property owner. I also stand as somebody who struggled with both homelessness and addiction in the eighties. And I am proud to say that I run a quality place for people to live. And I make no apologies to anybody here in this room. So as you do your research, I hope you'll keep in mind that some of us are good landlords, responsible landlords, and treat our tenants with compassion and fairness. Always. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, council members. My name is Shannon Llewellyn. I'm a social worker here in Long Beach, and I deal with developmentally disabled clients who live on only $900 a month that include utilities and food, by the way, which I would like to see all of you do a social experiment and try to live on that. We cannot continue to spend 70% of our income on rent where we have no more to put back into this community that we live in. I grew up here. I did a brief survey of our city back in the day, if you will. When I was in high school. It was contentment. Now it's chaos. The rental requirements are almost. Three times the amount of income. 655 AE And no blemishes. The people that are against rent control are well off. Lower standards. I heard from what they're already low subsidized. Don't pay landlords enough. Greed has the wheel of this vehicle and you're driving people out of Long Beach faster than a race car. The mayor has already said his stance. Limitless opportunities for builders and developers to make for profit apartments. You need to make low income apartments. But we have no money. But yet $900 million for a civic center and 1.5 million for bicycles. I think you guys need to redirect your attention to where it's actually needed. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Thank you for your time. My name is Andrew Carr. I live in the second district. Thank you to all my fellow residents for being. Here and city council for staying late on the third week in a row like this. We really appreciate I appreciate it. I want to say two things. First of all, that the lived experiences of our of our. Community members should always be believed. And that includes that what property managers. Talk about when they talk about their experiences. But I also want to remind everyone that when renters talk about their experiences, even if it seems like it's outside the. Scope of our reality or some of our realities, that those experiences are very real. A Renters should be believed when they talk about what they're facing. In this city. Second of all, I want to say as regards to rent control, that rent control as a policy does not increase the quantity nor the quality of housing. But that's because the function of rent control, quite clearly is not to do those things. The function of rent control is to keep people in their homes all the time. The time to increase the quantity and the quality of housing in Long Beach was about six years ago, but instead this city chose to pass the downtown plan and. Now that ship has sailed. And that conversation is over. If we're wondering why, that's why we're at an initiative. You'll notice that an. Initiative is not a conversation. There's no chance to amend an initiative or anything like that. Initiative either gets passed or it doesn't. It's really unfortunate. It's actually not as democratic as it could be. I think this is democracy and initiative is an unfortunate thing. That is a last resort. And we need to ask ourselves why it is in the cities that renters are at their last resort and that is rent control. It's not a perfect policy, but it's the last resort. And I think we need to stop pushing renters into this corner because there's nowhere else for them to back out of and they're going to end up leaving the city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hey. How are you? I'm Nancy Tyler. I am in the process of moving here from Santa monica, moving into Long Beach First District. And all I can do is tell you what I've seen in Santa monica since I've been there. I've seen day after day living proof that rent control is not helping the people who actually need help. Santa monica has an enormous homeless population there, and it continues to grow. It is out of control. Despite decades of rent control, few units are available and when a rent controlled unit becomes available, the only people who get them are the people who show up at the property management office with a pile of cash, a 700 plus credit score. In other words, exactly the people who have no need for rent control. The building I live in is rent controlled and the garage every day I would see Mercedes, Mercedes, Lexus, BMW, all these people who do not need help. There is a person in there. No kidding, who is driving around in a mercedes E-Class convertible and rents out some of her rooms to sub tenants for market rent making money off of this place. It is maddening. There are more and more things like this, I could begin to tell you, but there are things that we can do that will actually fix the problem and provide housing. As a human right, we can provide subsidy programs like Section eight. We can fund affordable housing so that we can choose who actually gets the affordable housing here, not just the Mercedes driver I mentioned. My wife and her family moved to America from Vietnam when she was ten, after her father did seven years in a North Vietnamese P.O.W. camp, earning citizenship for him for for him and his family . They lived in subsidized housing in San Jose, and I lived there with them for a time. It is safe. It gives the residents the dignity they deserve and these programs can actually solve the problem. We are all to salt. Thank you for your testimony. Your next bigger piece. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city council and Long Beach residents. Thank you for your time tonight. There's no doubt that most people in this room already know which side of this issue they support. We have heard many opinions on rent control tonight, and with all respect to both sides and everyone in the room. Most of them are irrelevant to the agenda item being discussed tonight, which is only to vote on these questions. I that's my place here. I stand here to remind everyone in this room that the proposed ordinance will affect every resident in Long Beach, whether you rent or own. There are a lot of unanswered questions, including the seven pages in the agenda item. In order for all of us to make our own educated decision, we need more impartial data about the proposed ordinance. Agenda Item 15 will provide this impartial data by answering the submitted questions with all with answers for all to review. And as stated in the agenda, there is no negative, no known negative. Fiscal Impact Impact Agenda item number 15 needs to be passed for the sake of all of us, not just one side. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Sherrie Posey. I moved to Long Beach in 1994 from New York City, where I was under rent control. And I was an. Illegal roommate for the person who was had lived there for like 25 years. I was paying triple her rent. So it happens. And yes, there are laws, but. That's what happens. When I moved to Long. Beach, I rented for about five years. My husband and I bought our first house. In the fourth district. Which we still own. But it's a rental. Then we. Bought another house. Or another property, a little. Condo in the second district, which we still own. But it's a rental. And then we bought. Two small one bedroom condos in the seventh. District. All of our rents are from. 1125 and the house is 1400. We're not getting super rich. Off of these rents. We are hoping that. You know, the properties have increased in value. They're our entire retirement fund. We work for ourselves and we don't have pensions. This impacts us. I live in the fifth District. And I intend to live in Long Beach. Well, forever. But these kinds of measures that, I mean, from my standpoint, seem to be one sided. Maybe not well thought out. Need to be really looked at. I'm glad you're looking at them, but the. Initiative as it's proposed doesn't make sense to me as a small property owner. Thank you for your time. Speaker, please. No. I'm going to translate. It will be less back on Tara's better. Mary Costello. Ms.. Roberto Garcia came as possible. Okaloosa pharmacy executive, who was mired in inequity, will go to a sukanya tota and wear the Casillas. And. And. I've yet to hear de la Paz someone move to take on ceramics. But. How am I interpreting little Tommy Christy? I know feeling will make me that bother trying time. But we are lucky in unwavering time where we turn kill. Which I hate to say it. Our thought here, Luciano, when this demented commode spun, represent the annual puzzle you were catching on, would you put your own album? Comandante the Vancouver Judicial, possibly reform. But when I was in Asia. You will not see in my Kuryakin where we are. Not yet. But it is crucial in keeping less content. They must instantly retrace Quatermass. This one was a psychotic anomaly. My name is Victor Chacon. I think. I live in a 939. Pacific Avenue. I've lived there for 30 years. Diego Gentile, you? I have. Eight. I'm 81 years old. Can it be? No. They don't want an audition. We fatica you, Golan. Now you come alone, as it were. Me. So the manager came up to us and gave us a notice of eviction. Like very aggressive, arrogant manner. From. Appropriate. Beachfront management properties. That's what she would explain. Okay, you're not dating women since his email podcast has yet to meet a new reporting venue, a laundry room. And we're reporting it by value. And our client. Don't know why Janice is our client. And seven months. They haven't fixed the laundry room. Or the laundry room. A lot of complaints about. Repairs in the building have not have yet to be met. 37 minutes to talk with you. For seven months that we've been asking for these repairs, she's still yet to repair them under development. Wow. Wow. Wow. Well. Basically, he's been humiliated and demeaned by his own property manager. Well. Well. Mm hmm. Because I would. Like to see young people in equipment safe way, condo, yeoman dandy, etc.. Break it down. Okay. He has the paper with him if you all want to read it. Yeah. Goaltending. And it wasn't just him. It was also his neighbors. So they go for break at the end of an audition for termination. An eviction notice for 30 days. He and his wife are both disabled. Intolerance. He will find it. They need the dancer sent. To. Them. Thank you. If you could just summarize the final one. Mean my English debut. You go my paper to is why wag when they say not playing with me? Can we rely on papel determination? Thank you, Tango. Gentlemen, you trained Daniel BBN to throw a hand on estimating he commits to papel aubergines told me to read the book. You're laboring on Delta. She wrote the mutual special. Thank you. I understand there's a language barrier, but I would like for you to interpret the importance of summarizes remark. I don't want to cut him off in the middle of it. You only see it. The contents are you because you were meant to communicate mostly. Okay. Well, thank you for your time. You know what? You know. If you go to the also some more. I'm with. Osama. You're with us. Well, there was a lot. And this was all, like, intoxicated. Me me of using it. Gracias. Thank you. It's my turn now, and I ask that you give me time to, because I'm going to translate for my for myself. If you have the ability speak English, then then it's 90 seconds. The the double time is for you. To provide it. Like translators for us to. And the audience member should have. Had translator translator headphones as well. So, I. Mean. Thank you. Simultaneous interpretation is why we give double time so two people can speak. I will meows. I keep going. You'll get going. Your ego goes to understand damilola him. But God, Eunice. God, I am angry. That you. Guys haven't been providing people with translators. People here have have a necessity to. To tell you guys what they are going through. Looking back at the analysis theories. They look a little pasando. Ozark or lemming would like. Jesus. I got a lot to say, but men like y'all want to put me down to one minute. All right. So I am a student at Long Beach. And I told you guys this last week as a student of this issue, albeit with each of us, when I say Mana, when you guys wanted to put this as a receive and file cannot get in as it is more they. You look up at a bonus expressed by Bloodsworth and I told y'all that I was I used to be homeless. I told you all that I was struggling to pay rent. Conor Lesniak, your skill at a homeless and untamable miracle investor tratando baby renter. And yet I still have to pay. Figure out how to pay with three other roommates. One quarter. They lost the little commas. And I still have to tell them how I'm struggling to pay for a two. Bedroom and basically an. And as I said, to keep us in rent control. I need you to pass rent control. Fuck. Like speaker, please. Yeah. My name is George Cornelius and I was born and raised in Long Beach. I lived in the fifth District for 42 years. And I just want to tell you, actually, 40 years, we all have personal stories. And I can tell you why some of the personal stories that affected me in. Regards to housing. One of them included my mother, who was a diagnosed schizophrenic. She had an autistic child that she could never accept. My parents separated because of it. I had to leave our house eventually because my mother got followed home at three in the morning when I was young and I had to pull a gun out to get the man leave, to leave her alone. My point is, we all have to make hard choices in life. My sister recently resided at Fairview State Mental Hospital and it's being closed and I had to move her and it was difficult. So I'm a property owner in Long Beach. I still love the city. And I relate to these people's problems. But by the same time, we have an issue to address. Sometimes good intentions go awry and they create the most unintended consequences. And it's your job as council members to make sure that doesn't happen. We can tell you emotional stories. But emotional stories don't solve the crisis. What solve the crisis. Is bringing more housing to Long Beach. That's what solves the crisis and the market can do that. Thank you for your testimony and that speaker, please. Questions for a review regarding rent control, rent board and eviction limitations. Number one work economic class is served to be disenfranchized if such rent control is not is negated. Is the economic class of owners larger or smaller than the ruling majority? What percentage of landlords in Long Beach refuses to honor Section eight with the Long Beach Housing Authority in place? Why are we yet addressing this? Then you address this year after year. This isn't new. How many developers and building are building affordable housing that is based on the lowest adult living wage earner in Long Beach? Is there an understanding between the city and the possible landlords that renters are to be desired as a continued demographic? Those of you who are running for reelection, will this be addressed before your voting days in light of the fact that your constituents are being evicted tonight? How fast will this issue be resolved if you put a moratorium on evictions and increases until this review leads to a workable resolve? Do you personally know any landlords who do this without enforcement? Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name's Mark Pineda. I'm 16 years old and I'm quite new to this issue. But in the time allotted, I understand that I cannot explain to you all the dangers of rent control. But we did provide a bunch of questions for you two that I urge that you read, and I thank you for considering and reviewing this important issue. It's very important to me and my family. One thing I could say for certain is that what I've learned from history is that we don't learn from history. If you if you look at the cities and the countries that have been destroyed by this socialist like Bill, it destroys the economy. Why can't we learn from it? I'm. I'm no, I'm no expert. But trust me, I'm no fool. If you look at other countries, they failed. And to the lady who. Saying that it's wrong to earn profits, try living in a country, with all due respect, because I had no ill will towards her. All due respect, child, living in a country where your profits mean nothing to you. Our country is built on profits. That's why we have a beautiful city, a beautiful country. The people were saying, see, suppress the issue. Can you can make it? My parents, they. Were three jobs to pay their bills. Hey, it's America. We were built on profits were built on hard workers. And that's how we got to do it. I oppose rent control. Rent control. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony next week, at least. They protest? Desdemona, let's let that situation calm down real quick so you get your free time just. Just a moment before you guys start. So you get the whole time. We're women. Respectfully, everyone, let's respect the speakers. We've gone through quite a few. We only have a few more. Let's go ahead and respect that. So let's not fight one another in the audience. Thank you. You have 3 minutes. But I know she is honorably, like a little better. Garcia less than Milwaukee. A story. I woke up with a sack of money there. Good evening, mayors, honorable council members and mayor. Once again, I'm here advocating for my community. To work within a circle, not to look and say Hi, Lace. I say I knew maybe you meaning a key one, though not as I look at what I work on. Eddie Fisher. They're going to need our this continues con discapacidad is in all its important this aloha. I'll say I knew maybe you. A year and a year and a half ago, I came down here letting you all know that my building of 20 units was bought and I was being evicted. And you did nothing. Finalement. Yeah, but when I say my ninth, is it get the Newcastle Mail apartment and country album? No, no, no. Since we can get rhythm in in Barcelona so we don't go let us. I wanna be. One week before my eviction was up, I found a place. This place has increased my rent numerous times. In the city. And in the in the past month they increased it to $200 more. Equal to Yosemite a year. Not heavy. I don't care Jacobo if he is going nowhere. They do not know North Cardinal Edificio yet. They run by nice Aloha Bank, the familiar mass. Once again, my ironically, my building just got sold yesterday. We got the news that our building got sold another 20 units. They don't want us in there. And so I'm going to be evicted again. Eastern time what need tell us what needs to expand country on El Centro. Tampa CEO says get your ass on your entire body but I want all incredibly mental lost lost precious. The noise about our records. The units they're building in central and downtown Long Beach are beautiful. I would love my dream is to live in one of those, but honestly, I've been looking at the prices and I can't afford any of them. You know. So based in the areas established by Orlando milking in those means they see and those Polaroid cameras see in Miami I rather morbid I want Eddie Fisher in Ocean Boulevard. For those lowlifes getting sick and also looking at those barriers is ten mascaras Kayla Ocean Boulevard. Not again in neighborhoods there. There is 1500 to 1600 studios in two bedrooms. One of my friends just moved in to a two bedroom for $2,000 on Ocean Boulevard. And Seascape, considering in three months had a yellow rating. Anarchy. And if they didn't permission, I say. SAROYAN Considering, you know, they were equals of. Swamp Kraken, the Genesee Ghetto, even Long Beach yesterday in the end of February. That gave me a talking head photos. If I look at those either plus are those your second noisiest areas is are they buy faster. Say it's not always the. So think about. It when. Corporate. Landlords come in it's not they're not building affordable housing. It's not for us. It's not for the people who live here. And it's for people who are out of Long Beach. And I know it's not for you. It's it's. This problem has existed since Foster's time here. Thank you. Yes, I really do. Look, I will stay there. Thank you. Thank you. And that is your gift. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening or good morning. I'm not sure what time it is. My name is Tiffany Davy and I reside in the second district. Thanks everyone for speaking. I would like to highlight that we do need to collect thorough data. Independent data, perhaps. Give us some insight to what the rental market has really been like over the past four years. Who's most affected? Which renters, which landlords. And if we could quantify how many 60 day notices have been distributed since the rent control initiative has been put. Into the public sphere numbers? I've lived here in the city for 14 years, in this state for 32 within the past 14 years. I think the total and I'm forgetting a few different situations here, the amount of money that I've spent for rent, if I average it to be 600 to 1200, which it has been, equates to just under $252,000. My last household, which I resided in for quite some time, we paid upwards of. $90,000 the entire time that we are there. Members are important and I hope that we focus on the correct ones and we allow democracy to take place. Thank you, everyone, for doing what you are. Thank you. And our final speaker, please. And thank you for being patient. Good evening. Honorable mayor and council members. My name is Maria. I am the proud daughter. Of a hard working. Migrant single mother in the First District. I am a new renter in the seventh District. And I'm the director of Community Organizing for Housing Long Beach. The tenant landlord struggle. Is more than just an issue of good versus evil. It is a question of whether you. It is not a question of whether you have a good landlord. Or a bad. Landlord. The struggle is based on two different competing interests that have nothing to do with personalities of the landlord or the tenant. The landlord is seeking to make a profit of the apartment while the tenant is seeking to make the apartment, his or him or her or their home. A landlord sees the apartment as a commodity. A tenant sees his or her home as community. A commodity versus community. Conflict is basically at the root of every landlord and tenant dispute. It is clear. That Long Beach has a housing. Issue. Right. And it's been said. Clearly that you. All are opposed to rent control. So I am as baffled. And confused as to how you I can. Trust you to make an unbiased decision when it's been said that you are opposed to rent control. And I want to close off with saying you need to support rent control because when tenants rise, cities thrive. Thank you. So that concludes public comment. So now we're going to take it back behind the rail. So the second are the motions, Councilman Andrews. But I think you just mentioned you want to defer. Okay. So next is Councilman Austin. So in light of the great public comment we heard here this evening on all sides, I'm going to be brief. I just want to appreciate my colleagues for bringing this item forward. I think the questions are in the in the document are important. And it would be good to have our staff work on that so that we have good information, that we all have good information moving forward. I want to appreciate the organizers on both sides, all sides of this issue for organizing. Thank you. Yes, you guys did a great job. Turn it out this evening. And, you know, we've been been having long city council meetings for for some time now. The I want to just say that that I think this issue is an issue that, you know, we've been grappling with for for some time, too. And for my colleagues here, I know that each and every one of us, I can speak for myself, but I know that everybody behind this dais cares about this issue deeply. This is something that each and every one of us spends a lot of time putting, a lot of thought into a lot of research into and and we're looking for answers every day. This is not something that popped up yesterday. This is something that we've been dealing with for four years. And we've also have taken deliberate steps to to address our housing issues through because of the issues that you've brought before us. You know, it's our job to take care and to make a difference. This is I want to be clear. This is not a black and white issue. This is not an easy issue or eternal. There's no panacea to fixing a housing crisis. Right. This is not a Latino issue. This is. This issue engages and involves seniors and people from all backgrounds in our city. And and I think every district is impact impacted on this. I've done a lot of research and I've been looking at the 15 cities in California that actually do have rent control. And I'm not convinced that it's a panacea for for for for our housing crisis. I do think and I have been very deliberate, we need to build more housing in the city that we passed the land use element and went through that process. And it was a it was a painstaking process to go through. But we are laying out and putting the foundation together for to improve this situation. Now, I think the challenge before this council really is going to be is how do we fast track? You know, because I don't think we can we can wait three, four, five, six years for housing to be developed. We need to make it happen now. And and I will say that, you know, San Francisco I was talking to an elected official in San Francisco just last week. He was talking about the rent control, but was also talking about the the fact that the average rent for for a two bedroom apartment is somewhere close to four, $5,000 a month. I don't know if that's that's what he said. Right. That's that's that's serious. Santa monica. It's it's the rents are very, very high there. Beverly Hills, Berkeley, West Hollywood, San Jose. These are all cities that that have rent control. Right. And and when you look at the average rents in Long Beach, we are well below those cities. And I'm not saying that that is a good that is a fact. And that's something that we all need to take into consideration. I'm not saying what we need to do in the city also is is focus on creating great jobs because that's going to bring the incomes up and that's going to be prudent. That's going to put people in a in a better position to be able to afford quality housing. And I speak to quality housing because that is where this I think the issue started a few years ago. You know, we we had our housing advocates come before the council and say, hey, that the the quality housing the quality of our housing isn't where it needs to be. We know we have old housing stock, but but we heard stories and we're still hearing stories about subsub, you know, horrible living conditions that people have to live through. We sought to improve that by bringing forth a prep policy. We we we raised the minimum wage in the city. We've made deliberate efforts to address these issues, and we're going to continue to do that. So I want to again thank my colleagues for bringing forth this, this, this. This item. I want to thank everybody for having, I think, a heartfelt conversation about this. I think this conversation is going to continue over the course of the next several months, and it's going to be a citywide conversation that needs to be had. I'm going to tell you right now that I'm not I'm not sit in on any sort of policy. Yes, no or indifferent. I'm waiting for a lot of this information to come back. But again, I do not think that there is a silver bullet or a or one single solution to this issue. It's going to take a full court press and it's going to take a multi-prong strategy to deal with housing. And that's the way we have to do it and do it responsibly. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank everyone who came out tonight and who spoke and gave testimony on both sides. I think sometimes when people feel passionately about one side or the other, the conversation can get unnecessarily divisive. And it takes a while for us to get to some solutions. And hopefully this is part of the start of that process. And we can get to a place where we have some solutions. But, you know, I think I kept reading the item over and over again because as people were talking at the podium, it wasn't clear to me that everybody understood why we were here. It's not really council's position to be objective on this particular issue. Certainly we want to learn and we want to hear. We want to continue to get more information. But we're talking about a voter initiative. We're not talking about where the council members stand. So, you know, a few people said, you know, you're not objective. I I've done a lot of research on this issue already. I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. I think I have a very strong standing of where I'm at. I don't believe rent control will be beneficial for the city of Long Beach. That's my personal opinion. And but I'm one voter. I'm one voter. And I think that having an opportunity like we have tonight and I appreciate the housing advocates who came forward and thanked council and super non those of us who signed on for bringing the item. I thank you for thanking him because in fact that is going to provide us some additional information with which we'll be able to further elaborate on our thoughts or opinions or maybe have our opinions, our minds changed. I don't know. What I will tell you is for me personally and each of us takes a different journey in determining where our policy positions are going to stand. For me, I've read just about every single study that anyone here has sent me. I've reviewed analysis of what has happened in other cities that have passed rent control. I've reviewed economists, progressive economists, conservative economists, their analysis of rent control based on all of that. I'm going to formulate my own opinion about the voter backed initiative, should it get to that point. This is not an issue where we're asking council to be objective so that they can vote on an item. We're talking about getting more information as we start to educate and have those conversations with the voters. So I think I've been pretty. I've met with anyone who's requested to meet with me on this topic, anyone, and always happy to be educated. But I'm also not going to talk out of both sides of my mouth because I don't think anybody deserves that. I think it's important for you to get a sense of where your representatives stand on this issue. We've certainly had time to educate ourselves. And, you know, I thank everyone for coming out. I agree with Councilman Austin. We have done a lot in the city to talk about the issue of housing. Housing is definitely an issue that is a priority for this council. And if you don't believe it's a priority to this council, then you may not have been watching what we've been working on for the last three and a half years and creating opportunities for housing stock and the third district alone. We've had specific plans that have been approved and now we had a general plan that was approved. And we've created over 2000 units of additional housing over the course of the next 30 years. That is that is progress. And so I think the other thing, as you know, we've talked about some policies that I think are going to be detrimental, frankly, to housing needs like short term rentals. I think I personally believe that that is going to take away long term housing units from individuals and how we're having that conversation at the same time that we're having this conversation. It baffles me, frankly, because I don't know how we can say we want to add more housing for people who are displaced and then say we want to vacate these properties so we can make an income off of taxing it. I don't understand that. So that's just my personal opinion. And I would I would I would ask the housing advocates to be engaged in that conversation to meet with my office. Let's. Talk about that because that's an area where we have tons and tons of apartments that would be much more lucrative to be rented out as Airbnbs than they would as permanent housing for families that need it. So that's where my head's at on this issue. But I thank everyone for coming forward and sharing your thoughts with us and I think my colleague councilman super now for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews. And yet yet. Yes, thank you very much, Mayor. You know, Jeanette, I want to acknowledge everyone who came out to speak on this item, because I want to thank you for sharing your concerns, because the fact that tonight's vote is requested for an expert, you know, opinion about looking forward to receiving details, reports on an application this ballot initiative will have on our city. And I think what will it have in our city? We talk about a ballot that you're going to go to the polls, try to find out where we will stand. And what is really bothered me today is that I look and find out that we don't even have enough votes on the ballot to even be able to get this passed. So what are we talking about when you talk about rent control, where the people that are supposed to be there to go and get these people to be on put on the ballot in order to get this done. I don't think rent control is going to be the key to finding out whether people will be able to stay in Long Beach. I think we're going to have to be able to get jobs. Will it be able to pierce enough money to be able to stay in Long Beach? And without building not low income housing we're talking about, you say low income, we're going to have to just start building because without that, we're going to have it won't even be about rent control, which is that more, you know, homeless people. So what we're going to have to do is really get serious about putting some houses out here where people can live in Long Beach and having jobs where they can't afford to live in Long Beach. And I think tonight is one of the greatest thing to show people coming out and giving their concerns and how compassion you are about this, because I'm a renter myself, but I tell you, I'm going to work and I'm going to make sure that we're going to have to be able to pay my rent. And most of you guys will be able to do the same thing when I look in for a pity party. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. As I understand it, this request is basically a study session. It's it's a study session that's going to come either before us now or come later. So I'm basically going to support this initiative now because the sooner we have our questions answered about what we're going to be dealing with, the better for it is for all of us. So I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. Thanks to everybody for being here. I know we're all very tired. I'm sick probably because we've been averaging about a midnight plus, you know, time here. But these issues are very, very important to us. And so I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think that it is true that every time we can collect more information, it serves us all a better purpose. So I really appreciate it. And in addition to this, I know we have to listen to different perspectives and we have to make sure that we know what to expect because something is on the horizon and we don't know what that's going to be. Signature gathering may happen and we may get to that point and we don't know what the voters will will do in November. But we do know that right now, I know many of my residents are being served 60 day notices. They are being displaced. I myself, we're setting up a meeting with beach front, but that's just one out of probably a dozen property managers that I've met with that we will continue to work with, you know, seniors at Plymouth West, people at ninth and Pacific and 10th and Cedar. We're intervening as a city council office. I'm actually writing a letter of support to urge them to offer an extension in some cases, because we know people in 60 days, that's not going to really give you a lot of time, unfortunately, to come up with another security deposit and really get yourself into another place. And so I just want to let everybody know that we support you there and we'll absolutely do what we can there. In addition to that, we know that some of the conditions that people are living in, although it's not described here and this is off topic, but very relevant to the conversation is, you know, they're living in below quality of life issues but below quality of life. And it doesn't speak to all landlords, but it definitely speaks to the very small percent of landlords that we know can do a lot better. And we need to be keeping more track of that. So what have we done here? I think our first year in office, many of us actually got together and we did a 120 day violators list and that is posted on Development Services website. And I'm actually working to make that more transparent so people know which landlords are not playing by the rules when it comes to quality of life issues, serious quality of life issues. In addition to that, we work to, you know, just to make sure that people have, for instance, seniors that have low income housing currently, that they can stay in that sort of model of low income housing. We actually put together a report that asks for options and what we can do to keep those covenants, because we know a lot of those remain in downtown and what can we do after that? But aside from that, I just want to continue with this step because it's very important. You know, downtown gets picked on a lot. And I get that, you know, there's a lot of development going on in downtown, but we're home to over 1700 affordable housing units. Currently, we have 300 to 500 more coming online with very low income housing models. It's really it's something I'm very proud about. Do we need to create more? Absolutely, we do. But it needs to be an equitable distribution throughout the city. And I have been I've always said that and I will remain saying that that we need to advocate everywhere in the city, not just in downtown, all all parts, to ensure that people can live in Belmont Shore, just like they can live in downtown and still have lower rents in that respect. So I'm with you. I'm listening. And we'll certainly connect, you know, on on what we can do going forward. And I thank my colleagues again for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Pierce. Yes. I want to thank everybody. It's great to be here at 1105 and have as many people are still present. So I want to thank my colleagues as well for bringing this item forward. I have had many conversations with. Both advocates on. Both sides around where do we have this conversation in our city and how do we do it in a way that reaches as many constituents as possible? I have long said that I support some type of management process, something that allows us to get a handle on the rents in our city and understand what those impacts are going to be. And I have also said that I have a little bit of some challenges with what is directly in front of us. And having an everything at one time is a bit of a challenge for me. So I am thankful to have this item here and. To go through the process to answer these questions as at the same time that the community groups are out there advocating and trying to collect signatures, we need to make sure that we have the facts in front of us so that we can advocate on that. So I did have a question for our. City attorney just to clarify. What this item should. And I know there's a lot of questions that will come back. But for tonight, if if the advocates get the signatures and it gets on the ballot and people vote yes on it, is there anything that this council can do to make a change to that ordinance. Or does it have. To go back to the voters? Well, I think the short answer is they cannot it cannot be amended or changed. And I think a couple of the public speakers mentioned that by by the council, the council could put something on the ballot to repeal it or to change it. And the voters could vote on that. There could be an initiative that would be a competing initiative that could cancel that out if if in the process of answering all of these questions there or the court determines that maybe some of the provisions of the initiative as written are not constitutional or not valid, then it could be changed by the court. But the council could not do that. And those flowers look lovely in front of your face. Mr.. You kept bobbing around, though, a nice touch at. 11:00 at night. Okay. I just wanted to be clear that and we can also, as a council, if we get these answers back. The council could. Propose to put something on the ballot that might. Be different than what our. Voters have in front of them right now. It it may it depends. If it's a charter amendment, then maybe you could maybe you couldn't, depending on whether you meet the timeframes and the statutory requirements for the November ballot. Okay. Thank you for that. I again, just want to highlight that I didn't hear a lot of comments around the 60 day notice. I get that in my district a great deal and that beach front was one of those factors that seemed to come up a lot. And so I want to let my councilmember know that any help that my office can do to work with them to make sure that we're creating a safe place and a safe home for people. That's definitely the number one priority for me. In the second District in downtown, we've created 2000 new residential units developing right now. I do agree that we need to add to the housing stock. I also firmly believe that we need a no net loss policy so that any new developments that come. Up, we're not losing affordable units on the back end, and that there are several other policies that we should also be. Looking at. To see what is the. Best fit for our city. And so I. Do look forward to having these questions. Come back. I implore I know today was heated for a lot of folks, but that we don't see this as a black and white issue. I don't see this are when people ask me, are you for rent control, yes or no? That's not a question. That's easy to answer because this policy that's in front of us has a lot of detail to it. And so it's about finding the right fit for Long Beach. And that means that we need everybody to be at that table together. And so I look forward. To the responses coming out and I look forward to sitting down the table with all those stakeholders. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this conversation in front of the city council, this much debate with very little that we can actually vote on tonight. So so thank you for that experiment. I'll just say I'll just say so a few things. So, one, I acknowledge the concern on both sides. I am not deaf to it. I hear it. I see it here when I when I hear week after week, we hear people come down and say, hey, I got a 60 week, 60 day notice or my entire block , you know, my entire building has gotten a notice. I also hear it when I hear neighbors, my neighbors in North Long Beach, salt of the earth people, working people that work jobs, regular jobs, who have, you know, for one reason or another, maybe one person owned something and another person on to something else, and they got married and they end up having a rental property. Right. And they made smart choices and they're afraid of us intervening and jumping in those processes. And, you know, frankly, that that's actually something I do encourage homeownership and figuring out a path to build wealth because we have to figure that out. But I'm not ignoring what's happening. I see that one thing I want know is that the housing crisis is real. The housing crisis is real. And I want anybody see that movie, Butterfly Effect, Butterfly Effect, a guy makes a decision, goes back in time, tries to fix decision, it gets worse, goes back in time again. Try to fix the decision. It gets worse. And I keep and someone came up and talked about the downtown plan. And I remember that conversation because I remember that conversation because I was chief of. Staff to a councilmember here in the ninth District when that conversation did come up. And I know folks don't like revisiting history, but there was a big debate here. And he said investment and development will beget displacement. And someone said if it is good for one area, that should be good for the entire city. These antibodies placement loss. And you know, I can't speak for the past council, but I can tell you that the anti displacement laws haven't haven't kicked in. And so while yes. I don't know that I'm you know, I don't know that I'm ready to support rent control outright. What I can say is I acknowledge that we need to do something on displacement. We need to address something else significant that happened. Redevelopment, you know, is gone. That was our chief tool to fund housing. It's gone. We have to replace it. It's very difficult to build affordable housing without a local source of revenue. So we have to talk about what tough decision is going to make to actually fund housing. I think we need to have a lot more education around this issue. You know, I'm going to support this motion tonight, but by no means do I expect these questions are really unfair and biased. Unbiased. I think they're need. I would encourage staff to not just be limited by these questions, but do the diligence and try to present a fair and balanced assessment assessment on it. And then the other thing I would say is that someone mentioned that it might be too late to do something about any any specific plans that we've done. I don't know that that's true. I don't know that that's true. I think the city is embracing specific plans. We've seen downtown plan, we've seen midtown plan. We've seen see it. We're doing uptown plan. And I think we should look at whether going, going, looking. We look at going back and doing some analysis on whether we really did think about attaching sort of anti displacement laws to specific plans if those specific plans do trigger additional investment. I don't I think it was very controversial five years ago. I don't know that it would be as controversial this time. I think in this environment, some people are going to you know, some people are going to say whatever you whatever you suggest is going to be wrong. But the reality we have to put all the options on the table here. You can't be in a deficient defensive crouch and say the issue isn't here. I don't want rent control. I don't want just for just calls for eviction. But on the other hand, not not really for do something, you know, in a timely manner. And so I acknowledge the work that the city council has done. I acknowledge the leadership people have shown. But in reality, we we haven't produced anything tangible just yet. And that needs to happen. That needs to happen. Or I'm afraid that even if this measure doesn't doesn't qualify for the ballot, who's to say that in two years there won't be another measure that would qualify or qualify for the ballot? And then our hands are tied to the city council. We need to do our jobs and create public policy faster than we're doing it then we're doing because this issue isn't going to go away. So my thoughts are, so I'm going to vote to support this because I believe education is needed, but I do hope that we get some sort of fair and balanced assessment of this. And I thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Open up. Thank you. I just have one final comment before we go to the mayor in his final comment, but I just wanted to thank everyone for speaking tonight and in particular, thank you for adapting to the 92nd rule. I think it was a great experiment and it worked very well. And there are far more people in the audience than there were the last two meetings. And the body language is a lot better. So thank you. Oh, yeah, yeah. If there's no council objection in the future, we're going to I'm going to call that the supernatural and we're going to we're going to do that. Okay. I have a couple a couple closing comments. And I obviously, I support the the the item and thank you, councilman. Super on Shirley support getting all the information from the city attorney on the analysis and everyone on on all sides of the issue that came forward tonight. And I want to echo a couple of things that were said. The first is that the issue around housing and homelessness is is the issue of our time for the next ten, 20 years. There is no question that the issue around housing, the issue around homelessness is at the top of every single city's agenda, whether it's Long Beach, whether it's San Francisco, whether it's Santa monica. With all the other cities that were mentioned tonight, it's the number one issue. What is also true is that people have a variety, different of different opinions of how to get to what I believe most people believe is the same goal, which is ensure that there's enough housing for people making sure that it's people can afford to have housing and that we're passing good, smart policies that allow people to live productive lives. Nobody I don't believe anyone, whether you are a landlord and certainly not an advocate for housing, wants to see people suffer or displaced. And I think there are. A lot of sometimes I think accusations and insults are thrown around. And I don't believe that there are people that that that enjoy seeing people displace or people suffering. And so I think that all of us want the best for everyone in the city. It's how you get there and what you believe is the best policy that takes us there. I think a couple of things are important. I have said, and I continue to believe with every ounce of research that I have done and absorbed, similar to what Councilwoman Pryce said, that the single best way of getting out of this crisis, not just in Long Beach, but statewide, is housing production. And and to ensure that there is to ensure that there is consistent, consistent forms of producing housing of all types, and, of course, particularly housing for those experiencing homelessness, for low income folks, for seniors in need, affordability, but also housing at the workforce level. And for middle class families. You have to build housing of all types that get us out of where we are right now, which is essentially a math problem where our population is grown, but housing production has not. And so that's why you're seeing the pressures that you're seeing across the state of California and in Long Beach as well. I want to also ask, and maybe it's an expansion of the questions or a friendly to the council member or to Mr. City attorney. I think there's also some misinformation about what actually exists in Long Beach currently. There's a lot of folks that say we want to have rent control or stabilization or we want this or that. Long Beach has about 6500 units that are rent stabilized. Rent stabilization exists in Long Beach. It has existed for probably 40 years in this community. So this idea that rent stabilization doesn't exist is not true. It exists. And I want to make sure we get that exact number maybe and staff can help us with this. Maybe it's 6200 units. Maybe it's 6500 units. But the fact is that these units exist in Long Beach and they're mostly in the city of Long Beach. They are for people that are experiencing the people that have disabilities. They're for low income seniors. They're for housing. Look the village is at Cabrillo that we support so much in our community out Carmelite cos there's a lot of housing in Long Beach that is already rent stabilized. It's also true that we have increased, not decreased the amount of rent stabilized units in Long Beach over the last few years. And so the way we have done that is through production. And so every time we build a project, Councilman Gonzales alluded to about 300 rent stabilized units that we currently are building right now in the first District. Every time we build a project like on Anaheim in PCH or senior or low income senior housing or expand like we just did 120 units in West Long Beach by the villages of Cabrillo. We are expanding that rent stabilized number from, you know, 6000 to 60 500 to 7000 and higher. And so what I hope is while there is disagreement whether rent control actually works or causes disinvestment in housing production, which I believe a lot of the research does, does lead us to, I hope we can I hope we can all agree that housing production and expanding rent stabilized units is beneficial to everyone in the city of Long Beach. And I and I would think that whether you're a property owner or whether you are an advocate or a tenant wants to see us, look at how do we increase the amount of rent stabilized units that we have for seniors, low income families and so forth. And I believe you do that by focusing strongly on production in addition to that. I want to just make sure and when we when we come back with this is the more information that we have on these units, these units that have existed for decades in Long Beach have covenants on them. And we've worked really hard this the city has invested millions and millions of dollars on keeping these units, had to have actual covenants. You may not hear about it or read about it in the paper, but time after time, meeting after meeting, this council is voting on putting resources into keeping these rent stabilized and affordable. And I want to make sure that we're also getting that information back to to the city council. And so the last thing I'll say is, I hope that over the course of the next few months, we obviously all have different opinion, different opinions on how to get to affordability. But I do hope that we can focus on the areas where we all agree. And I would hope that we can all agree that production supporting the rent stabilized units that we currently have are appropriate are appropriate ways of trying to deal with this, the statewide crisis. And so I want to thank everyone for for coming out. I know that we don't all agree completely on this issue. And that's and that's okay. But we'll continue to make this a big. An important part of our agenda and and say one thing I heard a few folks say, you know, we need to address this. We do more. I agree. We need to do more, but so does a state. We lost almost all of our affordable housing dollars through the loss of redevelopment, which Vice Mayor Richardson said, which is a total disgrace and our ability to actually build more housing. But I also believe that this council has done a lot of work on this issue, whether it's been through the land use element, whether it's been through the 26 policy ideas that this council passed last year on on housing production. So we'll continue to do that. I look forward to work with everyone that wants to be at the table. I plan on having a lot of conversations on this topic, as is every mayor in the state over the next six months, year, years, in the in the future on this topic. And I invite everyone to be at that table in the future. So with that, there's a motion in a second by Councilmember Super and I strongly support this item. Members, please cast your votes. Y'all November. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we will. We're going to go ahead and move on to item 12, please. Just the next item on the agenda.

Consider Directing Staff to Initiate Steps in Preparing a Structurally Sustainable General Fund Budget. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Continued from January 20, 2015]

AlamedaCC_01212015_2015-1270

Three F Instead of directing staff to initiate steps in preparing a structurally sustainable general fund budget, this item was put on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Nutter. I thank you. And this is meant to be fairly simple, and it requests that the city council directs the city manager to take specific steps in preparing a structurally sustainable general fund budget and a. My intent on this is to actually establish principles for us to make a judgment on the budget, not necessarily to. Direct the city manager steps. And what I'm looking for is this council to establish working principles where we have defined one time revenues. That it's clear that their one time revenues by definition and they are not incorporated as general fund revenues. And that we have the opportunity to look at a general fund that's constructed without advances, loans or other transfers from funds outside the general fund. And we look at a way to further define that the reserve that fund balance is not included in the general fund revenue line. And. The reason is, is operations I think of have to do with operational income and. I think with these principles we can evaluate the budget that comes to us. And I'd also like us to afford this. This the ability to consult and obtain advice from parties separate from dysfunction. That is, the city treasurer and the city auditor, not the city treasurer. The city auditor is a treasure, but is the treasurer and all that and spell check audit. But I didn't. And that we apply these principles to our upcoming general fund. I also put this out there with an understanding that the city is already taking steps in these directions and it's much appreciated. The staff has the same thing in mind, but because we get so many people attending our budget sessions, at least in my experience in the past, I think it is very important to make sure that people are aware that when we talk about free bus passes or free park services, nothing is free. It it comes from a line item in a budget. And in order to sustain that, we have to live within our means. And our means doesn't include dependance on one time funding. And. I think because we have recovery fever, it's not recovery for everybody. I think we have very large unfunded liability. As the speaker who spoke at the at the opening of the meeting referenced that we still have a lot of work to do on that. And again, that's the the. Genesis of this referral and this one, unlike my other referrals, is open to. I'm perfectly open to hearing how people want to amend it. I have no. No set. That desire to see any one of these stay in tact other than keeping the principles that we live within our means. Member Ashcraft Well, if I could just suggest what would be helpful to me would be to hear from staff, specifically Ms. Warmer Dam, because she takes such an active role in the budget and really understands all the intricacies of it. And I think so to help us understand this, this Council referral better and the implications of it. Before we do that, I'd like to ask you have other council member comments. All right. Arthur. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I in fact, today I just sat in a presentation about Prop eight adjustments, and it talked about our property taxes and and how we see out in the economy that it's doing so well. And yet there are some adjustments because of reassessments that are are going to impact our property taxes. We'll see improvements in the future and probably next year and the year after. But this year, it's not as great as we, you know, we had all hoped. As we all know, the public sector lags the private sector. And it's that's just a fact. So I do appreciate I mean, I think the I think where you're headed with this vice mayor is the dependency on one time funding. And I totally recognize that. And we that is how we budget. We do not we don't budget when we know we have one time money and we're forecasting for the future, we take that one time money out and then we forecast based on what is sustainable and not that one time money. So and I think that that addresses your first bullet. I would like to ask, though, because I don't have the benefit of the finance director here tonight to discuss these in particular as we move forward through the budget process. In the very beginning, our very first kickoff meeting, we'll talk about assumptions and we can address this very specifically to make sure that that we're addressing your your concerns. But as we develop the budget, we absolutely are not considering one time money as our source of revenue. And then the other thing I just would like to say is I haven't been in contact with the city treasurer or auditor. I'm hoping that you have and they're okay with participating in this. So. I think we can invite them. I don't personally. Participate. In the past. Okay. Yeah. And we have a good relationship with them, so I'm sure that's not going to be that won't be an issue. Any other member, council member disagree. Oh, well, thank you. Let me address this in several ways, in two ways. First, let me talk about my interactions with this and previous city managers. And then second, let me talk about. You know how I see the matter before us. As a council member, the way that I've always interacted with the city manager is, you know, we I go there and I sit down and, you know, I talk with we have regularly scheduled meetings. I think it was back in October, for example, in a Thursday meeting with city manager Russo. Liz Warm Adam was there as well. And, and and finance director Julian Boyer was there as well. We were talking about the fact that, you know, we were anticipating he was talking about that we were anticipating more revenues, that our reserves looked quite healthy. But it was city manager Russo who took the initiative to point out that. But don't get too excited because a lot of this is also one time reserves a one time, one time upside hits. So, you know, don't don't be making these long term plans as if, you know, you're going to always have X amount of dollars . And, you know, during the course of the conversation, we further talked about, you know, the nature of one time reserves and how, you know, we treat that from one budget to one budget planning to another budget planning. So I. And it's a type of conversation that I've had with previous city managers. Jim Flint, Rest in peace. This is city manager, acting city manager at the time. Rob Wonder when I first began. So. For the most part, you know, I've seen city managers and also Debbie Greta city managers who really are on top of their game when it comes to dealing with these issues. But by the same token. Now. Now to the second point. A lot of times when the information is put into, you know, pages 200 page budget document or the supporting reports that go to the you know, a lot of times it looks very opaque for persons who and it doesn't mean that you have to have gone to city planning school or or have been a council member for a long time. I mean, it's just opaque. And what I think that what council member, Matt Oreskes, vice mayor of address, is getting at, is making sure that that we're clear on certain key areas when it comes to tracking budget items, whether we're whether we're clear on one time reserves and revenues or we're clear on advance loans. But in my mind, these specific areas around which I believe Vice Mayor Matarese wants us to be clear when we interact with the public. I think these three specific items fall under kind of the general notion of what our best practices. So it's altogether possible that, you know, the conversation that we might want to have are, you know, what are the best practices when it comes to any kinds of financial items and in among any kind of financial items, perhaps these three items, Race to the Top. So it's probably a larger conversation that we as a city council might have to understand, you know, what are the best practices when it comes to one time revenues? As you know, it's true that while you ought not to make permanent plans around one time revenues, it's also true that from one year to the next, you have these one time revenues that bump up. They might bump up from different sources. You know, some property got sold and suddenly you get a lot of transfer tax. Or maybe the state makes this decision regarding paying back the city, some sales tax that that had accidentally given to another city, which I did, which did happen, by the way. Went the other way, though. It went the other way. To somebody else. Exactly. It was a company called Van Star that moved out to, I think, Livermore area. But anyways, these kinds of revenue one time hits happened in different ways. So. You know, it's. It's getting a handle on how to treat it. And I think that's where the best practices notion comes in place. I think it's fine to have principles and hard and fast policies, but. You know, based upon my experience and working with the different city managers, I trust that I can give them the leeway. So long as we're clear as to what constitutes best practices, I trust that we can give them the leeway to make decisions. I mean, in the big picture of things, I think the fact that we had after Sony's the fact that we had a big one time hit a one time revenue jump, that was actually good news because it meant that we could then begin to kind of. Stash it away towards dealing with like the OPEB unfunded liabilities to start up the trust fund for that. And you know, I've seen the city manager make some alterations to previous employee negotiating bargaining agreements. You know, getting the police and fire to pay more towards their their retirement. So. With this city manager and with previous city managers, you know, I'm confident that they can do the job and that where we are. So I wouldn't want to. And cut them into, you know, specifying, you know, in our budget this is how you're going to do things. Rather, I think if we give them the leeway and so they're clear as to what we think are best practices. And when we go through the budget session, we just simply have to ask, you know, to what extent have you followed the best practices that we had in mind? And I think and in part, if we if we're not if we don't agree with the city manager at that point in time or the finance director at that point in time, you know, we spell out our differences. So and the other member. I think going first a. Lot, you. Hear it. I'll be brief. So I want to echo that. My thoughts are very similar to Councilmember de songs and Councilmember training. They said, if your colleague has said it already and don't repeat, so I'm not going to you. But I'm just a little concerned that, you know, we're setting policy without understanding the consequences of it. If we set a policy that, you know, certain revenues or or certain budget items should not be included, then are we setting a policy now that sets us up for potential service cuts? And I don't know if that's if that's something we want to do at this point. You know, I do agree that I think we do need to follow best practices. But I think the proper time to talk about that and think about that is when we get closer to the budget. At that am I my quick, quick thoughts on. I'm going to let member vice mayor respond first. And I just wanted to respond to those two sets of comments because I used the word principle on purpose rather than policy. And I prefaced my remarks because this is not so well written, because the preparation of the budget, according to our charter, belongs to the city manager. So we're not I my intention is not to direct the steps, but I think Ms.. Vollmer damn. Helped me out here saying that these are talking points. And if I would, I would really want to see out of here and and to get a motion passed that says that, first of all, we define all of these things . So we have a clear definition of of what a one time and I know you have something like that. What a one time revenue is. And we're reminded of it as we're going through our budget process that we understand and and it's highlighted in explaining the budget to us, because you mentioned that the the text on the paper is opaque. It's more than that. It could be gibberish, you know, if it's late at night, which doesn't always happen. Right. But advances loans and other transfers have a habit. And I have experienced some city manager, some good city managers. They have a habit of drifting off the high radar and they they drift down someplace. And by the time your eyes get down there, you don't see them. And that's why I think it's a good talking point to highlight those, so that we can either decide we we want to approve that that approach or send that approach back for adjustment. And the last is and this goes back directly to the graphic from the the midterm report, the projected our general fund reserves going to zero in fiscal year 2018. I don't know if that's still the case. But that graphic was put together with a lot of thought, and it's going to be adjusted, I'm sure, given the runs that we have. But we have to keep our eye on that ball because and I think it's important to remind the public of that, because that's in a public document. It hasn't been revised yet. It needs to be pointed out. And I think if we follow those and have those pointed out during our budget discussion and we give that direction to the manager, then I'll be satisfied that the intent of this council referral to accomplish. I think we're fine with that is momentum. I remember Ashcroft. Oh, I think that because the vice mayor was referring to something that had been said by staff before that was appropriate. I didn't mind at all. That you had wanted to. Speak. I did, but I'm always happy to. You know, more information is better than less. But thank you. I. I'm grappling with this because I feel that. We are following these principles. I think they're good principles to be aware of. At the same time, we. We have recently had some one time revenue and I think the previous council dealt with it very responsibly. We we had a divided into separate pots and some immediate needs. We were able to take off the list, as I recall, some public works, you know, repairs that needed to be done. And and and we also set aside to start paying down, not start, but to continue paying down our OPEB liability. We took part of that way. I think that we need flexibility when we're dealing with the budget. I would like to see all of these ideas discussed when we start hearing the budget talks coming up by doing a council referral and singling out these particular principles, three principles seems to elevate them to a certain level that maybe they should share with other principles of good budget practice. And I, I, I do understand in, in vice mayor matters. He has certainly served in different administrations. Different administrations change. And but I think we've learned a lot from the past. I think that we, or at least those of us and I believe our new colleagues are all very mindful of what we face in our budget, the deficit and what we need to the debts we need to pay down. And so I think that I. I've been very satisfied with the work and the reports that have come out of the finance department. I miss terribly our former finance director, Fred Marsh. But I think our interim Jo-Anne Boyer is doing a good job too. But they have, I think, managed to breakdown the budget into clear, understandable language. And so I'm I'm just not sure that this needs to be a direction to the city manager at this time, but yet these principles can be considered along with others when we come to our budget talks. In November day. So thank you. You know, I think maybe this is the crux of the issue as I see it. And I'm not saying that this is a crux for anyone else. For me, the crux of the issue is that. We have we have known for the longest time since the 1990s. Particularly starting in 2000, that our budget is structurally. Impaired, so to speak. We have known that in the late 1990s. We knew that with the base closure and the impending impacts that were coming down, that the impacts were large and they were going to always be there. But the revenue with which we are going to deal with the incremental impacts weren't adequate. Likewise in the 2000. With the increase in our outstanding liabilities. OPEB as well as CalPERS, that we can see that we had not just the ongoing liabilities, but we also had to do the, you know, as as former Councilmember Doug Haan used to say in the out years. So and that our revenue stream coming in relative not just on an annual basis but on a cumulative basis relative to our our current and ongoing and unfunded liabilities. It was inadequate that it it it at that so that there was a structural problem with regard to our budget. We've known that. By necessity. It is the city managers ask whether it's in Flint, Rob Wonder or. Or Debbie Carita or. John Russo. By necessity, it is their task to juggle a lot of balls, to chip away at our long term obligations while trying to maintain current services as as well as possible. And as a result, sometimes that they will take a look at the general fund reserves, perhaps dip into it to pay to help pay for ongoing operations. Or other times maybe they will take some make some cuts and then put that savings into the general fund reserve. Or by necessity, they will deal with one time revenues and deal to sometimes perhaps deal with ongoing needs. All the information is always out there. It's the responsibility of the council members on behalf of the residents to ask the tough questions that if we didn't solve, you know, the structural deficit, our budget. Are we moving in the right direction or it's not resolving it? And the question is always, do you trust staff? Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. You trust staff that they're working in the interest of solving these outstanding issues. In the city manager and previous city managers. I know that we've always worked our level best. So to me, that's the crux of the matter is I'm not I don't think we have to prescribe to a tee what it is that the city manager has to do. So long as we're clear as to what our best practices are as well as what are our expectations. And we transmit our are and communicate that with the city manager as well as the residents. So I'd like to speak to the side of I was just at a conference member OTI was also there for training for new mayors and council members and when it got to the fiscal issue for the state of California, they discussed Alameda County City's unfunded OPEB liability, which is in regards to as a percent of our general fund. And they had a chart that showed that the range from all the cities in the county of Alameda. And this goes to why this is very significant. And the range was 7% to 140% of this unfunded liability as a percent of the general fund as of June 2013. And Albany was at 7% and Alameda was at 140%. We had the highest percentage in regards to our general fund. And being the mayor of this city, when this chart was flashed in front of a room full of new members and mayors, all of a sudden everyone was looking at me. So we all recognized statewide that this is an important issue. So I truly do appreciate why the vice mayor's bringing this referral. And in regards to these other comments, and I and I also support and this is. I want to look at this language because. We have each of us do have a responsibility of due diligence to ask questions when the budget is presented. I have had meetings with staff in regards to the budget process and we will be having ample public meetings, workshops to include the public in this discussion. And the first part of it is, you know, request city council, direct city manager to take specific steps in preparing a structurally sustainable general fund budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2015 2017 cycle. And I actually have concerns in regards to that language. This is a long term process. We all know we are not going to be able to address this issue in this two year cycle that is here. And what I am actually looking for is a long term plan in regards to how we are going to chip away and and address this issue. And and these points are good principles that I'm sure we all out of context would say, yes, we fully support. However, without the information of our finance director and I also agree in regards to our city treasurer, our city auditor, having their input. I it's my understanding this is what the process will be, that we will have the opportunity, we will discuss assumptions, we will have input. And this is why. And so now City Manager Warming Dam, could you clarify what will be happening with the budget process? Certainly. So we are looking at kicking off the budget process. I'm sorry, I don't have the actual date in my head. Do you remember me? Okay. Was it March coming? I think we're coming to council in the beginning of March and we'll be the very first meeting will be a kick off meeting, and I'll be talking about assumptions, sort of some of the the the the actual schedule. And that would be the time that we would talk about this. And if I may, I think I also do appreciate the flexibility from the other council members. I also appreciate the fiscal your concern. The vice mayor is concerned with the fiscal health. And I think I'd like to suggest maybe some some language that might help, which would be requests that the city manager, the city council direct the city manager, prepare the general fund budget for the upcoming two year cycle and ensure that the following principles are defined and critically evaluated during the budget process. And I think that's kind of what you're looking at to make sure that we really these are important I have gone to. Right. So you just want us to make sure that these are very important principles. We should be following them. We may not be able to follow them for particular reason, like we were in a recession and we couldn't follow them and we had to use our rainy day fund. So we needed that flexibility. But I think what your what the vice mayor is asking is that we critically evaluate these pieces and we included in the budget process. I think we are totally okay pursuing that and again, defining. Exactly. Exactly. Because you're right. Advances, loans and transfers from other funds. That has a whole set of definitions that I think are really important because some of these things you are ongoing, you get them every year and you would include them as your revenue. Some things are not there one time and you would not include them. So I think we do want to define them and we can do that in in our in the process. So so and that is something that I actually I'm confident staff would do without our direction. And I truly do. And if if there is ever a definition that we don't think staff has adequately defined, then I'm confident that we can always remind, you know, and ask the question and then it comes back to us. So I'll go back to Vice Mayor, if you'd like to frame a referral that you think is appropriate. May I make a comment motion? Oh, yes, yes. So I just want to say I've really enjoyed watching and listening to this discussion. I think it's been a really nice example of interaction among all the council and staff, and we have created something that I think I'm prepared to actually support where I didn't think I would, because I think this former dam really honed in on the concerns on both sides of this issue and just made it better. I also appreciate the affirmation of the respect for staff, their input, their expertize and their abilities. I think too often people don't realize how much is done by staff before the five of us ever get up here to do our deliberating. So I think that's really nice to have that affirmation in public. I mean, with this, I'll turn the floor back over. And I like the language. I really appreciate help in having. It's obvious that you listened what I was saying to what my colleagues were saying, and I think that that makes this useful. So if the city clerk can read back the motion, that would be the motion I would make because it captured what my intention was. It would be the city council directed the city manager to prepare the general fund budget and ensure the items listed would be defined and critically evaluated. And those are those three points. And I would make that motion and also make a comment that. Even though it I specified fiscal year 20 1517 cycle it was so that would start right now and I do understand that we have a long way to go, but I think it's important that we do this ahead of the discussion so it doesn't get swallowed in. And I think we all agree with you. We have a motion. Is there a second member? Yes. Is the last paragraph still in the motion? Okay. No. I'm sorry. Can I hear it one more time, please? Direct. The City Council would direct the city manager to prepare the General Fund budget and ensure the three items listed would be defined and critically evaluate. The three items are one. One time revenues, advance loans and reserves. Yes. Thank you. We have emotion. Is there a second? Um. Okay. Our second. And then at this point, the last paragraph was stricken. That was. Yes, because I think the assumption is that the Treasurer and the auditor are already involved. Remember what hesitation I exhibited moments ago was? Because I think going into this, I saw this discussion as being framed as something addressing the structural deficit, the nature of the structural deficit of the general of our of our budget, which we all know is there. But my sense then is that we've kind of moved away from from indicating that that this will indeed actually solve the structural general fund budget, a promise which I would say that was probably beyond the scope to begin with. So to go to the extent that that interpretation of what I guess is correct, and I'm supportive of this, I'm supportive of the literal wording of how it is now. QUESTION So are you the that. Is. Because I think this is important. What I'm trying to say is this is that if we follow the little wording of of the motion, there is no implied predicate of dot, dot, dot. Therefore, we are on the path of solving the structural deficit is that's a promise which I think we can't make. But I think the motion, as it stated now in and of itself, has value to the public. It is valuable to specify these three items. And my question to you is going to be, were you having trouble with the wording in preparing a structurally sustainable budget? No, because I didn't hear that word in the way that you read out. We did take that out. That's okay. Okay, then. Yeah. So that's fine. Yeah, I'm fine with the literal wording. That's why I appreciate this word. So I actually would like to go back member day to give comment regarding the three the three principles. Mm hmm. So it's my understanding that we're not saying that these are things. These would be assumptions we would be considering along with other assumptions. That's right. We're going to define them and evaluate them. So this is intentionally broad. And I personally. I expect this is something that staff would have done without the referral. I don't think the referral is necessary to do this. I do expect that we will be working with staff. We will have the opportunity to do all of this. However, I will support the motion, but I do think it's redundant. So I'll call the question. All those in favor. I, I opposed. Abstain. On. So forth. Four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. And our next item. Three G can. Consider directing staff to reestablish the Economic Development Commission. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Madam.

AN ORDINANCE related to City public works and the priority hire program; amending Sections 20.37.010, 20.37.020, 20.37.040, and 20.37.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change references to “project labor agreement” to “community workforce agreement,” to make certain technical corrections, and to change the number of core workers open-shop contractors may bring to a project.

SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_CB 119032

The report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Council vote 1190 32 relating to City Public Works in the Priority Hire program amending sections 20.30 7.0, 10.0, 20.0 49.0 50 of the ceiling. Mr. Code to change references to project labor agreement to community workforce agreement, to make certain technical corrections and to change the number of core workers open shop contractors may bring to a project. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Does this item need to be moved or not? I'll move it after you speak to it. Thank you. So just a little bit of context. The priority hire program requires that public works construction projects that have contracts totaling 5 million or more must be covered by a master community workforce agreement. That does two primary things. First of all, it requires a minimum percentage of workers being local residents from economically disadvantaged zip codes and it requires utilization of apprentice IT apprentices that come from pre apprenticeship programs. This second requirement improves the opportunity of an on and underemployed workers receiving entry level training to be eventually placed on these public works projects. We're celebrating two years since the passage of this legislation, and this program is very successful in maximizing the city's investment in public infrastructure to help residents secure apprenticeship and journey level employment opportunities on city funded works, public works projects. The legislation, as passed out of committee makes a couple of changes to the to the priority hire legislation. Primarily, it will reduce from 5 to 3 the number of court employees that open shop contractors may include on a project before hiring through the priority hire hiring process. And two, it allows open shop in women and minority business enterprise contractors to bring, in addition to the three core employees, two apprentices from state approved training programs that are either a worker from a disadvantaged zip code, a pre apprenticeship graduate, or a woman or person of color. These revisions are supported by the executive, and they're also supported by the Priority Hire Advisory Committee. Since the passage of the 25 legislation, Seattle residents have actually doubled their percentage of hours on projects compared to past projects where the percentage of Seattle residents working on these taxpayer funded projects prior to priority hire was only 5%. And then the the the efforts of focusing on workers in economically distressed zip codes in Seattle has been very successful because those zip codes are now performing more than three times the hours as compared to past projects. And then finally, women more work more than two times the hours. Now, compared to previous years. Very good. Um, I'll move to pass Council Bill 119032. Is there a second? I'll get it. Okay. Thanks for the description of that. Bill comes from her brother. Any further comments? We're good. He's got the role on the passage of the bill. Herbold Hi. Johnson. Swan I bagshaw Burgess I. Gonzalez, President Herrell I seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair of the Senate Please read Agenda Item number two.

Consider Directing Staff to Draft a Proposed Charter Amendment Relative to the Creation of a Mayor-Nominated and Council-Appointed Five Member Municipal Finance Commission. (Councilmember Daysog)

AlamedaCC_02172015_2015-1326

Nine is considered directing staff to draft a proposed charter amendment relative to the creation of a mere nominating counsel. Appointed five member in a Civil Finance Commission. And this is submitted by member de SA. Would you like to speak to this? Yes, thank you. I am presenting this for your consideration. The creation of basically a municipal finance commission whose tasks are narrowly defined, largely because and appropriately so. The city budget is prepared by the city manager's office for the city council. So the way that I'm framing this is, as is indicated in the summary, is basically being a sounding board for the city manager as he goes about or she or he goes about preparing the city budget. In a way it kind of ties in with where city treasurer Kevin Kearney said earlier tonight when he indicated that perhaps there should be involvement ahead of time when, when, when the Budget is 90% done. I mean by the time it comes to city council for draft, I mean, it's, it's almost there. We just have to make the policy choices as council members. But prior to that initial first draft of the budget, I think what usually comes in May, I think first meeting in May. This would be an opportunity to have a finance commission to do and, you know, sound as a sounding board. And the other particular thing that I'm interested in is also a charter. Having it having an institutionalized way that says there is a group of people who are also a sounding board when it comes to our unfunded liabilities, particularly CalPERS and OPEB. I think the city manager has he discussed the trust fund idea? And we've also taken on a preliminary basis, there's been some initial concepts that that illustrate how the trust fund idea in terms of dealing with OPEB can get dealt with over a 20 to 30 year period, well beyond the time that I'm on council or beyond the time that many staff persons are here. Perhaps there can be this institutionalized vehicle that kind of. Is by charter. Um, yeah. Is one of his primary task is to say, okay, what kind of progress are we making with regard to these unfunded liabilities? So there is really no if from my vantage point, I have no real. This doesn't have to be done before the. The budget season is just happens to be coincidental that the budget our budget season is coming. I don't require staff to suddenly, you know, change heaven and earth to deal with this matter. I mean, it, you know, July, August I. But I did want to begin to have that discussion. I think many other cities. Have finance commissions and committees. So. So that's the viewpoint. Any members have comments on this? Remember I had. I've been talking for so long. You go first. Well, a couple of quick things. First, to those who asked me if I was not feeling welcome, that did not do a referral. Meaning I am fine because it is very much. We heard a lot of coughing up here today. Secondly, no, in all seriousness, I have a personal preference that if we're going to have new commissions that, you know, each council member gets an opportunity to appoint someone to that commission, because I think we all bring a diverse background, diverse views, and I think a diverse group of supporters. So I think that that would help if we do do something like this. I guess I'm kind of wondering, you know, kind of how this is different than will a the budget process be the council's ultimate responsibility to be the decision maker on these things? And then kind of it going on, Treasurer Kennedy's remarks, you know, the timeliness of it, you know, OPEB, you know, that's for my understanding, something that, you know, we either have to take an action on as a council if we want to do something unilaterally or we have to collectively bargain if we want any of our our public safety unions to, you know, make concessions or contribute, you know, in retirement pensions. I mean, we all know that, you know, CalPERS comes out with their rates. You know, we unless we have some state bailout, which I'm not saying that's going to happen, but, you know, that might be an option that is considered considering that all cities are kind of facing this. I guess I'm just kind of a little bit confused as to what, you know, the ultimate deliverable and the ultimate outcome of this is. And if we're going to have some type of finance, you know, committee now, I think, well, the Treasurer might be a person to have on there. But you know, my understanding is he gives us advice and the city manager, you know, consults him readily on these type of issues. And, you know, I don't think we're going to have any finance type committee without any representation from our public safety unions. I swear. I really like the point that was made on Tassie and that is to, to raise on a periodic basis. And I think Treasurer Kennedy spoke to it the frequency of it. But I think the nugget here is that it is put out in in front of the public that we have this unfunded liability. We have these background liabilities, I think is the term that Treasurer Kennedy used that need to be periodically checked. And I think I think that the council should have the front line on this and. I think it's our ultimate responsibility to approve the budget. And I think back in. In front of that approval. They have something that is codified either as a practice or as part of our budget process that accomplishes what's outlined in Task C is very important. So I think that that's a very good point. Whether this is a charter committee, I think the notion of charter is to make sure that it's it's there and it's constantly being looked at. I'm not sure of an. I guess. I don't know what other cities our size. Have. And in that regard, I know at one time we had a fiscal sustainability committee which. Did a certain amount of this type of work. I don't know how valuable that was. Given the times, but I'd like to see us at least address this as as a council, this this check on these unfunded liabilities. But I'm not convinced that we need a charter established commission to do that for us. Member. Ashcroft Thank you. And I agree with the vice mayor and council member. I, I think that one does not undertake a charter amendment lightly. And I think this is. A significant step. And again, yeah, are there other ways to achieve the same objectives, which I think are laudable, by the way, and I really appreciated hearing from the city Treasurer earlier this evening. We do need to keep our eye on those very important balls are unfunded liabilities in our and OPEB, but to the point made by the City Treasurer, adding even more meetings for the public to have to keep up with and attend is not necessarily increasing transparency. In fact, sometimes it's just the opposite because the public has a hard time keeping up with all of our meetings as it is. And I also look at the amount of staff time that is required every time we add a new a new task force. And I think that or committee or commissioner or what have you and I think there's something in here about that could meet twice a quarter. And ultimately, this is, as we said, the role of the city council. I think that it's a great idea to get these issues out before us, as the city treasurer alluded to, sooner than when 90% of the work in the budget is done. I think that's something the council can, through the city manager direct to be done. I'm asked staff to do. I think the the process described would be time consuming require extra staff time in duplicate a function already performed by the council. We can't always convene an ad hoc committee similar to the OPEB task force, which may be. And if that's different now, that is different from the Fiscal Sustainability Committee. So we've done this in the past, and I think that bringing together those kinds of task forces or committees that are tailored to a particular need at a particular time is more effective than something as extreme as a charter amendment that fixes it for all time. So why I again laud the the objectives that are are laid out in this council referral? I think that that's something that all of us on the council should pay special attention to. And I'd love to see these issues come to us well ahead of the budget. Thank you. I'm really sorry. Oh, thank you. I think everyone's comments are taken to heart. I do think that the magnitude of the challenge that we have with regard to our unfunded liabilities is some of which is $200 million, $100 million on the OPEB side and $100 million on the CalPERS side. And I'm not even including the unfunded liabilities when it comes to capital improvement. I think the magnitude of the challenges and the long term solutions that we will put in place, especially for OPEB, requires, in my opinion, a charter change so that we can have a vehicle to track this over time. And I mean, the voters will, one way or another, vote on this. And also, I think the magnitude of the. Of just our budget as the city council. We've got not only the $75 million general fund budget, but we have all our other non general fund items and you know, annually we're dealing with it a quarter of $1,000,000,000 budget. I think the magnitude of what we're dealing with requires at a minimum. Additional community input. So in my mind, this ranks up there as being a charter type of committee. Along with a library commission or the or the planning commission. And there will likely be a vote on this in the chart. So whether we decide on this tonight. So I appreciate that. And I and I do appreciate the goal here of it's my understanding that staff is planning to have a workshop about the budget. Mr.. R.M. Thank you. And you. Share with us what the process is. Certainly. So actually we have I'm just pulling up the schedule right now. We have six meetings planned, the first two. The first is sort of an introduction of the process. The second is introducing the preliminary budget, including assumptions. And I think that would be the time that I'd suggest that we include early on the discussion of OPEB, CalPERS and maintenance. So that would be the second meeting. Then the next three meetings are our departments doing their departmental presentations. And then. The final meeting, which is roughly in the early, early. June, is adoption of the budget. So we're looking at a total of six working meetings. Do you have dates. March 17th to June 2nd? Are any of these would any of these be a special meeting like on a Saturday, which is what I believe. So we have right now tentatively. Three regular meetings and three special meetings. The special meetings. Are during the week. We're not planning on having them on the weekend. Okay. So that would be something that I would be interested in trying to do a Saturday morning meeting to if we or some other time so that to include different members of the public because I do appreciate the concern of making sure our public is. That we're very transparent about what we're doing and including the public. And I'm so so maybe that would be another way. To tell if we talk about one of those weekdays. Exactly. Exactly. Instead of a. But these are be like Tuesdays or Thursdays. You know, I know the dates. Yes. One is the one is a Thursday. One is a Wednesday. And then one is a Tuesday in an opposite week. And my only concern about Saturdays is I think families with children are. I mean, I remember when hours were home, you're just going from activity to activity. So I hate to. I hate to. Leaves them out. I. So I hear the same thing about evening meetings that, you know, only certain people can come that parents can't because they're doing homework or babysitting or whatnot. So I was just thinking a choice so we could have some on the which we already have evening meetings on weekdays if anyone else is interested in making a different time available for different members of the community to be able to attend. But of course, this would be a special meeting, so there's nothing else on the agenda, is that correct? That's right. That's right. The special will and we can bring this back so that you all have the dates in front of you and then we can talk about it. But the first two meetings were regular meetings on Tuesday evenings. The special meetings were actually the individual presentations by the departments. So you would want to have one of those on a Saturday because they're not going to be able to hear the whole budget. You're only going to hear, let's say, police and, you know, a few departments. So those special meetings are just departmental meetings. And just a few of the departments will be going each time. And then the adoption of the budget is we're proposing that to be the beginning of June. So June. 2nd. And then in regards to Mr. Kennedy also brought up the certain slides. Be always part of the presentation. Absolutely. Duly noted. Yeah, they will be. So then that I think goes to the slides are in regards to the capital projects, summary unfunded projects, the CalPERS rates, projected increases in rates. And I, you know, I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand the the substance and the process by which we deal with the issue, the budget issues from time to time, whether it's through, you know, workshops on Saturdays or or weekends or whether it's through the normal channels. This really is kind of independent. This is about creating a lasting institution. And to me, this is a missing piece. So from my vantage point, I mean, I would like to go out and collect signatures and and try to put this on the ballot. I we'll leave it at that. All right. So so then we're going to move forward. All right. So then we have our next agenda item nine B. What was the what was the outcome of this? If it's tabled. Is that what you're saying? Now, I. Mean. Well, I bet I would prefer that that that it be moved forward, but it's being tabled. So I will move it forward on my own. Oh, there is no motion. Okay, got it. And if I may, just technically it should be described as withdrawn. If it's tabled mean it's coming back and it has to come back by a date certain. Call it if you like. If I may suggest to the council member the chair that you consider it withdrawn and you can say withdrawn at this time, but I think that'll be cleaner in the minutes. Well, I prefer not to withdraw it, so. What would be the cleanest way to. Well, then I would make a motion to to pass to adopt the recommendation. And if it. And then it's. But that's different from tabling it when it's tabled, my understanding. And it could come back at a later date. Sounds like you don't want to eat that way. You'd rather make the motions. Yeah. All right. All right. So there's a motion. Is there a second? Motion fails for lack of a second, and then we move forward with 9090. Thank you. You. Recommendation that the City Council adhere to the Council referral process adopted by the City Council on December four, 27. The Senate was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Rosa Ashcroft.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PRM) by $3,500, offset by the Second Council District One-time District Priority funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department (XC) to fund festoon lights for the East Village Arts Park; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Citywide Activities Department (XC) by $3,500 to offset a transfer to the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PRM).

LongBeachCC_02122019_19-0110

Now we're going to try to make with the clock. Please read item. Communication from Councilmember Pearce. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by 3500. Offset by the second Council. District one time district. Priority funds to fund. Festoon. Lights for the East Village. Arts Park. I can't come to this place. Thank you. Yes. This Arts Park is an arts park that has been in an attempt to reactivate it in a partnership with the Long Beach Arts Council, Dolby, EVA, and several of the residents in the neighborhood. And one of the great things that we came up with was putting festoon lights there so we can have some live music once a week in the park. And so this is just me moving over our divide by nine to make that happen and activate that park a little bit more. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. To Councilmember Pearce. I know this has been a park that has been underutilized for some time, so I'm glad to see it finally spruced up and looking great. Thank you. Is there any public comment, this item? Now. Please cast your vote. Vice Mayor Andrews. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for the First Amendment to Project Labor Agreement (PLA) No. 33859 between the City of Long Beach and the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, and the signatory Craft Councils and Local Unions, to extend the terms of the PLA from its expiration date of May 22, 2020 to December 31, 2020 or the effective date of a new Project Labor Agreement, whichever occurs first. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09012020_20-0877

Thank you. And I'm 26. Please. Report from Economic Development and Public Works. Recommendation to execute the First Amendment to project labor agreement to extend the terms of the play to December 31st, 2020, or the effective date of a new project labor agreement citywide. Take out some members, and they also got a motion seconded Councilmember Mungo. I see no public comments. Critical vote, please. District one. I. District two. District three. I. District four. My District five. And my. District six. I'm District seven. I District eight. II. District nine. I motion carries. Great. Thank you. That concludes all the agenda item. I believe that I miss any Madam Clerk. But you're hearing 15. Oh, no, no. Besides that, all the other agenda items are done, correct? Yes. Okay, great. So then let's transition into the budget hearing and we're just going to give staff just the 30 seconds to a minute to just get ready and put up the presentation and do have a short presentation for this budget hearing. And then we'll go from there. So everyone can just hold that while we get we'll get the setup from staff. And Mr. Monica, let me know when you're ready. Will do. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE relating to The City of Seattle’s (City) emergency notification and alerting system; establishing AlertSeattle as the City’s emergency notification and alerting system; adopting policies governing the use thereof including administrative guidelines and a governance charter; and repealing Ordinance Number 122527.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118507

The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 22 Council Bill 118507 relating to the City of Seattle's Emergency Notification and Alerting System Establishing Alert Seattle as the city's emergency notify notification and alerting system. Adopting policies governing the use of thereof, including administrative guidelines and a governance charter, and repealing ordinance number 122527. The committee recommends the council bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. I don't think this is the item that everyone's still waiting to see, but nevertheless, it's important legislation updating our emergency notification, alerting alerting system. May recall that in 2014 this Council allocated moneys in the budget to replace our outdated communication notification system. And as of this legislation, does the new system called Alert Seattle, will be used to send warnings and time sensitive information to all people in the city residences, businesses, organizations, public agencies during and after an emergency event. The system may be also used to send or urgent non-emergency information, such as the disruption of services and road closures . Just by way of background. In 2007, this city adopted ordinance 122527 that related to our communication notify notification system for the city. This new system that requires many departments, Finance and Administrative Services, Information Technology, Office of Emergency Emergency Management, along with eight other city departments, all agreed to do a competitive procurement process and select a vendor. And this new system is called Alert Seattle. And the contract was signed January 23rd, 2015. And this legislation ratifies that agreement and our policies moving forward for a new system, the committee recommends approval. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Hi, Okamoto. Hi. Rasmussen. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gordon. I Harrill. I Lakota. Hi. And President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 23. Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31614 Endorsing a vision for the City of Seattle to become a city with zero use of detention for youth and establishing a path forward to develop policies that eliminate the need for youth detention. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the status of illegal fireworks outreach, education, and enforcement plans for the Fourth of July holiday. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06192018_18-0544

Motion carries you item 46, which is also filed which related. Chief Terry. And. Deputy Chief Commission and with the presentation that came up prior to the prior item should be put up now please. Good evening, Mayor. Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. Mike Derry, I'm be providing you an update with the city's outreach education enforcement efforts leading up to the 4th of July holiday week. Our primary public safety mission is to ensure that residents and visitors celebrate the holiday safely in our city. So at the Spacebar, the Fire and Police Department started planning for the holiday several months ago, as has been consistent over over the past number of years. Public outreach and enforcement will remain the primary focus areas to ensure a safe 4th of July. Outreach education efforts have been designed to communicate the message to residents and visitors that all fireworks, including those marked safe and sane, are dangerous and illegal in the city. That even fireworks that may seem benign can be very dangerous, especially when handled by children. Items such as sparklers and sky lanterns can cause great harm and pose a significant fire risk. The National Fire Protection Administration reports national, a national annual average of 18,500 fires caused by fireworks, including 1300 structure fires, 300 and over 300 vehicle fires . Nationwide, these fires caused an annual average of three deaths, 40 civilian injuries and $43 million in direct property damage. In 2015, hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated of 11,900 people for fireworks related injuries. Children under the age of 15 years old are accounted for, accounted for about 35% of the estimated injuries. As in past years, the city has convened a fireworks stakeholder task force, which includes residents, elected officials, city departments and veterans groups. For the past several months, the fire department has been working with all city departments to coordinate public service announcements, press releases, and communicating that all fireworks are dangerous and illegal in the city. Announcements are also being displayed in highly, highly visible locations such as parks and libraries. Other outreach efforts include posting on electronic marquee signs, fliers, banners, posters and the distribution of hundreds of lawn signs. In addition to utilizing the city's website to get out the message that all fireworks are illegal in Long Beach, the city is using all sorts of social media platforms. We post daily on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media sites trying to increase our reach and approval. This is proving to be a very effective means of communicating. Educational information in Spanish, English, Carmi and Tagalog have also been distributed to Long Beach Area schools and cert volunteers and city staff will begin distributing fliers to residents, businesses and neighborhood associations throughout the city next week. Additionally, the Animal Control Bureau is distributing educational materials to the community, advising pet owners of ways to mitigate the impacts of fireworks on their pets. As you can imagine, the loud noises of fireworks caused pets a great amount of stress and anxiety, leading many of them to run away. Pet owners are urged to keep their pets inside and help spread the message that all fireworks are illegal and dangerous. Excuse me. Another important message we are getting out is to be courteous to our veterans. Many of our nation's military personnel who have served experienced post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. Fireworks can cause flashbacks and anxiety for some military veterans with PTSD. Fire staff has met with the Long Beach Veterans Commission. And just this afternoon we met with a contingent of the Veterans Commission to discuss and hear their concerns regarding this issue. Another way we encourage a safe 4th of July is by visiting block parties. Fire crews visit every 4th of July block party throughout the city and speak about the illegality and dangers of all fireworks. BLOCK parties are regulated by the city and permits are required. Organizers must sign a permit that states the block party shall end at 7 p.m. and also stresses that all fireworks are illegal and requires block party permits to comply or participants to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws. Permits will be revoked revoked if illegal activity occurs, and that, of course, includes any use of fireworks. The 4th of July is the busiest day of the year for both the police and fire departments. Last year, the communications center center handled over 3000 calls for service on July four alone. This represents about a 60% increase in a call volume from a normal day. From July 1st to July 5th, 2017. The communications center received over 1200 fireworks related calls in 2017. Police and fire issued 46 fireworks citations. And this is an increase from 2016 in which 33 citations were issued. The police department also seized over £7,000 of illegal fireworks last year, placed this year in an effort to respond to increased reports of illegal fireworks on the night of July one through July five. The fire department will deploy two additional patrol vehicles, each staffed with two arson investigators. These additional units will work in conjunction with the police department's proactive patrols. Patrols will continue to target areas of the city historically known for frequent use of fireworks, as well as respond to reports of illegal fireworks activity citywide. Anyone cited or arrested for fireworks violations may be issued a $1,000 fine, sentenced to jail for up to six months or both. Issuing citations for fireworks use is also uniquely challenging, as an arson investigator or police officer must witness a person in the act in order to issue the citation. Additionally, citations are often confrontational and arson investigators and police officers. Safety is a primary concern. Fireworks may be this year voluntarily disposed of at collection bins, which are located at all fire and police stations and at lifeguard headquarters. These measures are being implemented to encourage the Long Beach community have a safe 4th of July holiday. The best way to do this is to leave the fireworks up to the professionals. There are two professional fireworks displays in Long Beach this year, one on July 3rd at Alamitos Bay and the other on the 4th of July at the Queen Mary. Mr. Mayor, council members, this concludes my presentation with me here tonight. Our police chief, Robert Luna, is up in the audience, Deputy Chief Wally Bosch and Deputy Chief and our fire marshal Rick Brandt, are here to answer any questions you may have. And that concludes my report. Thank you. That's one place. Thank you. I wanted to thank the representatives from police and fire who are here this evening. You do an amazing job getting ready for the third and 4th of July and executing your strategy on both of those days. I see a lot of the efforts that you are involved in throughout the year, but especially on the third and 4th of July in my district. So I want to thank you and your team for the great work that you do. I think the outreach and education efforts that Long Beach Fire has done and specifically what we did last year was really tremendous and that it was definitely increased from prior years and I think I felt a difference. Even though some residents reported seeing an increase. I do believe that there was some many instances that were mitigated as a result of messaging and public outreach. So I thank you for that work. I also want to thank you for working with the residents in our district. Sometimes I know it's difficult when you're experts in a subject matter to have residents who maybe aren't experts in that field suggest better ways of doing things. But I think that both departments were really excellent in serving as a as a resource to the committee of residents. And truly, this was a grassroots effort by concerned residents to try to make a difference in their community. And I think police and fire working with them demonstrates our commitment to service and public input. So I thank you for your graciousness and indulging them. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Supernanny. I'd also like to thank you for the report. And great job as always. And thanks for staying late to deliver it. Thank you. Somebody went to. Take you there. I want to commend you on an excellent report. This is something that has been very close and dear to me in my district. I attend many community meetings and this issue always comes up in terms of what are we going to do this year about the increase in fireworks? Last year, there were lawn signs, I think, that were effective and I had a number of them in my district office that will be making those available again so that I can distribute. Councilmember Yes, in fact, we have ordered a number of those lawn signs. You're starting to see them spring up at starting with fire stations and police stations throughout the city. Today, in fact, we even took it a step farther and we're going to produce some lawn signs that specifically address our veterans community, alerting neighbors that, you know , a veteran or, you know, be be kind to our local veteran community because fireworks can have adverse impacts on them. So, yes, you will see those. They'll be available at fire headquarters and other places throughout the city in the coming days. Gate Do I have my staff to direct my staff to contact you directly and or a fire station in my area or what? Councilmember If somebody from your staff were to reach out to fire headquarters, speak to somebody in our community services division, probably Jake Heflin will be able to get those signs to you in the next couple of days. I appreciate that. And I think that that Long Beach app would be an excellent way of also being a deterrent to the people who are who who need to be caught in the act. Unfortunately, that's what we do. That is a great obstacle in terms of being able to get more citations and get the word more spread out in terms of the the the illegality of having fireworks. But if people are are caught in the act, I think that that would be a great deterrent. But thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mayor. Just wanted to just chime in at every year, you know, we go out, we do education. You know, sometimes we do bus and things. I remember when we collected thousands of dollars of illegal fireworks. All good work. And every year seemed like fireworks. It continues. And I know that I'm echoing sentiments. Other other folks have said it seems like the issue continues to grow and perpetuate of where I am. We border, Compton, Paramount, Lakewood, Bellflower, all different rules and fireworks and all those different cities it's almost impossible to keep up with from one side of the district. Sounds like a war zone. The other side might be a little bit more quiet. So I want to just lift up two things. So, one, I like the idea of an app or technology. I think there has to be some sort of technology solution that helps engage local residents into helping to self-police their own communities. I mean, the lawn signs gave them a tool to start that I actually saw on certain blocks. The people who engage with a lot of signs, I saw that they you know, they saw an immediate response that those blocks where people engaged with those lawn signs, they stopped doing it. Maybe the block over was doing it, but those particular blocks stopped doing illegal fireworks. I think we if we really took some time and thought about how to leverage the app, we might be able to figure something out. Secondly, I had this idea before, and I think we should pick some areas, some random areas around town where we literally set up some things like we can literally set it up in a park, let's say let's say Coolidge Park or the Forest Park or whatever. You grab a park, you, you know, you set up a tent. It is your firework fire watch for the neighborhood and it's randomized your firewatch. And guess what? From that place you do targeted sort of education, outreach and and enforcement all surrounding that area. And then the next year you pick it up somewhere else. I just think something like a visible, hey, we are here, we see you, we all catch you and we're not going anywhere. We're going to be right here at this park and we're going to see everything in this and, you know, surrounding areas, something like that. We should we should try because at a minimum, we'll be able to show the residents, hey, you know where we were. We weren't in your neighborhood this time. We can be in your neighborhood next time. It's limited resources, but we have to sort of, you know, begin that process. So just an idea. Every year folks have ideas. We try to figure this out. And, you know, that's just what we have to do. That's our plight. Thanks, Candy. Think about that. The chief, the roving sort of a firewatch and different parks or neighborhoods. Mr. Vice Mayor, I can tell you that the fire department and the police department actively are doing our best to engage the community throughout the city of Long Beach in community meetings and meetings that we've invited city staff to and community members to, certainly we would we would consider anything that would hands our ability to reach the community and inform them on the dangers and the illegality of fireworks. So it's something that I think we would consider and we talk through the best way we could possibly carry like carry something like that out. Sure. I see no public comment. We're going to go and just vote on this item. Thank you. Okay. We have it is it is midnight and going to be we have 17 more items. I'm going to go now to hearing item number two.

A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Karen Collier to the Citizen Oversight Board. Approves Karen Collier to the Citizen Oversight Board for a term effective immediately and expiring on 2-18-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-12-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02182020_20-0134

Great. Thank you. No other questions. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilmember Kasich, uh, if you please put resolution 134 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 20 dash 134, be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. And now, Councilmember Canete, you have a motion to amend. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 20 dash 134 be amended in the following particulars online 11 replace two, dash 18, Dash 21 2021 with two Dash 18, dash 2023. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Council Member. Thanks, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to correct an error when assigning the length of the term for this appointee to appoint her for a three year term, not a one year term. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, on the amendment. Can each I black. See the bucket. I Flynn I Gillmor I Herndon High. Haines High. Cashman High. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Resolution 134 has been amended. All right, now come any comments on the resolution before we vote on it as amended? I don't see any. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on the resolution as amended. Black. I see tobacco. I Flinn. Hi. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Hines All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Council President I. I'm secretary. Please. Because the voting announced results 13 hours. 13 is council resolution on 34 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, if we move on to the next item. Councilmember Cashman, I think this one is yours. Go ahead with your comment on Resolution 135.

AN ORDINANCE granting Bender Development LP and Bender Equities Inc. permission to construct, maintain, and operate a plaza over and across East Howe Street, south of Yale Place East and west of Eastlake Avenue East for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_07172017_CB 119006

Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119006 An Ordinance Granting Binder Development, L.P. and Binder Equities Inc. Permission to construct, maintain and operate a plaza over and across East Howe Street, south of your place, east and west of Eastlake Avenue, east for a ten year term, renewable for two consecutive ten year terms. The committee recommends the bill pass. That's from Brian. This is related to a subterranean street vacation that the city granted in concept a few years ago to a project on Eastlake. The the property owner developed two buildings on adjacent sites but they crossed the the right away and would have been house street or that is how street subterranean they build one parking garage for both of those so they have they essentially have a vacation for the area below house street to allow the parking to function better than as opposed to building two separate parking structures. The project is now complete and has met the terms of our conditions. Just to remind folks what happened is that grade the the house right away maintains a is maintained is a 24 hour pass through between the two buildings. But it is kind of part of the plaza for those buildings. And so we are granting an easement to the property owner to maintain that property on behalf of the public on an ongoing basis. And so that's what this legislation does. Very good. Any questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez i. Herbold i. Johnson or s i. O'Brien II. Bagshaw Burgess, President Harrell. Eight In Favor nine oppose pasture senate. Please read as an exigent item.

AN ORDINANCE related to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD); authorizing a $40 vehicle license fee pursuant to RCW 36.73.065 and 82.80.140; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119951

Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation? Okay. Next grouping items 32 through 34 with a quick please read the short titles of items 32 through 34 into the record. Agenda Items 32 to 34 Council vote 119951 relating to the cell transportation benefit districts. The committee recommends the bill passes amended, but council members Macheda Gonzalez, Suarez, Luis Morales, Savant and Strauss in favor. Councilmember Herbold oppose and with an abstention from Councilmember Peterson. Council 119936 relating to transportation network company drivers. The committee recommends the bill pass and council vote 119937 relating to taxation. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. Agenda item 32. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119951 Agenda item 32. Council members want Americans, Mr. Peterson. Sorry. Just 1/2. I'm going to my point. Yes, this bill increases the vehicle license fee, also known as card tabs by $20 to fund transportation cards. One of the most deeply regressive and punishing taxes in Seattle, I know many have opined that that having card tabs will actually have a good impact against car emissions, which are one of the most important factors in reducing carbon emissions and actually taking Seattle toward zero emissions. Absolutely. We need to do everything in our power to reduce emissions and take them to zero. But in reality, if you look at the economics of car jobs, what ends up happening is it punishes that section of poor and working class people who end up having to rely on their vehicle just to get to their livelihood and to their days, especially because many of them have been pushed farther and farther away from their place of business. Yes, it is also true that there are many, that there's a big section of our poor and working class neighbors who cannot afford cars, and this does not affect them. But that is ignoring the fact that such deeply regressive taxes are actually punishing to the poor and low income and working class people who are affected. And that what happens is literally when poor people cannot afford to pay their car tax, they get their licenses revoked and often get arrested for driving without a license. As I mentioned in the committee meeting last week when I was arrested during a direct action demonstration for the $15 minimum wage outside Alaska Airlines offices in SeaTac in 2014. I was held overnight in a jail cell with low income, and for women who are one and all being arrested because of poverty related traffic infractions, including unpaid cards. That is only anecdotal evidence, but it is very much in line with the statistical evidence of how this impacts ordinary people and poor people. Unfortunately, in committee, when I moved to replace the regressive Khadafi with a microscopic increase in the Amazon tax on pandemic profiteering corporations, every other council member voted no when given a choice. All eight other council members, all Democrats, supported the regressive tax on workers rather than a tax on big business. Now our only options are to support this regressive tax or lose essential transportation funding. And I am absolutely not going to support any loss in transportation funding. So I will vote yes on this bill. But I wonder the register that the City Council did have a choice of a progressive revenue source and refused to make that choice. He goes from because Peterson. Thank you. Council President. So this is Casper 119951 about the transportation benefit district related to the transportation benefits issue, the vehicle licenses. So this is a tough one for me because I had wanted the money to go straight to bridge maintenance and this. So the council budget action we took separately was to have it go directly to bridge maintenance and that that failed on a 4 to 5 vote or the alternative pass in a54 vote to have a have a process to discuss that and see what the uses of funds should be. So I want to help to shepherd this process in a good, safe manner. There are other sources of transportation dollars as well, so I know that we'll be having a broader discussion about that. I did. I was on the record weeks ago saying that I would support an increase to the vehicle license fee. So I want to I want to honor that and move forward with this. I also appreciate the comments made by Councilmember Herbold last week about about this. And so, again, this is a tough issue. I think I'm just going to go on the side of voting in favor of it, because we want to get the clock started on on collecting this revenue, because I know we can put it to good use collectively. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. I appreciate those comments. Any other comments? I see Councilman Mesquita, then Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herbold. Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you, colleagues, for all of the work that you've done to support this revenue effort, but also to, I think, strengthen the final language that accompanied it. I appreciate Aaron House working in our office on the amendment language Councilmember Perez, the council president Gonzalez included and passed and I want to thank members of the building construction trades, ironworkers, laborers who will have a seat at the table as we look at the data for determining where the investments go. And just again, to underscore my comments from earlier, recognizing that there is a lot of shared priorities when we look at infrastructure related to bridges that our busses and bikers and pedestrians do use these bridges. So looking forward to that conversation and having a data driven analysis to really point this in the right direction here in the very short time frame that we've now scaled back. So thanks to the community at large and looking forward to getting more information from you all as you can be in very soon, but I think was the right thing to do for folks together. And thanks again to our friends from the building trades for being part of that discussion, along with the transit advocates and broader community that will be coming together. So. Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herbert Herbold. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I voted for this previously in the in the Budget Committee. Certainly was disappointed that the initial proposal on the dedication of these resources for bridge maintenance didn't go through. I will be voting in favor again today at the full council, but remain committed that if not on this funding resource at the end of the stakeholder process, that this Council will continue to look for four ways to find additional resources to meet the maintenance funding goals outlined in the recent audit. I'm for bridge maintenance and that will still be considered a potential source as we go through the community stakeholder process and to determine where some of these resources can go. I and and by voting today, I am affirming that that is a process that should go forward and that we should have this discussion about how we are going to make these important investments. So with that, I'll be voting in favor, and I appreciate the moment to just make those remarks. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those remarks. Councilmember Herbold. You're a mutant, so you are ready. I wasn't muted. Oh, my goodness. All right, well, so. Just trying to keep things. Interesting here. Again, council members voted five four to such a substitute. A version that adopted a fee. This is a. Version that I was a co-sponsor of. But at that time, the the the vote was to remove the specified funding for bridge maintenance instead. In this version, a stakeholder process will develop a proposal for use of the funds. I voted no on the revised proposal because I'm concerned that the Council is handing the decision of whether we should provide funding necessary to partially implement auditor recommendations to a stakeholder group who might decide that the funds should be used for other purposes. I believe it's up to the Council and the mayor to make the tough decisions on how to implement recommendations of the city auditor. Sometimes that that means funding items that there are competing needs for. But by doing so, because the city auditor has identified it as as as critical. I'm concerned that this practice creates a troubling precedent that undermines SNC 3.40.050, which reads that under the section audit report's follow up required that it is city policy to follow up on audit reports by the city auditor. And folks might argue, well, we can we can find other funds to follow up on audit reports by the city auditor. I just want to note that the move levy goes through 2024. The Council won't have the opportunity to discuss Levy funding until that time. And so our options for dedicated transportation funding to address maintenance on our critical bridges is very limited. The 2015 Move It Move Levy was set up a little differently than the previous Bridging the Gap levy, and the previous levy dedicated a higher proportion of funds to maintenance than the move levy does. So again, the MOVE Levy started moving in a direction away from maintaining critical infrastructure. If we're going to move towards maintaining critical transportation infrastructure that is multimodal transportation infrastructure, we are not going to have the opportunity to do so for some time. The mayor, as we all know, has chosen to proceed with the repair for the West Seattle Bridge. I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, in part due to significantly lower capital costs and the time it required to to build a new bridge. The ongoing maintenance costs will be higher for the West Seattle Bridge. And so this is going to be an issue that I am going to be continuing to weigh in on. And, you know, again, as I said, just just to keep things interesting here, I'm going to actually vote consistently with my my committee vote and not support this legislation. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda. And is there anyone else who wanted to make any comments on Kaspersky to please. Thank you so much council members. And I'm always nervous when people want to keep things interesting and appreciate the comments that were made. But I did just want to write and say for the record earlier in my comments about the support from the building construction trades. I wanted to thank the ironworkers. They sent a letter in that said the iron workers support the budget for bridge maintenance being proposed by Councilmember Peterson. But we also understand the need for community oversight group. We feel it should be made up of labor and community stakeholders. We're excited to have a seat at the table and looking forward to working with you. That's the piece I wanted to read. And for the record and again, thank our friends in the building trades and make sure that that comment got recorded for the record. It's. Thank you so much for those comments and that conversation. We had a really protracted conversation about the amendment that led to this final council bill in Budget Committee. So I don't want to belabor the point. I do want to thank the original sponsors, Councilmembers Peterson, Lewis and Herbold, for bringing forward the legislation to authorize a 40 million vehicle license fee. There has been some comments in committee that this is an increase in the license fee. It's actually a decrease in the vehicle license fee. Folks, through the end of the year will be paying $80 in their vehicle license fee. And starting in 2021, that will be reduced to a total of $40. So this is not an increase in in the vehicle license fee. And I wanted to make sure that the record was correct with regard to to that particular issue. Secondly, I and I continue to to hear and understand and appreciate Councilmember Herbals comments and concerns around the the question about the stakeholder process and and its relevance to future policy decisions by the City Council in short order related to how we're going to spend that the dollars and I remain committed to making sure that we have the benefit of that stakeholder information. But of course, at the end of the day, it's always up to the City Council to make budget appropriation authorities within and within our charter mandated duties. So again, there will be recommendations but not mandates coming out of the stakeholder group. And I think we will benefit from having the stakeholder group come together and take a look at best use of these dollars. I recognize that the vehicle license fee in the past has been largely dedicated to transit purposes and not to bridge maintenance. But we have a new set of information before us that does provide us with additional information around the need to take care of our bridges as sort of a basic part of our infrastructure that connects busses and cyclists and pedestrians and single agency vehicle users throughout the city. And I think it's important for us to take that into consideration. So so I hope we will be able to have that abbreviated stakeholder process that will yield us some really rich information and recommendations that we can consider in our deliberations as we look towards shaping a spending plan. I also want to acknowledge that there that Councilmember Hubbard, you've mentioned that some city resources related to constant revenue streams or consistent revenue streams for bridge maintenance. And I also just just think we'd be remiss in not acknowledging that we also have some great members of our congressional delegation, for example, who have been championing additional funding at the federal level for bridge maintenance needs, especially the West Seattle Bridge. So I want to thank Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal from our congressional district here in particular, who just last week was able to secure some additional funding for the West Seattle Bridge. And I think that there are going to be, I hope now with the new administration, more opportunities for us to work closely with our federal delegation, to continue to advocate for federal dollars for for this this particular need in in sort of a long term strategy. So I think there's a lot of work that we can do here. The vehicle license fee gets us about $7.2 million a year. Our needs related to bridges is a total of $100 million. So we certainly need a lot more resources available to to really meet the minimal need, which I understand the city auditor identified as about $34 million. So I think we're all committed to to figuring this out into making sure that we can balance all of the varying needs related to our infrastructure and our transit network. So I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with all of you on those important issues. All right. Well, I think I don't see any additional comments here. So we're going to go ahead and close that debate. And I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Morales. Mosquera by. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold No. SUAREZ Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. One opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item 33. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119936. Agenda item 33. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. Yes. Mascara Yes. Peterson Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Juarez Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation. Agenda Item 34 Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119937. Agenda item 34. Hearing no comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. Yes. Macheda I. Petersen Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. We have arrived now at agenda items 35 and 36 colleagues, as I mentioned, at the top of the agenda.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District; amending Ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months.

SeattleCityCouncil_06102019_CB 119504

Thank you, Mr. Leigh. Please read the next edition item. Agenda Item to cancel 119504 relating to the Pike Place Market Historical District amending ordinance 125 652 extends its effective date by six months. The committee recommends the bill passed with councilmembers Herbert Swanson O'Brien favor and abstention with Councilmember Pacheco. Customer Herbold Thank you for this council bill amends ordinance 125650 to extend its effective date by six months. The bill it is amending establish an interim expansion of the Pike Place Market Historic District last August. The legislation will allow the Department of Neighborhoods some additional time to complete work that this council asked Don to do in last August, so that the effect, again, is just to simply extend the legislation we already voted on by six months. The central staff memo accompanying this legislation specifies that the Department of Neighborhoods expects their consultant will complete much of the work needed to develop a preliminary recommendation by the end of June. If the recommendation is for a permanent expansion, CPA review would follow that recommendation. We had a public hearing last Tuesday. A lot of folks came out to testify in support of the legislation, and folks speaking in favor of the legislation really did a great job of speaking to why in their perspective, the market should be looked at as part of a a permanent future expansion for the for the Showbox to be within the market boundaries. The points that they spoke to was that the market was established in 1909. The shoebox building opened up about ten years later in 1919. It was a public market. Folks noted the fact that there is a commercial synergy between both the market and the shoebox. Many visitors go to both places each year. For the last several years. Seattle has had a record number of visitors. And so tourism is an important industry in Seattle. One of the comments that came up in the public hearing was from businesses for people who had moved to Seattle because of the culture and who have since started a business. The folks also spoke to the physical synergy between the the look of the buildings and the appropriateness of the shoebox to be considered as as part of the market. Because of that as well, the Department of Neighborhoods is working to implement ordinance 1 to 6 560, which calls for a review of the historic significance of the Shoebox Theater to study the relationship between the Shoebox Theater and the Pike Place Market and to consider amendments to the Pike Place Market, Historical Design District Design guidelines related to the Shoebox Theater. They're also part of this ordinance called for them to draft legislation, conduct outreach to stakeholders, and conduct State Environmental Policy Act review on the permanent expansion of the historic district as appropriate. The there may be some confusion about the scope of what the executive is doing right now. The Department of Neighborhoods has clarified that the current scope of the study includes an analysis on whether or not to permanently extend the the market district to cover the shoebox property and in order to make a recommendation on whether or not to extend expand the expand the district to cover that one property. They need to look at a broader area. And in this case, they are looking at First Avenue properties to better understand the historical context as it relates to the shoebox. Essentially to analyze the shoebox property, you have to analyze the historical connection of the adjacent areas. We have heard from folks who, during our earlier deliberations back in August, had not taken a position. We heard from some of them today, and we also received a letter last week from Friends of the Market, the Pike Place Market Foundation , Historic Seattle, Friends of Historic Belltown, the Fisher Studio Building and Rise Up Belltown and Friends of the Shoebox may have mentioned them twice because they are awesome. And the. There's been a question of a potential lease expiration in January 2024. If part of the if this property is becomes part of the market historic district, the change of use would require a certificate of approval from the Mark the Pike Place Market Historical Commission. So that just a little bit of additional context about how the recent news from the owner on their plans for the for the building would impact future decisions around the the district boundaries. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember Pacheco, an open up for comments or questions. Councilmember Pacheco. I hear and appreciate the nostalgia and sentiments that brought some of you out today to support saving the shoebox. And I believe that this conversation highlights the need for better tools to preserve the cultural resources we have in our city. That said, I do not believe that this tool expanding the Pike Place Market, Historic District, is the right way to go about preserving the shoebox. As with any policy decision, there are major tradeoffs associated with preserving the shoebox. When we use a blunt policy instrument like the historic district as our tool, we are making housing the cost of saving the shoebox that is housing that the city desperately needs in the midst of a housing crisis which rooted and which is rooted in a shortage of housing. We need to be building more houses of all type. This action takes away the opportunity to build 442 new units of housing that we need. Even more importantly, under make. All new development must contribute to affordable housing by closing the door to redevelop. On this site we are turning down up to $5 million in affordable housing payments that could have been required under MHR as a chair of the council's Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. I'm a firm believer that we should be embracing density and building more housing in walkable neighborhoods, particularly close to transit and light rail stations. I also serve on the Puget Sound Regional Council, where we are challenged with Vision 2050 as our region is expected to grow with 1.8 million new residents and 1.2 million new jobs. As we confront climate change, congestion and unaffordability building housing near transit and jobs is what's what will allow so many Seattleites, like myself, to live without a car. As someone who has advocated for greater density density in my own district, particularly in a district where new light rail stations are opening, it is intellectually inconsistent to oppose any new development so close to light rail. Let me be clear. I'm not opposed to saving the shoebox, but I cannot in good faith support saving the shoebox in a way that places the burden on families trying to afford a place to call home. And Seattle, as a as a city, we need to move away from a conversation that sets up a false choice between creating new housing and preserving cultural spaces. Instead of putting these two things we need against each other. We should be having a conversation that promotes both housing and culture. I wasn't on the council last year when this temporary boundary expansion was established, but if I had been, I would have voted no. I believe that the Council could have and should have taken more time to identify a solution that preserved the shoebox and created more housing. If we had worked with a developer to identify a solution that worked for all sides, we could have found a way to preserve the shoebox and have 442 units of housing that we proposed that were proposed. As someone who was just at the Showbox on Friday, I don't think that it is contradictory to want to preserve the history of that place and recognize that it could use some upgrades. For example, we all know that the shoebox is on the city's list of unreinforced masonry buildings, meaning that it poses a serious danger to the people in the area in the event of an earthquake. This fact alone should tell us that freezing the shoebox in time is not a safe or responsible option. I will be voting no today because I believe that saving the shoebox in this fashion is leading us down the wrong path as a city. And because I am hopeful that it is not too late to pursue the options that allow us to preserve culture while also building housing. If I can make one final note. I hope that we as we have this conversation, we can do so in a way that is respectful to all of us. At the public hearing last week, I was very concerned to hear one individual comparing himself as a shoebox fan to a Native American and call the shoebox his reservation. I was even more concerned that the crowd the the crowd applauded that statement. That sort of comparison is unacceptable in my mind, and we should not be condoning it. Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco. Any other comments? Councilmember Suarez. I'll just be brief. I just want to share that we have a point of order. Council President We just had an hour of public comment about people supporting or saving the shoebox, and during that time nobody was cheered or made noises. And Councilmember Pacheco deserves to have due to be respectful and to listen because that's what we're doing. So I'm going to ask that you do that and that this is not a rally. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman worries for the comments and I. I'll take that in advisement. Any other comments? Questions I think comes first. One I think you were in queue comes from a skater that's going to figure that one out. Just refer to your side by side colloquy there and go at it. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I really applaud Councilmember Pacheco in terms of your concerns around affordable housing and housing in general. And I want to make some comments about housing. And I think the crux that we're at with wanting to create affordable housing, more housing in general in the city and preserve cultural hubs throughout Seattle. I will be voting yes again on this legislation to make sure that we have additional time to consider the requests in front of us. But I want to be very clear about something. We voted yes last year. We voted yes in the budget to give funding to the department to complete the study. The study did not begin until January of this year. So if there's frustrations, I want folks to know what this council did in August versus what actually happened beginning in January, and to direct those frustrations accordingly. I think it's also very important to know that we here on council have taken a number of steps to ensure that there's access to both cultural hubs and promoting access to housing throughout the city, and that it doesn't have to be an either or. One of the issues that we had been working on last year prior to the passage was making sure that if there was the opportunity to preserve the shoebox as is and then build housing above it, that all of those options were tirelessly pursued before moving forward. And unfortunately, we don't have that option in front of us. But I am supportive of giving us a little bit additional time so that we can see if there is opportunities that do present themselves to protect this cultural hub. But I think in the future we want to make sure that there's not a distinction between cultural hubs versus housing. It should be both. And there's also, I think, an important element that Councilmember Pacheco has elevated. And Councilmember Suarez, you know, I appreciate your underscoring of the need for respect because we do want to make sure that we're not pitting ourselves against each other in this city when it comes to residential, cultural and business displacement. That is a very real and pressing issue around Seattle, especially though in communities of color. And as we're facing the the challenge of looking at displacement across our city, one of the bigger, longer term impacts that I'm going to be looking at is to make sure that we have both and both housing, both affordable housing and the ability to create and preserve cultural hubs. It's really important for us to weigh these equity implications as we take actions to preserve important community spaces like the shoebox and so many others that have come before us. And also think about how we can build housing around these centers so that more people can walk to work that can afford to be artists in the city. You can go down the street or down the elevator to their place of employment or the place where they're playing a show. So I hope that we keep that in mind and that also, as we think about the opportunities to both preserve cultural space, we take the same level of energy that we've seen today and throughout the last ten months. And we really do apply that to creating greater density, like some of the comments that were made around creating density at Fort Lott. And we've we know that there's tremendous opposition sometimes and having your energy, harnessing that energy and focusing it as well in terms of creating affordable housing, as much as we are as creating cultural hubs , I think can be both. And and that's what I'll be looking forward to in the longer term policy solutions and conversations. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, councilmember skater. Councilmember. So want. I wanted to thank all the activists and music lovers who are here again today. And I know many of you were here at the public hearing last week, and many, many more of you have been fighting for the shoebox. And I've been honored to stand alongside you all who have made the hope of saving this shoebox a reality. Although obviously we are not done. I also wanted to take a moment to congratulate Save the Shoebox movement, especially the shoebox employees, the friends of the shoebox, and historic Seattle in overcoming a major hurdle and winning the landmark status nomination last week. And we are looking forward to a really positive outcome on that as well, even though we are all very clear that doesn't preserve the music venue use of the building. The victory we won last summer expanding the Pike Place boundary, historic district boundary to cover the shoebox would never have been possible without this movement, without the over 118,000 people who signed the online petition, without the hundreds of you all who packed council chambers demanding the shoebox not be destroyed to make way for unaffordable luxury apartments. Without the hundreds of local musicians and artists raising their voice on behalf of their community and forcing the council to act, we would not have had any chance of winning. Indeed, the Pike Place Market itself would not be standing today if it were not for a movement decades ago similar to this, and probably larger in scale because of what what they were up against. It's also a critical component for the movement to have its own elected representatives who will always stand with and fight alongside the movement, never betraying it. And my office was proud to play that role. And we will continue. My staff and I will continue standing with the movement at every step of the way. I also want to do again thank Automobile O'Brien, who supported my ordinance last August from the get go, and Councilmember Herbold, who brought forward this bill today, which I think is important, those who were there last year will recall how at every opportunity, many council members would say, what is the rush? Why someone's office pushing for this boundary expansion to apply so soon? Why is striking the legislation necessary? The reality is that if we had done it their way by believing that deals can be struck with wealthy landowners or corporate developers, then we would not be here. People likely know about a lawsuit filed against the city by Roger Forbes, the building owner of the shoebox. When the judge reviewing the case throughout significant portions of the lawsuit, we are this was due to our movement demanding no delay in action. So judicial outcomes also are influenced by what we see out in this world on the streets and how strong our movement is. When we passed our legislation last August, we knew we had one interim protections and we knew we would have to come back this spring and summer. So here we are. I will be voting yes, of course, on today's proposed six month extension of the interim expansion. And I call on council members to respect the demands of the movement and do the same. But really, as Shannon Rose said, you know, it should not have come to this today because the mayor's office and her department had more than enough time to ensure the necessary studies could have been conducted in ten months. Okay. It didn't happen. But this is what happens when the immediate pressure of the movement is absent. So it's important that we keep in mind after today that if we have one six month extension, it doesn't lead us the movement off the hook. We have to make sure that all the studies that were promised in the workplan are carried out in a timely fashion. And that will only happen if we remain vigilant and vocal. And we want to make sure that in the next month especially, we have enough pressure on the mayor's office due for the survey to be completed on neighborhood impacts by the city departments. Because it can be done in that timeline. We cannot we simply cannot rely on the behind the scenes deals and negotiations with Forbes attorneys, developers and corporate landlords. It was, you know, we won the initial interim protection purely to the strength of the movement. And we should not waver regardless of what we hear, what else we hear. We should not waver because we know that behind the scenes deals is not the way to go. For now, let's when the six month timeline extension and keep the pressure on the city department to report to the mayor's office and make sure the studies are completed. I wanted to thank those who have been fundamental to this struggle. The employees of the shoebox, the friends of the shoebox, historic Seattle Central staff members, Lesch Whitson, who is here, who helped us tremendously with getting the legislation ready. The community organizer was in my office, some of whom are here today, Jay Middleton, who launched the online petition. And Seattle's vast community of artists and musicians, some of whom are also employees of the Showbox. But I also wanted to mention Smoky Brights, Ben Gibbard, Soul Sassy Black Dude, York Spirit Award ruler, many of whom also performed at the free concert we had last summer on the plaza outside. Thank you all so much. And then in closing, I will say, as Arnie Ashford said last August, if you're right here in chambers, this is not about culture. It is not a question of music versus housing. This is not about music versus affordable housing. This is about culture and housing for everybody versus profits for the few. And as Arnie said, he asked elected officials, you have to pick a side, you know, decide which side you're on. And I will also say that making this about affordable housing, in my view, is either naive you don't know the facts or is disingenuous of elected officials because we know it's not about affordable housing. Elected officials are concerned about affordable housing. Then those who repeal the Amazon tax should not have done that. And if you want to support affordable housing, then let's fight for rent control and to expand social housing massively by taxing Amazon and big business. Let's keep fighting. Casimiro Gonzalez Thank you, council president I'll make this quick cause I know we're on agenda item two of a very long agenda for today, but I just wanted to say that consistent with my vote in August of 2018, I intend to continue to maintain my my same position. So I'm going to vote yes on this bill. However, I wanted to give some caution and some additional rationale for that. So I don't think there is a justification for me at this point to modify my vote on what I see as a technical amendment, to allow some some time for the departments to continue doing the evaluation that we originally asked them to do. We haven't modified the substance of the evaluation and analysis and study that we originally asked the departments to do back in August of 2018. This is an opportunity for the City Council to provide the executive additional time to be able to complete that work again. Nothing substantive has changed in terms of the work that we're asking the executive to do. This is just about finding an additional amount of time to allow to do this. So I see this amendment to this bill as technical in nature and not substantive in terms of a final long term solution for this particular parcel of land . Which leads me to my second point, which is a caution to my colleagues that I am concerned about the direction of looking at an excess, of expanding the scope of evaluation for the alleged purposes of evaluating the true, historic and architectural district nature of this space. I am I am. I am conscious of the fact that this may the expansion of the scope may lead to further limiting development capacity along First Avenue, utilizing this historic resources tool as the mechanism to do that. And we have seen in the mandatory housing affordability context and in other spaces that oftentimes historic resources and historic resources as a tool is being is being weaponized to prevent additional density and affordable housing coming into particular neighborhoods. That that should be taking on the burden and responsibility of additional development capacity for purposes of housing our families and low income members of the community. And so I'm going to vote yes for this bill today with with the caution that that doesn't necessarily mean that I would support a final bill. If that final bill signals, in my mind a move towards a scope of study area that would diminish significantly development capacity along First Avenue, again under the auspices of preservation. And and I just really think we need to be very careful about evaluating specific historic resources and how that might implicate policy positions, clear policy position positions that the City Council has taken in other areas with regard to zoning and allowing additional development capacity for purposes of increasing dollars, real dollars available to us to construct affordable housing , either in this particular neighborhood or in other neighborhoods around the city of Seattle. And when we look at the maps of where our development is happening as it relates to affordable housing developments, a significant majority of those developments are occurring right here in downtown in District seven. And so when we know that our inclusionary zoning incentive zoning programs require that downtown developers contribute the most amount of money under our mandatory housing affordability program, I have serious concerns about a broad stroke approach here that may compromise and diminish the great efforts that I think the City Council has taken in the space of affordable housing as it relates to a broader swath of land along First Avenue. Thank you. Katherine Sellers. Any other comments or questions? I'm going to say a few. Would you like to close debate at first? If you so just a few things. I'm going to support the legislation, Councilmember. Horrible things for having a committee meeting on it and bring it to our attention. And we were sort of monitoring the deadline of our first legislation. And I want to thank the advocates for coming out. Your voice is heard, meaningful and thanks for the song. MARQUEZ Beautiful. This concept of picking a side to me. It's nonsense. It's not for me. It's not about picking a side. It's about listening to people. When you pick a side, you're drawing a line and you're on one side of the other. To me, that's not how we get things done in this city. We listen and we try to understand and try to come up with a good outcome. I think many of you've presented a very clear picture of what we can preserve and what we should try to preserve. I can't stand. Pacheco. I want to thank you for taking a bold stance on what you believe in, and you weren't part of the long discussion we had that got us to this point. But I want to applaud you for voting for your conscience, which I always think is noble, not listening to anyone else, but trying to try to trying to hear others, but trying to vote on what you think is right. So thank you, sir. And lastly, I want to say this notion about behind the scene deals. I want to address that. So my take on it is the city didn't do its behind the scene work as feverishly as I was hoping they did when we passed this legislation, I was hoping that behind the scene work was really done and so we didn't have to get here where we are today. We all know it's no big secret that we're in litigation on this matter. Okay, that's. If you didn't know. I'm sorry. Let that secret out the bag. But we are in litigation on this matter, and my hope is that perhaps parties can work together and we could come up with a win win a win that preserves our great music venue and allows these talented musicians to do what they do so well and that we we again, look at the value of the market and the beauty of the market and housing issues. And we come up with some win wins. And whether that's behind the scenes or here in City Hall, I care less, but I just want to get that kind of work done. But for me, it's not about picking a side. It's about working together as a community and getting some things done. So hopefully within the next six months, as this legislation presents, we will get this work done. And I want to take all of my colleagues for this robust discussion. I'd asked it, Councilmember Herbold, close the debate and then we will vote and see where the chips fall. Thank you. I just want to close out with some comments some of you heard before during the public hearing highlighting the work of the arts office as it relates to the the need to act with urgency to preserve our cultural spaces. The a report out of the Arts Office, the Cultural Space Report identifies that the value of cultural spaces and activities are quantifiable. They drive economic growth and urban development blocks in Seattle with cultural spaces have significantly higher walk scores. They have more businesses open at 10 p.m. on Fridays, and they have twice as many outdoor cafe seating permits pointing to the the economic development value. They go on to say that the arts ecosystem that we have today thrives in a rich network of cultural spaces that were able to flourish because during periods of greater affordability in Seattle, without the spaces to support this cultural life, without the presence of arts and cultural organizations in our neighborhoods, this ecosystem can't be sustained at times of less affordability. Like the times we are in now. Vulnerable communities are the canaries in the coal mines of displacement. They are disappearing from the cultural landscape and some of the first to disappear, as we have heard our communities of color and the arts and cultural organizations that reflect them, whose presence helped create the very land value on which those cranes are now building. I think that's a good point to end on. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. And with that, we are going to vote on Council Bill 119504. So. Clerk, please follow the rule on the passage of the bill. O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO Now. Sergeant, I beg Sean Gonzalez. I Herbold. I Suarez. Mr. President Herrell high eight in favor one. Opposed bill passed and chair of with Senate. Clap on that one. Okay. Please read the next edition. Item 3.8 The Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda Item three Council of 119507 Relating to Fair Housing. Establishing a one year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms. Amending Section 7.20 4.0 24 code and adding a new Section 7.20 4.0 98 said on this figure, the committee recommends the bill passed.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Shoreline Master Program; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan provisions in the Shoreline District; amending Sections 23.60A.020, 23.60A.066, 23.60A.090, 23.60A.152, 23.60A.154, 23.60A.156, 23.60A.157, 23.60A.164, 23.60A.167, 23.60A.172, 23.60A.187, 23.60A.190, 23.60A.193, 23.60A.200, 23.60A.202, 23.60A.204, 23.60A.206, 23.60A.214, 23.60A.215, 23.60A.217, 23.60A.224, 23.60A.240, 23.60A.252, 23.60A.282, 23.60A.294, 23.60A.310, 23.60A.382, 23.60A.384, 23.60A.386, 23.60A.388, 23.60A.390, 23.60A.392, 23.60A.394, 23.60A.402, 23.60A.410, 23.60A.442, 23.60A.446, 23.60A.450, 23.60A.460, 23.60A.482, 23.60A.484, 23.60A.486, 23.60A.490, 23.60A.502, 23.60A.504, 23.60A.506, 23.60A.508, 23.60A.510, 23.60A.512, 23.60A.540, 23.60A.575, 23.60A.578, 23.60A.902, 23.60A.906, 23.60A.908, 23.60A.912, 23.60A.914, 23.60A.916, 23.60A.918, 23.60A.924, 23.60A.926, 23.60A.928, 23.60A.930, 23.60A.934, 23.60A.936, 23.60A.938, 23.60A.942, 23.60A.944, 23.60A.958, 23.60A.970, 23.72.006, 23.91.002 of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations of the SMC, adding new Sections 23.6

SeattleCityCouncil_04062015_CB 118311

The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item number eight. Council Bill 118311 relating to the Seattle Shoreline Master Program amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan Provisions in the Shoreline District. Thank you. Committee. Sorry. The Committee recommends approval bill pass as amended. I didn't want you to get started on all those numbers. So, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. As chair of the committee, I could ask of Councilmember Clark would like to read in all those numbers to get some some more face time here before we leave. So. Dunbar, I may have a substitution here in a minute, but why don't I go ahead and speak to the bill for a second? I think one of the things that's important to remember the what the reason we do the shoreline management, and it's really to protect our our shoreline habitat. And there's so many competing uses, especially in an urban area like Seattle, for competing for that valuable space on the waterfront and remembering that the end of the day, we're trying to preserve the habitat for all the critters that survive on that and manage our existing use of it in a way that's consistent with that. And as we heard in testimony today, this has been a very long process. But I'm proud to say that we're at a point now where we have a bill that everyone I've talked to can live with and supports. And I think that's a great spot to be in after a lot of hard work. I want to thank all the advocates in the community, whether it's industrial landowners or folks who live on the water working through this process. Also thank DPD staff for a very long process and Department of Ecology has been engaged in this too. Before we move forward, I want to go ahead and move to substitute version. I believe it's version 13 for version 12. And what this version does is it's just clean ups, things like correcting for parallel construction and changing for correct adjectival use. Second, always that word adjectival. The adjective ocean before us is to substitute version 13 for version 12. Any further comments? All in favor of the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment passes and version 13 is before us. So the final thing I'll say is this has been before the council before and came back with some changes. That's where we are today. Once we vote this out of council, it does have to go back to the Department of Ecology for ultimate ratification, I guess is the word I'll use. We've been working closely with Department of Ecology through this process, and our understanding is that and I'm confident that everything we've done here today is consistent with the state's goals, and I expect that this would be ratified soon. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Clark. Excellent. And in all seriousness, this is a big deal. So the updated the shoreline master plan, it's all I mean, your testimony almost makes it sound like it was easy in some way, which is an incredible feat that you two have been able to do that. And there's so much more to the shoreline master master program than what we've talked about in terms of overwater residences or houseboats or house barges. And I'm missing probably three or four other descriptions for what they are. But Joe, you came up to the microphone. There was a ton of work in terms of industrial uses and what it means to have a working waterfront and be and be consistent with those values that Councilmember O'Brien talked about. We have we have a habitat we care about. We have an economy we care about. We have in a way of people living on the water that's important to us as a community that isn't just cute, but is real. People actually live their lives in that way, and it's important to to the values and who we are as a city. And so being able to bring those things together, I echo the sentiment about Faith Lumsden being awesome. So she's been great and certainly having Brian Surratt do the shuttle diplomacy pretty awesome. So thanks very much to the staff and to the people who were able to see this out, who were able to see it all the way through. Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended legislation. Harrill Lakota by Orion Rasmussen All right so want back shot. By. Clark I got it and president Burgess high nine in favor and. Unopposed the resolution passes and the chair will sign it. Other resolutions, please read item nine.

Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099) [Continued from March 15, 2016]

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2747

And so what the regulate the regulatory system in the Bay Area has allowed is that essentially if you impact mitigation or you impact wetlands, you have to essentially mitigate your impact. And so that that overall that there is kind of a no net new net no net loss of wetlands along the in the coastal areas and in California. And in order to allow that, what has sprung up is essentially the ability to essentially it's created a market for areas where you can mitigate wetlands. And there are essentially developers that have been able to create wetlands mitigation. Banks were able to essentially purchase the right to impact wetlands in one location by mitigating, creating and enhancing or improving a wetland in another location. And there are all kinds of very detailed rules about how this occurs and a regulatory process that governs that. So usually what happens is a property owner. So for instance, the city of Alameda, property owner of land out at Alameda Point could essentially partner with a wetlands mitigation developer and create a bank on its property to essentially receive mitigation credits from developers throughout the Bay Area that are impacting coastal wetlands. And essentially they get paid to do that. And essentially what it does is from the proceeds of that, that banking you're able to create open space and wetlands on land. And so we did based on a referral from Councilmember Ody, we did evaluate this as a possibility at Alameda Point. So as a really as a means of creating open space and paid for through a funding source. So money that is, you know, not coming from the general fund, not coming from the base reuse department. But it also has a benefit of creating not only the the potential money for the creation of open space, but the maintenance cost. There's an endowment that's part of it that creates essentially has to spin off sufficient funds to essentially maintain those wetlands. And so definitely something that we've been talking about thinking about for a long time and a point and and and really needed to delve into the details to understand whether or not we thought it was feasible . And so that is what we did. We consulted with our kind of our environmental consultant with a wetlands mitigation bank developer, was consultants that specialize in helping to create these with legal counsel on some of the issues related to state lands. Really try to delve in and do an analysis as to how feasible is this at Alameda Point. So there were two locations that are essentially zoned open space in our zoning that we looked at. One is deep paved park down here on the western edge of the seaplane lagoon. The other is this Northwest Territories, and I'll explain why these are different colors. But you can see in the black outline about 170 acres, I believe, or 170 acres total, 150 acre eight acres here. And we looked at these two locations as possible areas for wetlands mitigation bank. And what we did find was that it is just a 3 to 5 year process with a number of uncertainties. And, you know, we're we are glutton for punishment and base reuse. So we are familiar with complicated processes and things that take a long time. And and so, you know, that's we understand that. And there are but I want to walk through a little bit what those would be. So there's kind of five things that we need to be thinking of in terms of analyzing those five considerations. And when we did our analysis that we thought were important, the first is you can't create wetlands on land that is contaminated or that would create essentially, you know, a hazard or potential for wildlife or other things. And so because of that, there were land that were eliminated at the base out on here, out on this corner . So we essentially had to subtract that land from the ability to to be a wetland wetlands area. The other is that they don't let you count public access as part of the wetlands mitigation, because the whole point is that this is essentially mitigating passive, very passive wetlands that exist today. And if there's public access, you can't. Essentially the square footage of public access. And so their staff's analysis of this, we felt that that, too, eliminated some areas from feasibility from our opinion, especially this Deep Pave Park, which we you look at the precise plan for town center waterfront area. Although it is intended to be more passive open space. It had significant trails going through here and intended to be a more highly used and active public open space area. And so essentially we felt this was also a very small area and makes you need some efficiencies and scales to really make this work. So essentially eliminating the option, we believe from our opinion of use of deep park, also wetlands construction, we learned a little about wetlands construction and that you you can only really count the areas that are wetlands. And the way that you construct wetlands, which we would essentially be doing here, is you can't count some of the upper layers. There's kind of this construction where it kind of comes down in tears. And there are certain upper tiers that you can't count that are essentially aren't are wetlands because you need the stagnant, the stagnation of the water and the still water to create the habitat for certain vegetation and aquatic habitat. And so you can only count the part that is that that creates that that's still water. And so you can't count those upper tiers. So that also eliminates land. There's a very detailed regulatory process, which is very complicated. It's not something, you know, I know from doing other permits through the Army Corps and the regulatory process, they're extremely impacted. Now with the economy, there's tons of applications. We're having a hard time. You know, even moving things through that process was something, you know, that's really improving water quality and other things. And there's the we understand from interviews is that that our local Army Corps isn't necessary. This isn't their priority. In other words, is it something that required to process and regulate? Sure. But because they see it as, you know, essentially allow helping to allow developers mitigate impacts, that doesn't mean they won't process the application, but it just means it's a little harder to move that process through a little faster. So it is very time consuming and onerous regulatory process. The last issue that we looked at is that the land out of the Northwest Territories is, once it's all conveyed from the Navy, is subject to Tidelands Trust. So as a state, essentially we are the city acts as a trustee on behalf of the state of California, which means we're all subject to all the restrictions that that land comes with. And that creates some problems because typically the regulators want to put conservation easements. They're saying to, hey, if you develop are going to get credit for impacting or eliminating a wetland. We don't want there to be this kind of time expiration on the mitigation that you created. So it. But the State Lands Commission typically does not like to put permanent restrictions on their land. It doesn't mean it's not possible. There's ways either through legislation, possibly through a memorandum of understanding with state lands and the regulators, that that could potentially get worked out. But it's just another consideration. And I think so once you take all that into consideration, really, we think the value that could come from this would be probably about when you pay the developer because they would essentially be taking all the risk. I mean, that's our assumption is that they would they would the developer would be taking all the risk, funding all the money up front. We wouldn't be doing that and that they would be taking significant amount of the proceeds to essentially pay the pay themselves back for constructing the open space and then essentially paying themselves a premium risk premium for having taken all that risk. So we we estimate in about $9 million after all of those reductions are made that could be netted from this. So I think in staff's, we think this is an option that should be absolutely kept on the table as a and we have this and a lot of things that are at the bases. We have a toolbox of things in terms of we've talked about this with regard to financing. We need to keep all of our tools in our toolbox and have them available and make decisions about when to use them. And we think this is one we should keep in our toolbox. We think there are other options. There are typically pretty significant funds from the state to fund open space and parks. There are about six and half million dollars in WW funds for the East Bay Regional Park District has for a park at Alameda Point. This is the location where they would like to build that. And so there, you know, staff believes there are other ways. And I think there are discussions that recently occurred with the subcommittee, with the Park District and the city about potentially exploring the possibility of in re initiating discussions about using that six and a half million dollars to create a regional park here. And so I think from our perspective is, you know, this is not a slam dunk. It was we didn't when we analyzed it, we didn't think it was kind of a panacea that was going to solve all of our problems out there. We don't think we should discount it completely. We think we could. If the council direct staff, I think we're planning we'd like to come back in June. To get direction from the city council to initiate re initiate those conversations with the Park District for a creation of the regional open space. But we don't. Those conversations may not be fruitful or they may be delayed. And so we think we should keep this wetlands but mitigation bank idea in our toolbox. We should keep it, consider it. And if at some point we think it makes sense to initiate it, you know, then we can start that up again. There's nothing that could that would stop us from starting that at a future date. Thank you. And we do have one speaker on this item, Richard Banger. Finally. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of the Council, especially council member Odie. Thank you for putting this on the agenda in January of last year. In fairness to the staff, they did complete this report in a very timely fashion. It was done, I think, in August of last year. And so I think the staff for that, it was very informative. And I think for me it illustrated something that a lot of hot ideas are not so hot after you get all the information. And I learned a lot from this. One thing that I learned was that this is going to take it would take almost magic, I would say, to get the state to agree to allow wetland mitigation bank to happen on public trust land. As Jennifer pointed out, the State Lands Commission frowns on that. If we have to go to the Assembly, I can easily see the assembly. I mean, members all over the state saying, well, we set a precedent here. What kind of future developer shenanigans might happen because of this? Because now it's a precedent and why not just leave well enough alone? Another issue is the no public access. Well, soon as I read that, that is completely incompatible with our white long standing vision of there being a regional park there. And I think one of the goals of the park should be to bring people in contact with nature, not keep them away from it. There's already about 512 acres on the VA property that is off limits currently, and I would like to see nature to be accessible to people. Another issue that would come up is what mitigation bank is a for profit operation, and I'm fairly certain I could be corrected on this, but I'm fairly certain that. That precludes receiving public tax money. I don't think we can give public tax money to a for profit wetland irrigation bank. So there goes the six and a half million dollars for the regional park. We're not going to be applying for any of that new money from the the regional ballot measure in June, if that passes. So I think there I think there is opportunity to create wetlands there that end grasslands, other natural habitat without going through this exercise, which we don't know how long it's going to take to even get that, you know, fully sell all those credits. And there's also another wetland mitigation bank that's about to be approved in the South Bay. And of course, they'll be they'll be ahead of us and they'll already be. Offering credits for sale. It's about 58 acres. So. At this point, I would say it's not a good fit for Alameda point. Thank you very much. Member It was your referral. Did you want to speak first? Let's make a couple of quick comments. I'm glad that Richard, we were finally able to hear your public comments. I know you stayed late for a couple of meetings and an agenda item got kicked. So appreciate you hanging in there. I do think it's a good idea to keep keep this on the table. You know, it is, you know, a 5 to 6 year project if we decided to undertake it. I mean, whereas if we actually somehow made a deal with the Park District to either give them or sell them this property, they could in turn. Turn it into a mitigation. Is that possible? Well, I think we first of all, we can't sell them the property because the state lands. When we act on behalf of the state of California as trustee to state lands, we have to maintain ownership over it. So we could only the maximum we could do would be a 66 year lease. And then I think, you know, that's going to be subject to the transaction. There would be a lease document and a transaction of the direction from the council were to essentially say the terms of you creating an open spaces that you can't turn around and create a wetlands mitigation mike that those could be discretionary terms that go into a negotiation and transaction with the Park District or the council could direct staff to say you could create it, but then we need to share 5050 in any proposal or you know, there is it would be like any other transaction that we could we could negotiate those aspects of it. Okay. Thank you. So just on a high level, you know, we are on the front edge of the battle for climate change and the battle to combat climate change. You know, we are at sea level will be directly impacted by sea level rise and and wetlands are a tool to help combat that. So I don't think it's something we should, you know, take off the table. You know, I do understand the concerns that, you know, once you put it in a bank, it becomes a passive park and you're pretty much restricted and you can't do anything on it, even trails. So that's something I think if we do decide to go down that path, we keep it in our toolbox and decide to do that. That merits a lot more public discussion to see exactly what type of parks we want out there, whether we want them passive or whether we want them more active. So, you know, these projects and just looking at the bottom line, 450,000, somebody else told me that they could be up to 600,000 or credit now. So, I mean, my understanding is the VA watch the map was up there. It's the spot right below. Right below. Okay. We were thinking of doing a mitigation bank. They actually have to provide some mitigation so they will be in the market for these credits. Is that. That's not. That's correct, right. That's my understanding. But I don't know for sure. So I mean, it could it could be a win win for both us and the VA because that's a project that we're also very excited to see come to Alameda and again. The mayor has discussed this when we've talked about leases, you know, about making sure that we maximize the value we get for our properties because this does belong to the public. And I think this gives us an opportunity to do that. If we keep it in our toolbox and, you know, if we're able to net $9 million from this someday, then that 6.5 million, this would be a supplement from that 6.50, that's similar. 6.5, you know, not a replacement. So, you know, I think if we somehow had 15 and a half, $16 million that we could spend on parks in the long term, that would be a good thing for Alameda. So I hope that we keep this in our toolbox. That's pretty much and I think, Steph, for all the hard work they've done on this. Can I just I just want to clarify one thing is that you can have public access. It's just that you can't count it towards the bank. So you have to kind of net that. I just want to be clear, you could have some public access. Like a trail, you know, walking and seeing the bird's nest. So that would be you'd have to net that out of it. Couldn't be counted towards the bank. Any other comments? Right. Then we're going to move on to item six B. Recommendation to appoint the nominated members of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. Sorry to. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. And I am pleased to be before you this evening to request the council's appointment of the mayor's nominated members of the Economic Development Advisory Panel. The purpose of the panel is to enhance the business climate here in the city of Alameda, as well as support the city's key

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 55, 65, 101 S. Colorado Blvd., 51, 97, 101 Colorado Blvd. and 98 Harrison St. in Cherry Creek. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 101 Colorado Boulevard from G-RH-3 to G-MU-5, properties located at 98 Harrison Street, 97 Colorado Boulevard and 51 Colorado Boulevard from G-RH-3 to G-RO-5, properties located at 55 and 65 South Colorado Boulevard from PUD 56 to G-RO-5 and property located at 101 S. Colorado Boulevard from G-MU-3 to G-MU-5 (various districts to multi-unit, 5 stories) in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-18-20.

DenverCityCouncil_09282020_20-0813

Uh. Two mailings to 400 persons who live in the neighborhood, both members of the Church Crazies Association and Nonmembers. 500 plus fliers were sent out with the mike to a survey, and there were multiple postings on social media. From that output, we got 228 respondents. A plurality favored the redevelopment plan and control run by Mr. Dick and the City Planning Department. With, depending on the specific location on the sites, 47 to 50%. Yes. In favor of the redevelopment and 37 to 40% no. So definitely a plurality favor of the redevelopment. The primary reason given was this the sites have been vacant for many years and. Mr. McKinnon showed us development, illustrations and visuals which suggested that the authors would be breaking through. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your looking into this. Thank you, John. Treating treatment is up next. Sorry for mispronouncing name. Tredinnick, but thank you. And my name is John Tredinnick, 3605 Cedar Avenue, Denver, Colorado. Good evening, Madam President, and our council members. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Cherry Creek East Association. You may know that they are rhino and they already know that that house, three of the four properties I was president of the association last year work with Bill Tanner, who headed my development committee. I serve as a board member this year and I've been authorized to speak on behalf of the board. Let me just start by saying there is a strong bias not to approve more than three stories in our neighborhood that probably won't surprise you, but we always listen to developers and their proposals, and that was the case here over the past 18 months, the board and particularly the development committee worked extensively with the macKinnon Group, that there were multiple presentations, including presentations, to get an idea of what was important, to explain what they were going to try to do, etc., and also presentations to the board . After we got some of our ideas shaped up, we had several community meetings. Those were in-person meetings. You might have heard about those where people actually come together and yell at each other instead of over Zoom. No, we had two, two very good sessions where we talked about issues and what would be important to the community. And we worked extensively with the macKinnon Group on these points. Ultimately, we did a very extensive survey which Bill Tanner has talked about. I'll leave it at that. But they made a lot of effort to not only reach out to not just all our members, but all our contacts in the community, and then people put fliers out to get that feedback. And that was done before we entered into negotiations. I then formed a negotiations group and worked closely with Lou Rader, Cherry Creek North, because there's a property on the north side and we thought we could work better working together. We also worked closely with the Hilltop folks who joined in ultimately, but we did the negotiations. And Lou Rader wrote up an extensive agreement that we think not only protects the community and met their needs or meets their needs, but will end up with a great a great project. So the board we shared all the negotiations with the community, shared the documents we created. The feedback I got after that was almost unanimously in favor. There are a few people that were not. That's to be expected and our board support supported the proposal 8 to 3. We think these are good projects for the community and for Denver. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. Then even the members of council could not be heard. Mm hmm. Go ahead. Um, so this rezoning meets all the criteria of the. Not going to change your mind on this. I just had to question on the first question is, what were the three letters of opposition? And the second question is, was there a traffic study done for this reason on Colorado Boulevard? Because that's either that or one of the speakers has already mentioned or traffic issues over here, especially on First and Colorado. So I want to see if there was a traffic study done on this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Lou Rader's. In lieu, you might need to unmute yourself. Okay. There you go. Okay. Good evening, counsel. I don't know if you can see me, but I am here. I'll start this with you. Okay. There you go. Thank you for the time this evening. Just to tell you a little bit about this project that you've not heard. I think this is one of the great examples of so many people in the city coming together and really working together with the developer who started in one place and it in another. Not to say, as John pointed out, that everyone was in favor of this, but so many people were and are and are very excited to see what this project will do to reconfigure that important intersection, provide the important gateways that have been in the Your Creek area plan for some time, and will allow a more pedestrian friendly crossing where there is in fact a bus stop. We are a very walkable neighborhood. This will join that with our hilltop neighbors and others to increase safety and will allow us to further the goal of affordable housing. We completely applaud the developer for including affordable housing. Again, one of the things that makes this such a, I think, a remarkable team effort. We have people from the city that helped us answer questions. Councilman Hines and his staff have continued to help us to try to imagine how it is going to look when we have some type of true gateway on the property that will be a result of the reconfigured walker drives. So this is going to be an ongoing effort. But we we noted to planning board that there's three and it jumps to five. There wasn't a four. So this is one of those situations where we were able to accommodate a lot of concerns by working with the developer and doing a private agreement where there are lapses, or at least not an opportunity to do a four story with certain restricted uses. The developer and his counsel, Caitlin Quander, were a delight to work with and we had a lot of people involved. We had very many meetings on this and we are so appreciative of the efforts that the entire team made in order to get this project off the ground so we can continue to work on it. We look forward to coming back to council at some point if we have our gateways figured out which we will do in the next year or so. And again, thank you all for your support of this project. Thank you. We have Larry Fullerton up next. Hello. Hi. Go ahead, Mr. Fullerton. Hi there. I'm Larry Fullerton. I have been active in the real estate community in Denver for over 40 years, including public service and private sector, and developed 200 condos in downtown and near downtown Denver. I am enthusiastically supporting this project and I just want to make two simple points. And I. I don't see me, but I hope you can see me. Number one, during my term, working with Mayor Pinera, I was very privileged and honored to develop long term friendships with Ron Straka and Jennifer Moulton, the two visionaries who started many of these planning processes that Courtney Livingston described in her presentation. And I know them very, very well. Ron was the best man at my wedding and Jennifer pals for many years. Unfortunately, they're no longer with us. But I wanted to say that I am fully confident that they would support this project and its compatibility with the plans that they started years ago. And secondly, having been through a few of these my developer days, I want to say how impressed I am with Doug macKinnon and his team and all the work they've done with the neighborhood organizations, community input, listening carefully and trying to be the best neighbor they could possibly be. So with that, I just want you to know that as a veteran in this business, in this community, I enthusiastically support this project. Thank you. Thank you. We have next Adam Astrof. And Adam, you might need to unmute yourself. Yeah. Sorry about that. Can you hear me okay? Yep. Go ahead. Yeah. My name's Adam Ashraf. I'm at 361a. Lady. And also speaking on behalf of Yimby Denver. We support this project. It's going to add affordable housing and more abundant housing to an area of the city that is at no risk for displacement and an area of the city that has, you know, a huge proportion of jobs, 80% AMI isn't everything, but this will be housing that potentially teachers. Store managers. You know, and people who work at the restaurants in Cherry Creek can use some of those folks in use. So thank you, counselor, for approving this. And while I am glad that the neighborhood, you know, and everyone could come to a compromise, I'm not sure how great it is that where we're allowing people to dictate what future neighbors can have on their balconies. But thank you very much for your support. Thank you. Up next, we have Dylan McQuinn. Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Oh. Great. So thank you for having me. First of all, I'm an architect for tribe architects who's representing the applicant for this project. My colleague Bill Mooney spoke nicely about the project, covered most of my points here, but a couple of things I just wanted to add a little more detail on. First of all, the chair category plan, which has been referenced quite a bit here, it specifically and unequivocally identifies these sites as gateway sites. So that term, Gateway is something that we kind of made up, expanded as referenced several times in that document as a kind of important entries into the Tier four neighborhood. And so I just want to point out that, you know, a rezoning in this location is not going to set precedent because that document is kind of our what we're leaning on primarily for the justification for the rezoning. And, you know, every site obviously can be a gateway site. So no precedent set there. I also want to point out the fact that, you know, this is obviously primarily a residential neighborhood in this district. This particular these particular sites are along Colorado Boulevard, again, which is a arterial street. So if height is additional, height is going to be allowed anywhere in the neighborhood. And this would be the place to do it, kind of in a boundary condition or a high speed arterial. Furthermore, you know that even though the five story zoning is what we're going for here, the private development agreement will limit this to four stories. And to layer on top of that, there are setbacks in the zoning code, upper story setbacks. So as you approach the neighbors on interior lot lines, the building will transition from a four story building down to a three story building and then down to a two story building at the edges. So it won't be completely out of scale with the neighbors. And then finally, with these new zoning designations that we're seeking here, the ground level setbacks will be increased as well. So all in all, we think the combination of these different zoning restrictions and the gateway locations makes this an inappropriate project for this neighborhood. Thank you. We have David part, bro, up next. Full Council. My name is David Pardo. I actually live in District one at 3342 Wind Street. But for the last seven years, up until a few months ago, I lived in District nine, right by Union Station. I'm here to in support of this project. For me, as a relatively young person, being able to buy a home in the city is hard. There are we have a lack of housing that's available. And to me, anything that we can do to produce additional housing units is of incredibly high value. Whether you live next door or whether like me, you live three or four or five miles away. Seeing something like this happen and seeing a large number of units come in, many of which will be available to people who do jobs like I do in the hospitality industry, will be highly valuable. And that that's all I have to say. I'm very much in favor of this project going forward. All right. Thank you, David. And our last speaker for the evening is Wendy Roach. You might need to send me your cell phone. There you go. Hi. Good evening. I thank you all for allowing me an opportunity to speak on behalf of this project. My main support of this project is that it's a project that's going to activate and elevate this major arterial corridor. As envisioned by their neighborhood plans. And I also appreciate all of the hard work, Lou Raiders and John Tredinnick and all of the folks and both of the Cherry Creek Rhinos did to make. This project work. Along with Doug macKinnon and his team, it'll be a it'll be a great project for this neighborhood. Those. Those parcels have been vacant lots as long as I've been here in Denver, which was 1997 and along a major arterial in our city. That's a shame. And it's an incredibly challenging couple of parcels on First Avenue and Harrison to develop. So I'm glad that Doug macKinnon and the Tribe team, who are and who have a deservedly well respected national record reputation, are going to be tackling this project and making it work for the neighborhood. So thank you for your time and I hope you support the project. Thank you, Wendy. Would you mind introducing yourself for the public record, please? I am sorry. I am speaking as a individual member of the Hilltop neighborhood. I live on the 600 block of Burke Street. I'm a member of the board of the Cranmer Park Hilltop. R.A. and I became acquainted with the project while I was president of the R.A. when I was invited by the Cherry Creek East and North R.A. to learn about the project and help them do outreach to our neighborhood, which I want to point out has been very robust. I'm no longer the president. There's a new president. It was a transition period, and our R.A. has supported this project and submitted a letter of support for it. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Wendy. That concludes our speakers. Members of Council. Questions from members of Council. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. May I ask Mr. Workman a couple questions about the project? Sure thing. We will go ahead and get him back into the panel and we might end up just leaving him in here. Yes. Go ahead. Good evening, sir. So a few questions for you. This zoning allows for five stories. I kind of I can't I think I got the answer to this in previous testimony. But I'll ask you anyway, will this development be five stories actually per the end? And I think Caitlin, who's also here, could probably speak to the agreement as well as liberators more than I can buy per the Good Neighbor Agreement. We're going to four stories. I think what you're considering tonight is the zoning is five stories, but we made an agreement to four stories per the good neighbor agreement. And I guess I was asking you on on behalf of the developer, I was hoping to ask the same question on behalf of the neighborhood, just to make sure that they everyone's on the same page. Yes. So but if you think I should ask Miss Quander, then I'm happy to ask. Yeah, I think she could probably have some clarity on that as well. Okay. Super sorry to send misdirected question. No. Councilman. Good evening. Kaitlin Quander land use counsel for the applicant feels correct. We entered into a private development agreement that we writers on behalf and John Phonetic on behalf of Cherry Creek East and Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Associations negotiated and drafted and that private covenant is signed and recorded against all of the properties, and that would limit it privately to the four story. So while you are considering a five story zoning tonight, privately it is limited and the developer is very committed to the first four storey limitation. Thank you. Yes, thank you. And I guess part of the reason why I'm asking is I know that there was some discussion about the height of this development. And and so I just want to make sure that, you know, that there was a discussion and that ultimately I want to talk about how there was compromise that was made, because I think the original proposal for the from the developers perspective for Mr. McLennan was for five stories. And I think the original proposal from the residents was for three stories. And so I think it's I think it's interesting and compelling to show that that there was a compromise made for stories. So let's see. So I guess one other question that was asked by one of the people testifying. Was there a traffic study created or conducted for this for this particular development or in advance the development? And I'm not sure who I should ask. I think Phil unmuted, but then Courtney was gone. Back on too. I mean, I think that's actually part of the site development planning process. Usually a traffic study is required. I see. You know, Doug can. After that as well, but not as part of the reasoning. But that's what that's when that will come in. And you're muted. Mr. yet. Is that working now? Yes, sir. CASTELLANOS We as part of this rezoning, committed to do a traffic study when we move forward towards a site development plan. A pure traffic study with amorphous zoning was not going to be a valuable piece of information. But we fully recognize you through a traffic study before we submit a site development plan that in fact, that is a affirmative and specific obligation under the good neighbor agreements. And we will be doing a traffic study group and in every one of the developments. And you have already been in contact with both sides. And Dottie, is that right? Because Colorado is a state highway. Correct. There was some jurisdictional questions between Dottie and sedan relative to work activities on Colorado Boulevard, as well as the First Avenue intersection. But we've approached both both entities and have received, if you will, kind of a initial positive response to their concepts to reduce and remove these write in and write out the three rights. In fact, as part of serious improvements of the intersection, we're going to be working hand in glove with them to make sure that improvements that they plan actually near-term will be done in such a way to accommodate the the long term vision of the intersection as we proposed to the neighbors and in addition to a traffic study, because traffic often is interpreted to exclusively mean cars. You're doing a study that includes creating pedestrian access across Colorado, at least at first. And so that to the people who have access to this development, will also have access to the nearby park. Is that right? Correct. Councilman, we specifically on the First Avenue Gateway. There will be a removal of what is today, sort of the in our minds, very unsafe pork chops, if you will, for sort of a small respite as you cross the larger Colorado Boulevard. So that will be improved such that the right of way is now reworked to provide accessibility, safe accessibility for all individuals. And on the Bayard intersection, what we've what we contemplated is the continuation of the bike lane, such that the bike lane concept can actually allow for as well as pedestrian access into Byrnes Park, which, as we all know, is sort of a kind of a strange, underutilized, great piece of greenspace in the middle of our city. Yeah. And I and I actually want to thank you for. We get a lot of comments generally negative for the the pork chops, as they're commonly called. But the, you know, the the car friendly swing in swing out from Colorado to to first. So I wanna I want to thank you for considering that in the traffic study because I think that we'll find out that pedestrians are not excited about the the pork chops. I mean, we certainly we know through feedback, but I think we'll we'll understand empirically through this study as well. So I, I don't think have any other study or any other questions. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. All this talk of pork chops is making me hungry for my dinner. But first one, I want to extend some of the conversation that Councilman Hines I was engaging in and recognize the work of the neighborhoods in together, working out the good neighbor agreement that's recorded against the land. I completely understand that. But I would like to ask Courtney if she could increase my comfort level for this departure from relative relatively recent plan guidance that says three story maximum in the staff report, which I'm going to flip over to right now. It says the acknowledges that the request exceeds the height recommendations as shown in the plan from 2012, but the request is consistent with other recommendations for the vacant parcel within the Cherry Creek North sub area as well as other plan goals described earlier. So could you be a little more specific about why in this case, other than the agreement with the neighbors who appear to be happy with it and have endorsed it, what is it in our plan guidance that says there are other recommendations that make the increase to 65 feet appropriate? Well, I think I think that if we're looking at the Cherry Creek area plan, we have those recommendations, but we also have recommendations. You know, talking about the fact that this is a gateway, that it's important to the community to focus growth in this location, to redevelop the parcels. You know, specifically, you're looking at encouraging private reinvestment along Perimeter Street, that page 73 of the 72 of the Cherry Creek Area Plan, you know, looking at the half block. You know, the plan acknowledges in its recommendations that here is New Street is very unique and that it creates a half block condition in between here and in Colorado. And so that makes it super challenging to redevelop along with all of these other constraints, wanting that sidewalk connectivity. So we have a lot of recommendations pushing and pulling here. So we're looking at it in all together. So on balance, we feel that this application does meet the plan criteria because it is meeting the recommendations to help redevelop this area and meet the goals that way. Hey, I don't suppose you were here in 2012, Courtney. No, I was not. Okay. I'm wondering if that's the case. Why? Along Colorado Boulevard, at least in on that half block. Which, you know, very awkward between Harrison and Colorado being a half block. Why the area plan didn't accommodate more than three stories, especially along Colorado Boulevard. And I noticed there's there are some structures there that look like they're higher than three stories already or they're not. I think that's a little bit farther south. Okay. I'm thinking of the sunrise. Sunrise assisted living. But that. Isn't that a cedar? Between Cedar and Alameda. Yes. Oh. I believe that is. And so the plan has that that. You know, that was built way before 2012, I believe. Yeah, because it was there in 2006 and that's well over three stories. And in the plan guidance, I think that's on page 72. It does show that that assisted living is five stories in height. So it does account for the existing condition there. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I have a few questions for, I think. Hmm. Caitlin I think this would be best suited for you or Courtney. So. Although. The zoning is five stories. You have a covenant. That's for. You can go down to development services and you can still get a five story permit because these are associated with the zoning. So how do you ensure that that actually happens? Because we have a couple of covenants in northwest Denver and it's not until they get brought to my attention through the site development plan, the city that they are following, the covenant. So how do we ensure that this is actually going to take place? Because the only way that somebody down in development services knows about this deal is they'd have to go to the crooked recorder's office. Councilwoman, thank you for the question. So a couple of points. The development agreements are that have been entered into are recorded against the property. And I will say that, look, radars and John Tredinnick have done a fantastic job of circulating both the terms and the actual written agreements themselves to the neighborhood organization and throughout. So there's a much wider awareness about the terms. And, you know, I think those organizations were lucky to have Blue Raiders in particular, who is a retired real estate attorney from who tap rock to draft those with me on behalf of the neighborhood because you know, she certainly represented them well and not as an attorney, but as a member of the neighborhood. So within those reported private covenants, there are the site plans themselves that the neighbors and Mr. macKinnon and Tribal worked through closely. Those are actually attached. So the depictions of what is proposed are attached and recorded. So that's that's provides a lot of clarity. And in addition, there is a default in enforcement provision. So the neighborhood association has the ability to go and get you know, I think if we were to try and apply for something that is not allowed, they would one be in communication with them because we have to as part of the covenants on the site plan, we have to give them copies of the site development plan as we're submitting them to the city. But if they were to find there, there was something that was inconsistent. There is a notice and default enforcement process written into the agreement. Certainly don't ever anticipate having to go there. But I appreciate the question and the neighborhoods and and my client made sure to write in a very clear process for them to be able to enforce them. So if I heard you correctly, your first two sentences answered my question. So as the site development plan is pushed forward, it's given to the neighborhood is the same time. Is it process to development services? Is that what I heard? That is correct, yep. Okay. And so question for you, Courtney. How is an applicant able to read zone on land that's not contiguous? With the application, vacancy and application, there doesn't need to be contiguous by code standards. Okay. So they can just do a map amendment based on however they'd like so anyone can go in there. So anyone, any person can go in and have a Swiss cheese map amendment, basically. Yes. If the property owners are in agreement and sign up to it. Okay. So one more question to you, Caitlin. This. Covenant have a sunset. Councilwoman. Yes, it is. And I'm just double checking 50 years from the time it was recorded. So certainly intended to last kind of the lifetime of these buildings and then it go and it revert and then after the sunset, it reverts to the zoning that we're approving today. Is that correct? To the five story with no. None of these restrictions on it? Yes. Although I would assume that anyone that was potentially redeveloping the site would probably be back negotiating with the neighborhood associations at that time. And 50 years from now, you know, who knows what that area will look like. But yes, you're correct. 50 years from now, the development agreement concludes. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilman Sawyer, we had you up in the Q. Did you get your question answered? Yes. My question was about the enforcement and Councilman Sandoval. Got it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0813 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn, I'm sorry. Councilman Hines, your Councilman Flynn's picture was right below you, and I said his name. Councilman Hines, go ahead. If Councilmember Flynn wants to take it away. Okay. So, thank you, Madam President. I, I I'm excited about this this project. The these plots at first in Colorado are, excuse me, current and first in Colorado and beyond, have sat vacant for a long time, for decades. They're oddly shaped as in they're not as deep as most parcels in the area would be. So they've been underutilized. And, you know, I'm a big multimodal advocate. They limit pedestrian access along Colorado, a transit quarter that we've identified because of their poorly created and maintained sidewalks and and they're pedestrian friendly lamb chops, pork chops. Neighbors have complained about these locations for years. The current developer, McKinnon, purchased these sites in April of 2019 and immediately started engaging the neighbors to figure out what would work for these plots. Both of these intersections, Colorado and Bayard, as well as Colorado and first or, um, you know, areas that that the neighbors have contemplated for for many years, engaged community members have spent a lot of time adding their thoughts about the vision for these sites. And they I'm also excited that they used well-known architect and District ten constituent David Schreiber, to help design what would work on these plots because he's using a tribal architecture developed around the nation. So we're really fortunate to have a national architect that's that's also working here in our own city. So so I'm really excited that he's creating something that will integrate into Cherry Creek, something that will be a grand entrance. I understand that, that the zoning asks for five and Blueprint says three. As, as we've heard, it won't actually be five storeys, it'll be four and three and two stories because of the step process. And, and so the way that this, this development will be on this funky parcel will we'll still be in some ways what the neighbors had asked for anyway. You'll see in the packet that the 15th Century Creek North Arnaud's both combined to write a letter support. Both groups created a detailed agreement between the neighbors and the developers. I personally have been to multiple neighborhood organizations. I personally have, you know, before I was elected, have worked on good neighbor agreements. I have never seen a 67 page and a and and that's what we have here in attached to this proposal. And so I really I credit church groups and particularly Cherry Creek North, my readers for for their attention to detail to make sure that that the developer and neighbors are in lockstep and and that the developer is kind of caged in to doing what, you know, what the agreement has been. So is this exactly what every neighbor wants? No. But it's a solid compromise that incorporates a lot of what the neighbors have asked for. So another thing that no one has really touched on much so far is the affordable housing. I think. What's important for this development is that this affordable housing and it is in a very pedestrian friendly area of the city and they're working to make it more pedestrian friendly. You know, as long as you don't walk along Colorado. But that's another issue that we need to continue to to address. It's also an area with access to great public schools. Something that hasn't been mentioned so far is that the affordable housing is required to have a minimum of 900 square feet. So I think that that's particularly compelling, too, because when you have an area that's very pedestrian friendly and you have really good schools, you know, a lot of times affordable housing is shoehorned into the smallest possible unit. And in ensuring that these affordable units and support school age kids to go to these awesome schools, I think that that's another component that that is a result of the the long conversations between the developer and the neighbors. So as I ask before, as I mentioned before, I would finally say I value multimodal transit. And I I'm so glad that the developer is willing to to proactively already engage in conversations with Saeeda and Dottie to make sure that this, frankly, pedestrian unfriendly area is is turned into a much more pedestrian friendly area. And I think that with is with this development and this vision, I think that this will be an exciting gateway into Cherry Creek. So thank you. And I urge and I vote. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Up next, we have Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. And I think, you know, Councilmember Hines hit it on the head. I was talking to my staff about this rezoning today, and one of my aides said something really interesting. She's a Denver native and she said these parcels have been the way they are now for her entire life. And she's not going to be very happy with me for hinting about her age publicly. But she said, you know, people have been talking about what to do with this land for almost a half a century. So, you know, while there are residents who understandably have concerns about the density proposed in this rezoning, and as we talked about in the questions section, you know, Blueprint says three stories and this is five stories. But, you know, we're compromising it for stories here. I think the question is really whether given the criteria we're looking at and we're required to look at in rezonings, is this thoughtful development? Great. That's the goal here. Is this thoughtful development. Does this meet the needs of the community? Is this development for development sake, or are we finding that there's a community benefit here? Is it worth it to develop these properties into this proposed plan, or should we just let these lots sit deteriorating for another half a century? And, you know, thoughtful development doesn't mean no development. It means development that makes our community better. And I think from what we've seen from the questions and the answers that we got tonight, this proposal does that it not only includes affordable housing, but, you know, like Councilman Hines said, it includes affordable housing at a minimum square foot , 900 square feet per unit. That's two bedrooms. You know, this affordable housing is specifically for families in a neighborhood with access to three excellent public schools. Parks directly on two main transit lines. The Good Neighbor, the 67 page good neighbor agreement, which cracks me up, includes design standards that take into consideration things like setbacks. Setbacks, though residents don't feel overwhelmed by the four stories that make up the compromise. Because many of them would have preferred the three stories. So visually and sort of spatially, it's going to be a good it's going to be a good compromise. Is it perfect? No. Right. This development represents a compromise between a developer that, frankly, would have preferred higher density and taller buildings and the neighbors who, frankly, would have preferred less density and lower buildings. The fact that no one is 100% happy in this situation is probably the best indication that it's a success. And so I will be supporting it this evening as well. It's right across the street in District ten. District five is just on the other side of Colorado Boulevard. I think this is a really great option and I'm very excited for it as well. I just want to thank Mr. McKim in. I want to thank his team. I think this is really great. I want to thank the Arnaud's for all of the hard work that they did. So thank you guys all very much. This is this is a great option and I'm really looking forward to supporting it. So thanks a lot. And thank you, Councilwoman. Oh, thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. A lot of times I love looking at zoning and I love looking at precedent setting. And I would just have to say that this good neighbor agreement is a document that I'm saving and I will be able to use in the future when we are negotiating land use deals in northwest Denver. So first off, thank you to the team who put together this good neighbor agreement. It's very thorough. I've worked on several in my time as working as a counselor, and this is the most robust one I've seen. So thank you for that. I would like to thank the team for the affordable housing. That's super important. And if I'm going to go really down into the weeds, you even got into the construction materials, which is very important for Northwest members. You talk about brick, you talk about tree line. You talk about how it intersects. You talk about parking, being underground and only having one insert when when in, when we're in and when we out. So a lot of the work in zoning, I believe, and development is the devil's in the details. And so this is good neighbor agreement is there's tons of details in here. So thank you for providing this document for future rezonings in Denver. And based on the criteria, I, I had similar questions similar to Kevin Councilman Flynn about the heights and how we sometimes deviate away from neighborhood plans. But I really believe that Colorado Boulevard, this site will be it will be long lasting. And if you look once again into the details of the good neighbor report, the construction materials that you're using, I bet this building is going to be here longer than 50 years when this comes in at sunset. So that's always what I'm looking at when I'm looking at site development times and what's in the what kind of construction are you using? What kind of materials are you using? Because in Denver you can go from 100 degrees to 37 degrees within 24 hours, and that's really harsh climate to build in. And not very many architects know how to build in that type of climate. So with that, I will also be offering my support to me above and beyond the criteria. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval and I not seen any other hands raised will add my comments that this rezoning of these numerous parcels, in my opinion, does meet all of the criteria, and I will be voting in favor of it as well tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. HYNES All right. Cashman Hi. Kenny. I Ortega Sandoval. I swear I Taurus. I am black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 13 IVs, 13 IES Council Bill 813 has passed. Our next rezoning is Council Bill 20 dash 0815 and it's changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalama Street Street 39, South Kalama ten South Lappin Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Solid Waste and Recycling) to Comply with Senate Bill 1383, Conform with Franchise Agreement, and Implement Strategy Four of Alameda’s Zero Waste Implementation Plan Update. (Public Works 26141630/26241631)

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1385

I think it's perfect. All right. Thank you so much, everyone. All right. So now we will move back to what will we move back to? Is that seven. C? Yes. Okay. All right. So he'll switch out the staff. See if we can confuse anyone else, huh? Well, I just felt better. I always worry when we've got something that's coming up against a year end deadline. Councilor Spencer. If possible, I'd like to move that. We move seven G up next because I think our chief has been on and this is also a critical I think it is important to update this policy and I'm not sure we're going to get to it otherwise. I am going to do my best to keep things moving forward. I, I mean, you can make a motion. Thank you. So I'd like to move that we here seven G next, which goes to updating the police practice regarding officer involved shootings. And I think it's critical we hear it tonight and otherwise, I don't think we'll get to it. I think in council three days ago, you seconding. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second. Maybe we have a real cover. Please. I'll with Doug. I or Spencer I knocked, right. No. Vella. No mayor as Ashcroft? No. But let's move expeditiously and we'll get to it tonight. Okay. Back to item C. County Public to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Individual Code. Chapter 32 Comprehensively update city wide off street parking and loading space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; authorizing the Chief of Police to issue Special Police Officer Commissions to qualified government employees to conduct limited law enforcement duties or to former police officers or parking enforcement officers to conduct traffic control; eliminating the authority to authorize Retired Police Officer Commissions; amending Section 3.28.150, and repealing Sections 3.28.450, 3.28.460, 3.28.470, and 3.28.480 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118476

The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 118476 relating to the Seattle Police Department authorizing the Chief of Police to issue Special Police Officer Commissions to qualified government employees to conduct limited law enforcement duties, or to former police officers or parking enforcement officers to conduct traffic control. Eliminating the authority to authorize retired police officer commissions. Amending Section 3.28150 and repealing Sections 3.28.4 or 50.460.470 and 0.480 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the Council bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. So this is an ordinance that modifies the portion of our code that deals with special commissions and retired police officer commissions. So currently, the code authorizes the chief police to commission persons engaged in private security employment to assist the police department in enforcing the laws. However, Speedy does not issue the Special Police Officer commissions to persons engaged in security work. And as such, this kind of work is regulated under the RTW Chapter 18 170. So we now recognize the City of Seattle has a need for qualified persons with limited law enforcement authority to assist the police department where appropriate. And the city of Seattle has a need for qualified person to conduct traffic control. So currently, to explain the sort of the current situation, a retired officer with the retired police officer commission has the same authority as an active police officer. He or she may wear his or her Seattle Police Department uniform. They may carry a weapon. However, this retired officer with a retired police officer commission is not considered an employee. They have no assigned supervisor. They're not required to have an ongoing training as required by the settlement agreement. As an example, they're not readily identifiable to public. From from there, not publicly listing from active duty police officers and are not subject to the discipline for violations of the Seattle Police Department policies or city policy. So for these reasons, the department and the executive and the Council hopefully believed it appropriate to amend this section to grant the Chief of Police Authority to issue these types of commissions that grant limited law enforcement authority to certain qualified city employees or grant very limited law enforcement authority to conduct traffic control to these retired commission police officers and parking enforcement officers. So this council bill appropriately repeals the older sections 328450 through 328480 to eliminate the category of retired police officer commissions. So again, the problem we are solving with this legislation that are that we are ensuring that people who get special commissions only get the type of commission that they will need to do the work that they are in fact doing. In addition, Council Bill 118476 will narrow the focus on and the scope on who gets special commissions. This legislation again, again, is about narrowing the amount of work that is done and is about focusing or assisting the police department and the city as opposed to helping one individual in their employment situation. I'll sort of close by saying there's no fiscal implications with this legislation. And on August 19th, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee unanimously voted. This legislation passed. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll and the passage of the bill. Harrell, I, Carter O'Brien, Okamoto Rasmussen, Sergeant Bagshaw, Gordon High and President Burgess nine and favorite and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 29.

Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Lori Mack to the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Commission for a term effective immediately and expiring 4-20-16, or until a successor is duly appointed. (HEALTH, SAFETY, EDUCATION & SERVICES) Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Lori Mack to the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Commission for a term effective immediately and expiring 4-20-16, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 5-29-14.

DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0443

Under bills for final consideration. I see no bills called out and under pending. I see no bills called out. So, Councilman Brooks, what would you like us to do with the bill for 43? Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to call it up for a vote. All right, Councilwoman CORNISH, will you read the motions this evening? Yes, Madam President, if. You please put Resolution 443 on the floor for a vote. Thank you, Madam President. I move that resolution 443 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilman Brooks. Yes. The mayor's administration needs to make some changes on the board for the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships, and they're going to look at those necessary changes and come back to us with some appointments. But they would like us to vote down this appointment. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I see no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. No. But no. Herndon. No Carnage, no Liman, no Lopez. No. Montero, no. Nevitt? No. Ortega, Rob. No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary. Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, will you close the voting, announce results? 11 nays, 11. This resolution for 43 is defeated. Okay. That being said, I'm going to say all the other bills for introduction are published, and I think we are ready for the black vote cast for McNeish. Will you please put the resolutions on the floor for a block vote? Thank you, Madam President. Well, we have no resolutions remaining, Madam President, but. Now you've got a mess. So do I have them all? Oh, we have my back. I'm sorry. 43. That's. I was looking at the wrong section. Yes, Madam President. I move that following resolutions be adopted. Five, 17, five, 18, five, 19, five, 25, 26, five, 29, five, 33 and 541. Thank you. Council. And. They have been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. Hi. But I. Herndon I can each I laman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, montero. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. I rob i. Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results. 11 911. As the resolutions are adopted. Castro On the condition. Will you please put the bills for final consideration on. On the floor, for adoption? For passing? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that they'll die in. Just a second. I've got a message from the Secretary Jones. Oh, I missed this part. Castro says Bill's on file consideration except for Council Bill for 70. A companion bill regarding the Walton Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Plan Council will vote on this bill after the conclusion of tonight's public hearing on Council Bill 471. Okay, I understand that. Okay, so I guess just omit the 470 in your reading. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam President. I move the final following bills to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Five 1436 450 65065095 ten and 516 All series of 2014. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, that they have been moved and seconded by the secretary roll call. Liman by Lopez. All right. Monteiro Nevitt I Ortega I rob i Brooks. Hi, Fats Herndon. I can eat i madam president. Hi. Madam Secretary, close voting announced the results. 11 eyes. 11 Eyes. The bills for final consideration do pass tonight. Council will continue from June 16, 2014. Its required public hearing on Council Bill 398 as amended, allowing fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 502 approving the service plans for the proposed JCC Metropolitan District Number one and JCC Metropolitan District Number Two. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 471, amending the Walton Corridor. Urban Development Plan. Urban Renewal Plan. Please note the speakers are allowed only one opportunity to speak on Council Bill 398. If you testified on June 16, you will not have an opportunity to testify a second time tonight. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the Council Secretary to sign up during the recess of Council. Madam Secretary, how many minutes do you think we will need? 20 minutes. Okay. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a recess until about a quarter till six. Yeah, of course it's 677. Oh, my goodness. Poor little store. Ride the train to the. Water tower and enjoy a short hike, give you a multitude of wildflowers, then enjoy a catered boxed lunch on the lawn at the Healy House Museum. Reservations required. What is sound. And how does it. Work? Make some music and explore sound. From bird songs to drumbeats to a laser show. What may be music to your ears may just be noise to others. Rock on 21 and up only. Then enjoy a free day at the Museum of Nature and Science this Sunday afternoon. Council is reconvened. We have three required public hearings this evening. We could just reconvene, please. Yes. We are reconvening, please. Thank you. Council President Sussman had to step out on Council President Pro Tem Herndon. I will be finishing the meeting for her. We have three required public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses . If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Each speaker will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation manner on the wall. When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members use electronic devices for various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution condemning hate incidents, xenophobic rhetoric, and harassment against Asian Pacific Islander Americans and work towards ensuring that APIA feel safe both during this COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

LongBeachCC_03162021_21-0225

Thank you. We are now moving on to item 11, please. Item 11, this communication from Councilwoman Zahra, Councilwoman Allen, Councilmember Aranda and Vice Mayor Richardson. Recommendation two requires city attorney to prepare a resolution condemning hate incidents against Asian Pacific Islander Americans. Thank you. I want to begin with. Sorry, I'm just a little shaken because we just recently heard, just as this item is reporting today, that there was a recent mass shooting targeting several Asian owned businesses in Atlanta, Georgia. So sorry. Sorry for that. As I resume with this item. So since I want to just express that, you know, that that, you know, we should we should all be against hate hate against anyone. And particularly right now with the COVID 19 pandemic, that since it's began, inflammatory and sign of a phobic rhetoric, referring to COVID 19 as the Chinese virus or kung flu has put the Asian and Pacific Islander American families, communities and businesses at high risk for bullying, harassment and hate crimes. And unfortunately, many Asian Pacific Islander, American and L.A. County and around the nation have been unjustly blamed for causing the pandemic. Long Beach, the city of Long Beach, has approximately over 60 out 65,000 Asian Pacific Islanders. And the hate has increased and escalated where many are living in fear. And we've been targeted for discriminatory, discriminatory treatment, hostility and violence. According to the Pew Research Center report, about three in ten Asian adults, 31% say they have been subject to slurs or jokes because of their race or ethnicity since the outbreak of the pandemic. And I just shared earlier that it's very real. The chief had just informed me, just, you know, an hour or so ago about this mass shooting and that three of them were female Asians. And this has happened also locally just a few months, about in October 2020. We had a Long Beach resident who went viral for her racist rant and then sentenced for 45 days in jail for assaulting a Filipino-American woman. And in the city of Rosemead, Matthew Long, he's an elementary school worker waiting at a bus stop, was brutally beaten with his own cane and lost part of his fingers. And in San Francisco, an 84 year old Thai man, Ratana Paddy, an elderly who is nearly blind, died from injuries he sustained from an assault he suffered while walking. And yet, you know, yet Asian Pacific Islander Americans have been sacrificing their lives, making our country safe, and serving on the front lines of this pandemic and this crisis as health care providers, as first responders and other essential roles. So, for example, nearly 31% of the nurses who have died from the coronavirus in the US are Filipinos, yet they only make up 4% of the nursing population. So I just want to ask my colleagues to support this item, to condemn the discriminatory treatment, hostility and violence against our Asian Pacific Islander American community members and commitment to working to ensure that they feel safe during this pandemic by standing in solidarity against hate. And and I also wanted to make sure that once I concluded my presentation, then we can go to a public comment. And I'd love to hear back from my colleagues on this item. But I did want to ask if the Chief is Chief Lunas online or if we have a staff online that can share information about how to report hate incidents or crimes that they experience. Because I really don't I can't stress enough that there is no crimes. Are incidents too small to report because we need to hear them in order to make sure that it's documented and that we addressed it head on. So, so with that, I, um, I leave SAC for if you're able to respond to that question. Thank you, Councilmember. Yes. We have Commander Pino on the line and can talk about our process. Commander? Good evening. Councilman. Sorrow. Honorable mayor and city council. Obviously, if a. If it's an emergency call, we request that the community members call 911. If there's an immediate danger and we request the community member if there's not. Immediate danger. We request the community member to call our non-emergency line, which is 562 or three five, six, 711. With that, police officer will be dispatched out to the scene or wherever the victim is. Document the incident. If that incident meets the element. Of other hate crime, they will then file an appropriate report. All of our reports of hate crimes are handled by the violent crimes detail, which we also have a violent crimes detailed detective on call available to respond to suspected hate crimes 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That detective will respond out there, will coordinate with patrol officers, speak with the victims, witnesses, suspects, and gather any type of evidence. From there, we automatically, if it's determined to be a hate crime. Notify the Long Beach Human Dignity Officer Teresa Gomez. Make sure our notifications are done there. And the Human Dignity Officer will then communicate with the victim and arrange to provide any requested services. The responding detective continues the investigation all the way through prosecution. Great. Thank you so much, Commander. I also want to share that if people didn't feel comfortable calling the police line, that there is also an organization called the Asian Pacific Policy Planning Council that they can contact that could do it in language as well. And so with that, I'd love to hear public comment on this item. Q Why don't we go to public comment and it will come back to the City Council and Councilman Soros? I'm assuming you've also made a motion to do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I make a motion to move that item. Okay, great. Then, Madam Clerk, why don't we go ahead and I do have a second already, so why don't we go ahead? By council member, you ringa. So why don't we go ahead to go ahead and do the public comment. Thank you. The first speaker is Angelina Tan Tran. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Angelina Tran. And I'm. I show support for. Item 11 all over social media in 2020 and even now still in 2021. I've seen hate crimes against Asian-Americans all over the country. And. You know, even. Globally and other. Nations as well. And. I want to be in a community where I can feel safe going. Out, where. I know that my family and my friends feel safe when they go out. And with all these hate crimes, it really puts our community at risk and. I think that he is a more severe virus than COVID 19. So. I really support this item because I want everyone to just respect and accept, you know, everyone from all backgrounds. And I really want our community to stand in solidarity and unity because it will really advances in the future. And I hope that, you know, the council members will vote in support of this item. Thank you. Think your next speaker is Kiwi. So. Good evening, honorable council members and Mayor. My name is Kelly, so and I'm calling in support of Councilwoman Dr. Sylvie Sorrels, item 11, and which we want to condemn the incidents, harassments and racist comments that has occurred in our communities all across the state and here in Long Beach, too. We want to acknowledge the risk that words like the Chinese virus and the kung flu virus and any other of those that are placed on our Asian and Pacific Islander communities. As you all know, we are all living in an unprecedented time. We face the challenges of COVID 19 and the long road to rebuilding our businesses and our economy. But we must not overlook or turn a passive eye to this epidemic. The elders in the API community are oftentimes unable to verbalize the abuses that we are seeing grow by 150% this year and rising daily. They are the most vulnerable among us and the most targeted. And so it is our responsibility as leaders and members of the community to ring the bell, to let everyone know that this is wrong, that this shouldn't be happening, that this is, in fact happening. To acknowledge the breadth and reach of this problem and racism of any form should not be allowed to grow. So with that, I just encourage and call upon all of the council members to vote in support of this item. Thank you so much. And your next speaker is Charles Song. Good evening, Audible Mayor and council members. I am Tolleson community organizer calling in support of Councilwoman Dr. Celi Sorrells. Agenda item 11 to condemn the hate incidents, harassment and racist comments which has put the Asian and Pacific Islander American Apia at risk. As we slowly recover from the COVID 19 pandemic and four years of heightened xenophobia and racism, California have an opportunity to recommit its value and deliver for the community members who have suffered the most from these tragedy and to avoid this hate crime from spreading into our beautiful and most diverse city. We must create a culture of respect and accept them for all members, regardless of their background on about mayors and council member. We must stand in solidarity and support AAPI community and condemn these hate incidents and crime which perpetuate racism, discriminatory treatment, hostility and violence. Tonight, I encourage all the council members to vote yes to support this item. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity. Good night. Thank you. Our next speakers, Yoko Koyama. Hello, Honorable. Mayor and council members. Thank you for this opportunity to for public comment. I'm Robin Gill. Kerry Yokoyama, a minister of Long Beach British Church, a Japanese American Buddhist community on the West Side. I'm calling in support of Council man, woman, Dr. Silly Salaries Item 11. And I would like to thank Dr. Sara for this proposal. With the previous generations in our community having gone through the experience of internment camp and we witnessed the lingering harassment, aggression and racism after the war, which was directed toward the. Vulnerable members of the community. Including the children and senior members. We need to prevent by all means the recurrence of this tragic cycle. Needless to say, many people are. Bearing the burden. Of the impact of the pandemic and all sense of ongoing mental stress. And this will create. An environment where. Any one individual can be a victim or perpetrator without a clear guidance of the leadership of the city. Myself coming from Japan to Canada. This mutual respect and acceptance of multiculturalism is definitely the greatest virtue of this city, which I most certainly appreciate for myself, but also for my eight year old son with Down's Syndrome, which is as a member of a Asian Buddhist community, I fully support this effort to stop the cycle of racism, discrimination, hostility and violence, which we see now is being directed to the most vulnerable members of the community. So I ask that all respected council members and their support this attempt to create a safer environment for APIA community and beyond. Thank you very much. And your next speaker is Julia Huang. Thank you for allowing me to virtually stand before you today. Honorable Mayor and Council Members. My name is Julia Wang and I am the President of Inner Trends Communications, located in the second District of Long Beach. In addition, we are property owner in Long Beach owning two historical buildings that we lovingly call Psychic Temple and Edison Theater on Broadway. We're also known as the organizer of arts and culture events in the city such as Power Long Beach. Today I am calling in support of Councilwoman Dr. Duley item 11 that is being brought forth together with Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, Councilwoman Cindy Allen and Councilmember Roberto Ronda. And as has been presented. Item 11 is for the City of Lumby to condemn racism against Asians, reflected by the increasing number of hate incidents, harassment and racist comments made since the beginning of pandemic. As early as last March. Some of our staff members, most of whom are of Asian descent, have been targeted with acts of racism solely on the basis of their appearance. The magnitude of the verbal attacks that they experienced cannot compare to the horrendous acts of crime that are taking place around the country. And as Councilwoman Sarah mentioned, even as we speak just a few hours, just a few hours ago, there are at least eight dead, all Asian, following shootings at three spots in Atlanta area. It is time that we not regard these incidents as random acts but racially motivated. The conversation to end racism must include Asian American Pacific Islanders. Therefore, I urge the Long Beach. I urge the City of Long Beach to stand in solidarity and support our AAPI community and condemn hate incidents and crime which perpetuates racism, discriminatory treatment, hostility and violence. I encourage all the council members to vote to support this item. Thank you very much. Think your next speaker is Michael Kahn. Hi. My name is Michael Kahn. I'm the executive director of Pacific Asian Counseling Services, and I am in support of Dr. Soros motion on item 11. Our agency provides mental health services, especially to Cambodians in Long Beach. My staff reported that they had no specific attacks on our clients or themselves because many of our staff are Asian . However, our Cambodian clients, who are often older adults, are aware of the attacks and have expressed great fear during their counseling sessions, especially about going out into public spaces. Many do not go out unless it's absolutely necessary, and this has increased their sense of isolation and loneliness and caused great anxiety. Both our clients and staff are also reporting anger. They are angered because they feel APIs are seen as helpless with the upsurge of attacks in the Bay Area and New York City. Many people have finally started to speak up, including President Biden. APIs are not accepting the situation, silently adds legislation and press coverage have increased to inform all of America about these acts of violence. Two of my staff reported to me that they felt better knowing that this motion was going to be presented tonight. It reassured them that these attacks are acknowledged as racist and hateful. I hope the City Council will approve this motion. Your residents should not have to restrict their lives out of fear. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is from Byron Shire. Hi. I'm Karen and I'm calling in support of Councilwoman Dr. Sally Sara. Item 11 to condemn the hate incidents. Ratchet down racist comments referring to COVID 19 as a Chinese virus or a kung flu, which has put the Asian. And Pacific Islander. American. Community at risk. I'm an education student at Cal State Long Beach, and this September I'll be entering the education community as a teacher, as a member of the education community and an artist. Poverty, hatred and ignorance have a way of destroying the work that we all work so hard to collectively build. Racist comments towards Asians will not merely stop there, but it will bleed over into the Latino community, African-American community, West Indian and Caribbean community, and any other minority community. In other words, this is everyone's problem. Mayor Garcia, the Asian American and Pacific Islander community now has its eyes on you. How will you respond to how you respond to this will affect how our community looks at you, how we vote. And it's a potential gold star in your political career. The ball is in your court. We must create a culture of respect and acceptance for all members of all backgrounds. We must end solidarity and support our AAPI communities and condemn hate incidents and crimes which perpetuate racism, discriminatory treatment, hostility and violence. I encourage all the council members to support this item. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your results. I think your next speaker is Tai Chong. Good evening. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Tim Chan, a Cambodian. American entrepreneur and longtime. Resident of Long Beach. First and foremost, I would like to say. Thank you to Councilwoman Dr. Susie Ciro for bringing to light the agenda number 11 of the ongoing rise of Asian and Pacific Islander American. Hate throughout the city, state and nation. That needs to be addressed. As we all know, silence killed my childhood experience, recalls Cambodian. Elders, elders that have been getting robbed, killed, beat. Up and threatened in the mortgage community for years and years. In the eighties and nineties, the worst. Sometimes by our own kind. Yet other races. But with technology surveillance video in 2000 2021 being televised, discussed and coming to light. Police reports are made, but less fear of reporting, standing. Up and being a target of another crime is what silences our community. You know, imagine living in the hood and you voice out and get someone locked up. Now they know your name and where you family stays. It's tough to voice out because fear is what is. Embedded. Into our system. In the aftermath. But I would like to say. Glad to have. Having actors, people of influence. News outlets speak out. It's powerful. How do we create a change in policy, policy or a movement to stop these claims? Well, we're actually policy makers at the local, state and national level to partner up in contributing to stop the hate crimes. And it starts here. We're giving the community a platform to talk to our local politicians. So thank you for. My time. And ask to keep this discussion going and made of the importance of voting yes and supporting this item. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you very much. I do have folks that are cued up. So let me I have some comments also, but I'll go through the counsel first and then I'll come back. Doctor So Councilwoman, did you have anything additional to add right now? You want me just go down the speaker's list. Now I just want to thank everyone who made public comment for their courage and their advocacy to speak out today on this issue and and to speak in support of the item. Thank you. Thank you. Comes from Ringo. You were the second. Thank you. Barry, I don't want to. I don't know what to say in regards to how many words are not enough to express the grief and the hurt that I feel. Having having to bring this forward. If you may recall, I brought an item forward back in January, used to describe the events that happened on January 6th . And where we saw just all the hate and all the violence that was that existed there at the time. And this is just being fomented as a result of that. Our country is is in a bad place right now. It needs to be healed. And we need to get rid of all the hate that started with the last administration and where those names came from, the dog flu and everything else that goes with that. So. Dr. Sara Mai Mai. And I share it with you. We had the same incident in El Paso, Texas. Where another racist attacked a ton of Latino families in El Paso in a in a in a mall. And it seems like. And then, of course, we know what was going on in the African-American community. And we all mourn George Floyd. And we'll continue to do so forever. But I'm hoping that some day will come when we won't have to be writing these kinds of resolutions. Well, we can write resolutions that celebrate our diversity and that acknowledges that we are working together to make a better world. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Vice Mayor Richardson. Just want to take a moment and acknowledge Dr. Sorrow for bringing this important item forward so we can acknowledge. Terrible situation. It's typical. I just heard you know, I just heard Dr. Sahloul talk about a situation that happened just today. So I think that helps drive home the importance that we need to, you know, understanding, acknowledge the need for compassion and love in the coming days and reclaim racism from the top of our government. So I'm happy I'm honored that you allowed me you asked me to sign on. I'm happy to support it. And and I think this is great leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to also say thank you to Councilmember Sorrell for bringing this item forward. I share in your in your frustration with this. My my horror and sadness of the instances that have been happening. Just leave me without words as well. In Long Beach, we know that our diversity diversity is our strength. And even though we know that, there's still a lot of work still to be done. I really appreciate you bringing a resolution forward like this, especially after learning of this mass murder event that just happened right now in Atlanta . I mean, it's just outrageous and and very, very heartbreaking. And my condolences go out to all the families that lost loved ones on, you know, because of nonsense like this. So thank you. Thank you for inviting me to sign on to this item. And thank you for continuing to make our city proud by bringing forward resolutions like this. That. That. You know, there are focused on on the positive, on compassion and love and not hate. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. I thank you, Mayor. Also, I also want to thank the councilwoman sorrow for bringing this item forward. And and also thanks to the public for for all of those comments, I just so bothered to hear about Atlanta. These attacks are just horrific. And our hearts are heavy caring about this news. And we all are committed to stopping the cycle of racism and violence and and leadership starts at the top. So thank you, Councilwoman Ciro, for your leadership on this. And and I also want to thank my council colleagues. Our support sends a clear, strong message that Long Beach stands with the Asian and Pacific Islander community and that the xenophobic and racist, racist behavior of any kind will not be tolerated. And this type of violence just has to stop. So, I mean, if anyone listening to this, if you are, you know, someone or you have been a victim of any type of hate crime, please know that we have the resources and the city and the mechanism mechanisms to to deal with with this crime. And our prayers go out tonight to the families and to the communities in Atlanta. And I agree with you, Council member Turanga. I can't wait. Til there's a day when these type of resolution resolutions are a thing of the past. Thank you. Councilwoman. Councilmember. Super. Thank you, Mayor. I'd also like to thank Councilwoman Ciro for bringing the item forward. What a sad irony that we have this incident tonight in Atlanta on the night we have this agenda item. But as the councilwoman mentioned, police chief Robert Luna contacted her and he also contacted me. I represent the eastern end of Cambodia town. And that to me is such a positive note that Cindy Allen just mentioned, like a zero tolerance for this. And boy, your police chief is right on that. I just wanted to add that that he mentioned there are no credible threats locally tonight, but LAPD is on alert. So for anyone out there fearful know that your police department is on this? And yeah, it's just unbelievable that we need these types of agenda items. Let's all hope for the day that we don't. But I, too, would like to encourage anyone who has experienced any incidents to please, please contact the police department. If you'd like to remain anonymous, you have that avenue. But don't. Don't let it go unsaid. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to thank Councilman Ciro for bringing this item forward and allowing us to have a conversation about it. Unfortunately, I think many minority communities have experienced a lot of hate incidents and hate crimes over the past 4 to 5 years. We saw a tremendous increase right about four years ago, and we started to see more of it. When the country became even more divided after the Corona virus, discussions began to really tear up our communities in terms of politics versus science. And it's very unfortunate that we have landed ourselves in this place where we're having these conversations. I do want to say that I have the privilege and the honor to have a daily profession where we talk about these topics on a daily basis. All of the attorneys that I supervise get police reports submitted from one of 33 police agencies in the county of Orange. And we often have to make difficult decisions whether we're going to charge a hate crime enhancement to a crime. And I can tell you, as much as we talk about the criminal justice system, giving people second chances and offering opportunities for diversion. My personal philosophy is this as the supervisor of the courthouse that I manage is that when it comes to hate crimes, we prosecute them to the fullest extent that the law allows us to, because the individuals who are committing crimes that are fueled by hate, who are making allegations about people who are putting forth out there very irresponsible comments about their fellow community members deserve to be punished. It's not okay to have people living in fear, and it's not okay to categorize people and make assumptions about them based on their race or their color or their gender. And I know that in my day job I have the honor and the privilege to represent the people of the state of California and treating those cases seriously. And I'm here as a partner to you and any other member of this council as part of a community like I am, that is often judged based on the way they look and assumptions made based on the way they look. To know that I stand with you in solidarity and anything I can do to help you advance your goals in this endeavor, you can count on me for that 100%. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I don't know that I can say anything that hasn't already been said by my colleagues. But I will say that I stand with our our Asian-American API community during this time when we see significant spikes in violence against our brothers and sisters. And this is this is important. And I say that with reverence. You know, we I was always taught to judge people by the content of their character, not what they look like. And and that that is something that I think everyone should. Everyone should carry themselves that way and to do unto others as you want, you expect them to do unto you. I. I think the tone has. Has changed. And I'm. I'm encouraged. Although we had a spike or an incident in Atlanta today, and I'm really, really disheartened to hear about that. I learned that and the tone at the national level has shifted, which I am I am hopeful that that that will. I will somehow suppress and get us to a better place where we can start thinking about, you know, repairing our our communities, becoming healthier. Working collaboratively toward, you know, improving our economy. And that's going to take all of us as as Long Beach residents and citizens of this country to do it. And so everybody brings something to the table. Respect everyone else's culture. I certainly do. Particularly, you know, of course, are my community here in Long Beach who, you know, they have my heart always. They are my brothers and sisters. I see you that way and I will continue to see you that way. So thank you for bringing forth this item. And again, I'm happy to stand with you in support of this item and, you know, be a voice against violence in our community in any way. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And figure everyone for their words. I happen to have a couple comments as well. One, I'd just first start by, I think we can all unequivocally say that hate against the AAPI community is not acceptable, not just in our own city, but it's not acceptable anywhere in our country or in the world . And it's incredibly both saddening and angering to see the hate crimes that have happened among our Asian community, among our AAPI community. Long Beach has a history of having a very diverse and large Asian-American community. Pacific Islander community. You think about not just the, ah, Cambodian community, but think about our Filipino community, for example, which is very large in the city and has a history of that dates back to our military history and so much of how this area of the country developed. And so I of course, stand with Councilman Sorrow and the whole community. And I want to just just kind of to close I share something personal that I don't know that I've I've shared with many of you before. Few people know. First, I think most of you know, my sister is half Thai, so her whole family is is Thai. And that's a big part of of my family and who we are. My father, his partner, she has full Japanese. And that's a big part of our family. And so from my on my dad's side, you know, I have spent a lot of a lot of our time having a lot of amazing Asian food and being part of a that's a big part of my family and that's a huge part of who of who we are. But also something that you may not know is my family name actually originally is is not Garcia, but it's actually Chan, my great great grandfather. I will tell this story. They never give a chance to share it. My great great grandfather, actually a Chinese laborer, he was from China and came to Peru with many Chinese laborers at the time to build railroads and infrastructure and were indentured servants in Peru at the time. And so my great great grandfather, whose last name was Chen, was given the name Garcia. Like what like was given all those in his work group. That was the name essentially of his owner, of the person of the person that was actually forcing him to work. And eventually, in many ways, these these these folks were indentured servants. In some cases they were slaves. In other cases, they were forced forced laborers in much of South America, but certainly in Peru. And so the name Garcia is passed down from from him. And my my on my dad's side of the family, there is a rich appreciation of that Chinese heritage that comes from our original name and and just got married into this beautiful other Asian culture is from from from my sister and from my father's partner. And so I see that just from a place of a lot of of love for the greater Asian-American AAPI community. It's a part of my family. It's it's it's who it's who I am. And I just want to share that it our when Sara, of course, we all stand together on this issue and anything that we can do to show our solidarity and support in the days and weeks ahead, I think we will we will do so. And so with that, I will ask for a roll call vote. Councilwoman Sun has. Councilwoman said they had. Councilwoman Ellen. I. Councilman Price. I. Councilman Sabrina. I. Councilwoman Mango. I. Councilwoman Sara I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. I did. And that was an I from modern days. Thank you.

Recommendation to request that City Council communicate its expectations as a basis for confirmation of the next Assistant City Manager; that City Manager give City Council ample time to review candidates being considered prior to the confirmation vote; and City Manager share top candidates in order of preference with City Council in Closed Session.

LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0714

Item 19. Communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman. Mongo. Recommendation to request that City Council communicated its expectations as a basis for confirming of the next assistant city manager. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I wanted to thank my co-sponsors, our co-sponsors on this item and really just to make a statement of the importance of getting the right candidate for assistant city manager. Our city manager and his team have done a tremendous job these last several years. We do, as a council, recognize the key role of assistant city manager and through this item, we wanted to reaffirm our desire to work closely with the city manager as a council, as a council, the whole body and the role of the city council to confirm the city manager's appointment and certainly the stakeholders of Long Beach. While there are only a couple of positions that the City Council has any direct input over, it is very important for us to keep in mind our stakeholders for the city who deserve a dynamic and professional and ethical and approachable assistant city manager who will help us reach our full potential as a city. I wanted to mention that while we cannot require that the assistant city manager live in the city of Long Beach, we all understand the value of it. It's been articulated in the motion, and so we're hoping to raise that priority to a top level for us in this process.

A RESOLUTION stating the Seattle City Council’s opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline, and requesting the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to investigate ways to establish contracting criteria to prioritize the City’s goals to avoid contracting with financial institutions that provide it with project-level loans or other financial services.

SeattleCityCouncil_04032017_Res 31740

Please read the first agenda item into the record. The report of the full council agenda item one Resolution 317 40 stating the city Seattle City Council's opposition to Keystone XL Pipeline and requesting the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to investigate waste to service contracting criteria to prioritize the city's goals. To avoid contracting with financial institutions are provided with project level loans or other financial services. Okay, let me sort of quarterback as through the first I'll relinquish the Florida Councilmember Swamp that I believe you have an amendment you would like to start off with was a substitution of Virgin. So you could walk us through that. So Council Councilmember, you have the floor. Thank you, President. Harold. I should I. Sorry. In terms of procedure, should I first move? Yeah. Why don't we do that? And then. We'll. Okay. And then. Yeah, and then I'll, I'd like to make a few introductory comments before I move resolution 31740. Okay. Second has been second to Councilman Johnson. I will talk to a substitute in a second. So I'm sorry. Where you moving this? Where you. Where you amending it? I have an amendment as well. So you actually moved the bill, so it's in place and now we can start amending it so you can do the introduction. That was. Exactly. Amendment second. Very good. Thank you. On Friday, March 24, the same day that he failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act because of a revolt nationwide, Trump announced that his administration was issuing the federal permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands crude oil from Canada across the U.S. for refinement. Tar sands are by far the most environmentally destructive source of crude oil. If it is extracted and used, it will massively accelerate the climate change that is already leading to catastrophe for so many people around the world, including rising sea levels, floods, storms, wildfires and droughts. In February, Seattle passed a strong ordinance to divest from Wells Fargo and establish socially responsible financial policies. Today, I believe we should think in accordance with that ordinance and recognize there is absolutely nothing socially responsible about the Keystone XL pipeline. Tens of thousands of activists have joined the movement against the Keystone XL and have organized demonstrations and peaceful, direct actions. In November of 2011, the Obama administration temporarily backed down from Kiev XL, but that was only after repeated protest actions and is amendment actually came just days after its announcement and I think it was a capitulation on his part came just days after more than 10,000 people encircled the White House protesting the project. And, as Carlinville incorrectly stated in public comment. That protest that encircled the White House helped kick start the climate justice movement. But at the same time that day, Naomi Klein, who was part of that protest, also correctly credited the Occupy Wall Street movement with helping jumpstart the Keystone XL movement. And this shows us that the strategy of building movements works. This was the second major action against the project organized by Bill McKibben through Oregon Tar Sands Action. And I'm happy to say Bill McKibben just tweeted in support of our resolution here. And today those very same activists have been joined by thousands more young people and are asking Seattle City Council to join their movement to block the Keystone XL pipeline and make it clear to the financial institutions TransCanada will try to get loans from that. The key Xcel Project is toxic. It is toxic to the environment. It is toxic to indigenous communities. It is toxic to all human beings. And we are building a movement that will make it toxic to any financial institution that makes the mistake of investing in it. Resolutions are not legally binding like ordinances are. But financial institutions know that a resolution like this, which if the resolution clearly stated Seattle's intent is not an empty threat because we did it, we passed an ordinance with divesting Wells Fargo, and that action inspired activists around the country to push for their cities and towns to do the same. And the purpose of this resolution is the same. We don't believe that with by the resolution itself, we will have conquered the oil industry. But we are doing it with the purpose of building a movement around the nation. As a matter of fact, as we vote on this resolution today. Right now, a committee of the Los Angeles City Council is discussing divesting the city of Los Angeles from Wells Fargo. These are real results that come from building movements. And I have some comments later about amendments that were referred to in the public comment, the amendment from Councilmember Herbold. But right now, I just want to make sure that everybody understands there are some technical and clarifying amendments from Councilmember Suarez that I don't think are going to be controversial and that have been incorporated into our version two of my resolution. So I move to amend Resolution 31740, substituting version two for version 1/2. Okay. Is the amendment advanced by councilman want subsequent version two for version one has been made in second. Any further comments about that amendment? That particular amendment? All those in favor of that amendment. Vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. So we have a new substitute version. I am aware of a possible other amendment and now would be the appropriate time to talk about that. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I moved to amend a resolution 31740 by amending Section two and adding the mayor's concurrence in the be it resolve clause and the signature block. The amendment clarifies that the resolution is connected to existing city policies, courts language regarding social investment policies that the Council adopted in February as part of the legislation that ended the city's relationship with Wells Fargo and adopted fair business practices for all contracts. The resolution itself, as as it is currently written, requests FASB to, quote, investigate ways to establish contracting criteria. But the count the council cannot obligate a department to do that by request. With this amendment, we have the mayor's concurring language, which means it will have executive branch support and greater likelihood that the work that the council is asking be done actually be done. So if ultimately we are interested in making sure that our banking practices reflect our values, we actually need the executive to do this work specifically that the that FASB investigate ways to establishing concrete contracting criteria that prioritize the city's goals of avoiding contracting for banking services to the city of Seattle with financial institutions that provide financial services to trans Trans-Canada. In addition, it was mentioned before that my office had done research on the eligibility of banking institutions to bid for Seattle's services in the future. There are 63 banks that the Public Deposit Protection Commission has authorized to provide banking services to governments within Washington State. The research that my office did said of those 63 banks and total only ten, according to I'm sorry, 11 according to the criteria and are S.W. 5958 would be eligible to bid on the city's services . You take that number 11 down to ten with the action that the council took recently with Wells Fargo. And those are those are banks that might be eligible to bid for Seattle's services. We don't know for certain that they are, because we have still other banking criteria that we are currently asking the the the executive to make sure that of the ten remaining banks. What number of those banks would fulfill the city's banking criteria? One in particular that is I feel very important is that we can only accept. Bids. From financial institutions that have received received a rating of outstanding in their most recent Community Reinvestment Act. In the review done by the by the Fed and the Committee Reinvestment Act is the the the obligation that financial institutions have to reinvest in low income neighborhoods and avoid practices like redlining. So this is another standard that these ten banks that we've already identified have not yet been measured against. And so, again, we need to know we have an obligation to to our employees to be able to to pay them. And we need a bank in order to pay them. And so we need to really work collaboratively with the executive in identifying which banking institutions can can really reflect our values. And I think the amendment allows us to do so. Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER I'll just to be. Earlier you describe the amendment and you made the motion as their second on Councilmember Herbold motion. Okay, I got a second on the record. Further discussion. Council member Sawant. Thank you, President Herald. This amendment changes the language that says, quote, The Seattle City Council does not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone XL pipeline, unquote. With what I believe is watered down language that says that we are code. That said, the city code, the Seattle City Council is concerned about doing business with financial institutions so its changing does not support to concerned about. I want to be clear, as an elected representative for my own opinion, I do not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone XL pipeline. And if council members do not support, then that's the resolution that we should vote on and we should not be afraid to say so. Councilmembers who are supporting this amendment are worried that if the Council unambiguously states its intent to not want to do business with financial institutions invested in the Keystone XL pipeline, that the banks will be afraid to apply to be the bank of the city. But I would like to quote Ali Khan, an author of Seattle, who eloquently said, Scaring the banks is exactly the point. Yeah. And I think that. At this moment, elected representatives throughout the nation have a political and moral obligation to clearly oppose investment in such destructive projects. At the very least, we have to do basic things to move to a different situation. We have to if if there are no banks existing that will qualify, then we have to fight to set up a public bank. We have to. We have to fight to lift the state ban on banking with credit unions. And as a matter of fact, there was a legislation that passed with a big majority in the state House, but then got defeated in the Republican controlled Senate, which just happened recently. And that also shows that we have to continue building a movement. We can't rely on the on either of the two big business parties because they are both bought out by the oil lobby. And and the purpose of this resolution is to continue building this that movement. But I believe that we have to go even farther than that, even farther than doing basic measures. We're not moving this resolution, myself and our movement. We are not moving this resolution with the illusion that just this resolution is capable of making Seattle an island of purity in the context of global capitalism. We know that's not going to happen. But as our planet is on the verge of climate catastrophe, history is calling on us to show courage to imagine a different kind of world. We have to change the world. But changing the world requires building mass movements globally. And this resolution, in my view, is in service of building those movements. And. In that in that in mind, I think the intent of the resolution should be stated clearly, not with less unambiguous language. So I intend to vote no on this amendment. I also want everyone here to know that the mayor has informed us that he will only support this resolution, concur with this resolution if we watered down the language in that way. I. I do not believe. I do not believe that it is worded for our movement to water it down. His concurrence as word, watering it down. And our movement should be questioning why is the mayor of Seattle only willing to support the resolution on those terms? And why isn't he supporting the resolution at all costs? And I also want to be clear, though, regardless of whether this amendment passes and I think it's going to pass, we should be clear that the main substance of this resolution is what our movement demanded against Keystone XL. It does state, in writing, the city's opposition against Keystone. Opposition to Keystone XL. And that we in the movement will not accept a bank invested in Keystone XL, and that our movement needs to hold the city accountable to act in the spirit of this resolution when the new fees go out. Any further comments on the amendment on the floor comes from Johnson. You know, I just want to speak to a couple of brief things. I think, you know, as council members, one knows I come out of the environmental movement. I spent a dozen years fighting for public transit in Washington state. Transportation is the number one source of our greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. And so everything we can do to get people out of their cars into public transit is a win for our environment. I started off my volunteer and career as a 12 year old volunteering for Earth Day 20 back in 1990. I fundamentally believe that one of the most pressing issues for us as a city, as a state and as a nation is the threat, real threat of climate change. But I have to balance that and my role and responsibility as a legislator to the 10,000 employees that work here at the city of Seattle and ensure that as we move forward with the important policy statement that we're making today, which is that we don't want to do business with banks that are funding this pipeline, that we actually also have real options for writing those 10,000 employees paychecks every two weeks. And because we don't yet have a municipal banking option and because we don't yet have the state that has given us the authority to work with local credit unions. I feel it is important for us to balance that fiduciary responsibility to our 10,000 employees alongside our commitments to environmental stewardship. So I'll be voting yes for Councilmember Herbold amendment. I don't think that it waters down the resolution. I think we still get the strong point across, and I still think we do our job being fiduciary responsible to those 10,000 employees. I will consider worse. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank council members who want and. We've been working on this on this resolution and the hard work that she put in. And I also want to thank Councilmember Herbold. And just on a more personal note, being enrolled member of the Blackfeet nation, I think I'm the only person in this room that has practiced law and represented tribes. For over 30 years. In which I sat and was on the banks of the Discord and the Pearl River. I was there when we took over Cascadia for the. Tribe, and I was there and we took over for Lawton, and I did all that before I went to college. I also represented the lower elder oil tribe in the removal of the dams. I was also chaired and was lead counsel I'm sorry. Second counsel on. U.S. Washington to protect tribes treaty rights and what was now eventually called the bold decision bolt, too. So I know a little bit about this. I'm supporting Councilmember Herbert's amendment because and I don't believe it waters. It down is because I think that we are moving. In the right direction and by having this amendment and making sure we do it right. And you all were here when we pushed really hard on the Wells Fargo piece. We haven't let up on that. Our intent is the same. We're moving forward. My goal always is. Is that we do it right. That we withstand legal scrutiny. That we continue to. Look at the laws that we already have. In socially responsible banking. And I say this. This is me speaking personally as a native woman, as a Latina, as a mother, a member of a tribe and representing tribes. I think I'm also the only one in this room who has had cases that went up to the United States Supreme Court and that were upheld. So I do know what I'm talking about. This does not water it down. It says we are on the right track and. We're moving forward. We just can't have that is a person of color. Native people didn't get the right to vote till 1924. We know how to wade into it. Right. And that's what I want to do. I don't want to feel that because some people here may there's some disagreement that we're anti. Anti the environment or we're pro oil or we're all capitalist, industrial, awful people. We're just trying to do it right. So it withstands the scrutiny. The integrity and reflects the values. Of the citizens and the employees of Seattle. And that's what we will continue to do. That is why. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales as well. That is why we have. Called this a welcoming city. That is why we call this a constitutional city, because we want these things to up to be able to withstand the law and anyone else that comes at us. And so for that reason, I'm going to support Councilmember Herbert's amendment right. I would make a few comments on the amendment. And as I informed Councilmember Herbold. I wasn't and I'm not supporting her amendment for a few reasons. I do appreciate you bringing the amendment forward and in certainly discussing issues with the mayor to make sure he concurs, to give a lot more meat as we hopefully try to get some national attention on this issue. When I look at the language that of this paragraph that it says, the Seattle City Council does not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone. And as Councilmember Swan said, at least for me, that's a true statement that when you look at what we say earlier than that, we , the City Council, opposes the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that we are urging federal and state regulatory agencies to reject or revoke permit requests for Trans Canada for the construction of the project. We're coming out sort of hard hitting and I like that and I believe that. And I think if the word city council was not in there and it said the city does not support, it may have different ramifications, but this this one is us. And as I go forward and look at the proposed language, it talked it I think it smartly tries to allow us to align our policies with our charter and our ongoing business practices, our financial policies. But that language to me is a little almost scary when we say that we will. Let me just read it. The city shall seek opportunities to conduct business with institutions that, by their charter and ongoing business practices, seek to benefit the common good. And reason I say that's a little scary is that banks could almost just buy anything by saying that their charter and their business practices are for the common good. In this particular project, on the Keystone project, I think they could say the common good is to compete in a global market with oil and lower practices. And so there's always sort of this common good that I think based on that ambiguity, could pretty much justify the behaviors of lending institutions. I think all of us in this room remember that in 2008 there was a huge bailout in this financial, industrial, financial lending, as huge as about $700 billion. And even Wells Fargo, as an example, received about $25 billion of that bailout. They've actually pay that money back. But since then, there's been trillions of dollars in similar kinds of bailout programs. Wells Fargo has received close to $160 billion of that. And so these lending institutions, very powerful, often rely on government help. And now I think that as we move forward in politics, in the national and local scene, this is the opportunity to do business with those who are trying to advance our social values. And so I think it should be. It. It should be as as hard hitting as possible. I might have said something different 15 years ago or so when I was 20. I was in 2015. But I just believe in terms of activism that if we're going to be totally honest and transparent, that there is a serious grassroots activism happening in this country and they are saying some very profound things. And we look at particular the banking lending institution with the bailouts, with Wells Fargo's example, paying 1.2 billion for some fraudulent practices, that we have an opportunity to see something very strong. So for that, it's just an amendment. For those reasons, I don't support the amendment. So Councilmember Herbold certainly would give you the opportunity to make some closing comments on your amendment. If you choose not to, I'll go ahead and call the vote on the amendment, which, like any words, were good or very good. Okay. It's been moved in second to pass Councilmember Herbert's amendment. All those in favor, please say I and raise your hand. I oppose. Say no and raise your hand. No. Okay. So the amendment passes. The amendment does pass. So 6 to 2. And now we have a an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Swan, I believe you're the primary sponsor of the resolution. Would you like to say some more words? Sure. Thank you, President Harrell. Thank you for taking the great stand on the language of the resolution. And also, I think we should all be clear that regardless of that amendment passing, it is still a very strong move for a major city in the United States to take a stand against the Keystone XL pipeline, and that ultimately, even if the stronger language had passed, it does come down to how strongly we build our movement, because we cannot rely on elected officials to break their ties from the oil lobby. And I don't mean necessarily just this body. You know, nationwide, the oil lobby has its tentacles really deep. And so the only way we will actually succeed is to keep building this movement and build it into a fighting militant, nonviolent movement. And I think that we this resolution will be a big step towards that. But we have to keep fighting. Well, thank you. Any further comments on the resolution? Council Member O'Brien Thank you. Council Member Swan, I want to thank you for your work on this. Members of the public specifically 350 Board. Thank you so much for your ongoing passion around ensuring that Seattle continues to be a leader on these fights. The science is clear. We know that most of the known fossil fuels that we've identified need to stay in the ground if we're going to prevent catastrophic climate change. We also heard today from folks who acknowledge that they drove here because that was the choice that we have today. I know that we don't have an affordable city, so a lot of folks have to live far away from city hall. I know we don't have the public transit system that we want to have. We need to reimagine and reinvent our economy so that we do not have to rely on those fossil fuels to be able to thrive so that we don't have to make a choice between do we have a bank? But doing business with a bank that is completely against our values are not being bankable, and we can do that. This resolution today builds on a number of pieces of work that we've done here in Seattle that have helped change the dynamic worldwide. And I know that banks are listening and are aware that the public is scrutinizing their work at a higher level than ever. But it's not going to be reliant just on the major banks of Wall Street to change their ways, because that is not going to get us what we want. We need to find local banks, publicly owned banks, credit unions, nonprofit banks that we can work with and not just banks. We need a whole industry. I want to be here in the near future where folks say, I was able to walk to City Hall to protest because there was affordable housing near City Hall. I was able to ride reliable, affordable public transit from where I choose to live, or I drove here in my 100% electric car, which uses 100% carbon neutral electricity here in the city of Seattle. The work to be done is this resolution today, which, of course I will be supporting, but it's also in the coming months. I've spoken with the folks at the city who are in charge of facilitating our banking decisions. And there's since the Wells Fargo action, I've had a number of meetings with them, including a conversation today. And I can guarantee you that they are under no illusion that we need to find new banking partners. That's not going to be easy to do. As you heard Councilmember Herbold talk through some of the state regulations. But I also believe we absolutely can do it. And we're going to need your partnership in the coming months to do whatever it takes to find business partners, whether it be banks or otherwise, that we can invest all our money in as we move forward that are consistent with our values. Thank you to your leadership, to making us make these decisions. Let's get the rest of the country to follow our steps. Any other. Councilmember O'Brien stood up on that one. So we knew that was going to be powerful. Thank you, Kasper. On behalf of my colleagues, like to say any more words before we vote. Okay. Okay. This is very exciting for us. So all those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolutions dropped and chair will gladly sign it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Jackson City Council leader Fran. We appreciate mayor today. Yeah, we are now going to the mayor's office. Ask. He supports fossil fuel divestment. The city's pension fund has raised. Please call the next agenda item. Agenda item two. Because I'm native. That's right. It's my water. You could buy it back for me. Your water that we are drinking? Yeah. That's about one one 8 to 930 to senior general manager of Seattle Public Utilities. You name the price of. The Contract with Waste Management of Washington Corporation for Waste Disposal and Transportation Services and many Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends that the full council pass the bill as amended with the Divine Report. Councilmembers Swanson O'Brien favor and Councilmember Harrell opposed. We're I'd ask that you take the conversations outside, please. Thank you very much. Well, Councilmember Herbold will give it a minute or two. Just more like sat down and did. Thank you very much. We're going to keep going here. No knock on doors.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to sign the petition, and subsequent ballot, relating to City-owned properties located within the boundaries of the proposed Midtown Business Improvement District. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_06022015_15-0484

Report from City Manager recommendation to sign the petition and subsequent ballot relating to city owned properties located within the boundaries of the proposed Midtown Business Improvement District. District six. Join a portion of Councilmember Andrews. Thank you. You know, this is an item that I think everyone should really kind of be kind of proud of, because I think this is a great step. It will lead to creation of, you know, a midtown business improvement district. You know, it would be a start to a great working relationship between the communities and the city. You know, this is a win not only for both my and the fourth District, but all of the Long Beach. I'm excited to see the process and it's moving forward. I'd like to move this motion. Okay. There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and a second by Councilmember. Mango. Can't remember mango. Would you like to make any remarks? I think you've done a great job, Dee, and we're all looking forward to this. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Vice Mayor Bee, congratulations. I'm hoping you wish you the best on this process. We were the last bid, the uptown bid to be established. I remember how how this process was. But I want to also say a great name. We've got a downtown bid. We've got an uptown bid now. We have a midtown bid. So. So I think that's really awesome. Congratulations. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. I'd like to join in on congratulating the central area and Councilmember Andrews on this endeavor. You know, obviously the business improvement district model has worked well, downtown has worked well, and Bixby knows we expecting a lot of success in our town and we expect nothing less from the midtown area. There's a lot of potential there with the businesses and property owners rallying together. I did have one question before we do this. I know that the Cambodia town is is in within that those those borders. Is it all of Cambodia town or would it be just part of it and the Midtown Improvement District? Well, I think it's just part of it, because we're going to it's going to be all of it and the end of it with the business corridor. Is that right? Mr. West on this one? Mike Conway Yes, you're correct. Mr. Anders So is there any difference between the designation of Cambodia Town and the Midtown Improvement District? No. I believe those boundaries are coincident. Are are similar are the same. Yeah. They just put. Okay. Thank you. Put together. Yeah. Did you say coincidental? Well, I'm always eager to learn a new word. Thank you. Councilmember Turanga. Thank you. I too want to join in congratulating Councilmember Andrews for his efforts in doing this. I'm working on one in our Wrigley area. Hopefully that we can get that done very soon to be able to join you and and the other parts of the city in creating these business districts. Congratulations and looking forward to work with you some more. Thank you, Councilmember. So any member of the public that wished to address Council on item 16. Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion passes nine zero. Okay. Can we do consent? Please. Consent calendar. Thank you. It's been a motion and a second by Councilmember Yanga and Councilmember Richardson and I believe item five is being pulled some members. This is four consent items, all but five.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 60-Year Lease Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for a City Aquatic Center at the Existing Swim Center Site at Alameda High School. (Recreation and Parks 208)

AlamedaCC_01212020_2020-7559

We had our first community meeting last week, about 50 plus people in attendance, which was great. We have two more community meetings coming up on January 29th and February 12th at 6:00 at the club by excuse me and at those will at the next one on January 28th will actually be looking at potential conceptual designs and then narrowing down on a on a final conceptual plan at the last one, other basic terms of the lease. The district receives up to 735 hours of use annually for their regular season practices and games for their aquatics programs like swimming, water polo, diving, and any other future aquatics programs. It's that is at no cost and at a prioritized use. So that gets the highest priority use for those 735 hours. It's in addition, there is also they get priority and no cost for post-season play. So if one of their teams makes it into the finals and that that is also considered prioritized at no cost and then one is a USD school district hosted tournament per team per season also gets use of the facility. Any additional uses outside of that need to be. All of it needs to be scheduled would need to be scheduled to the city. But any uses outside of that would be an it would be charged per our regular fee schedule and allocated. Our regular LAPD allocation policy. The uses I just described are limited to the competition pool. So far, the design is envisioned to have one competition pool with at least ten lanes and one recreation pool with several lanes, plus what we call fun water recreational components. So the school districts priority use is limited to the pool, competition pool. If there are available lanes, then if their practices only need for five or six of the ten one night, then we can also program those additional lanes for lap swim or other community use like the Gators and other youth organizations. It's also important to note the city would retain all revenue from programs including concession sales, which will help for our cost recovery. And then the last point is, is DSA Division of State Architecture. All school construction is under DSA purview rather than going through, for example, the city's permit center and state code. So this aquatic center would not be built under DSA. There is an exemption under DSA that a recreational facility, a city facility built on a school district property for the public purposes is exempt from from DSA. The lease agreement also includes language that if either entity were to request and require changes to the facility that trigger DSA , that entity would be responsible to pay for those costs. If DSA changes are rules in the future, then it would be renegotiated that time when more is known about the factors at play. I do want to note that currently the the City Aquatic Center construction operations is not funded. The city will be considering funding options. This could include an infrastructure bond. It could include a large capital donation campaign and other potential options. So that concludes my report and I'm open to any questions. Thank you very much. Welcome, counsel. Questions. Looking like none. All right. Are there any speakers on this? No, we have no speakers. Um, so we will move into, uh, council communications. No, no. Sorry. I mean, comment, though. Comments. They both start with CRT. Come on. I didn't mean the agenda. I mean council. Council comments? Yes. So are there any kind of looks like Councilmember de SAC would like to start us off? Well, thank you. Let me just briefly say quickly say as a member of the Alameda Unified School District Dash, Alameda City Council Joint Committee. I'm proud to have seen this come through and then to pass it on to our subcommittee of Mayor Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White and who have brought us to this point now of moving this forward. I think this is something that would be very, very exciting for the city of Alameda. I think from the outset, we all thought of it as, you know, modernizing the swimming pool, making sure that it meets the needs of the swimming community. But I think it's more than that. I think this is really going to be not to overuse the word, another jewel in the assets that that the city of Alameda retains in conjunction with its partners. So I certainly look forward to supporting this and staff's recommendation. Thank you, Councilman Brody. Sure. I want to thank everyone who worked to put this together. I think this is a good deal for the city. The one thing I would just suggest as we move forward and, you know, if there are any issues that still need to be resolved, is that we all remember that even though we're two different legal entities were two different governments, we all work for the same people. So let's try to remember that going forward as as we try to implement this and figure out a way to pay for it and and operate it. Thank you. There were any comments? No Councilmember or Mayor Ashcraft, any comments? I was just going to say thank you to Director Aldridge and also the City Center for the training thought that was involved and utilizing all of this. But it did take a fair amount of communicating that. That's how you come to a decision and hearing from all sides and hearing their concerns. And I think that there's a lot to be excited about going forward, but we need to get started because we need to get that pool up and ready for the season or two that can be in and separate from the new aquatic center. But I'm very pleased that subcommittee was able to come up with the compromises that it did. And so hopefully this council 3000, we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. I will just quickly chime in with my thanks for both city staff and school district staff, as well as the school board members, Harris and Williams, who worked very diligently. We had a couple of meetings here at the end. I would say that every meeting started with us all remaining, her not remaining, but acknowledging that we know we work for the same people and whatnot. And I think some of the language in here actually we decided to leave it a little flexible and vague based on the fact that that we expected that not only can we , but others in the future will be able to work together as as we have around these issues. And that sometimes having having some of that flexibility will be easier and better for us moving forward. So I really appreciate all the work. It was a lot of work. I know that behalf of Dr. Aldridge and and Shahrukh Khan especially, but the rest of the staff. So thank you very much. It doesn't sound like we have any any issues of this. Would somebody like to make a motion to approve. The staff's recommendation? Second, we have a motion to approve by Councilmember Desai and a second by Councilmember Vela. Any comments? See? None. Roll call vote. Please remember Jason. Enthusiastic. Yes, Odie. He has to get enthusiastic. Yes, Knox. Quite very excited. Yes. Here is the. Unanimous. Cynthia. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And on the list of people who have been here, I just want to thank Dr. Parker for his his voice and just say, I'm really happy to see you here tonight after our conversation. So thank you. Great. So there we go.

Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Yibin Shen as City Attorney Effective May 13, 2019. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6769

And that is. We need to approve the agreement. Appointing Eben Shinn as our new city attorney, effective May 13, 2019. And I believe, Madam Kirk, do you need to read some specifics? Take it away in accordance with the Government Code Section 5495333. A summary of the city attorney's salary and benefits is reported as follows The yearly salary for the city attorney will be 247,000. The city attorney will also receive a monthly transportation allowance of $500 and an annual contribution to deferred compensation of $6,000. The city attorney will also receive a relocation allowance of $16,000, consistent with other executive management employees of the city of Alameda. The city attorney is eligible for health benefits, which include vision, dental and comprehensive medical insurance. Other benefits include life dependent life and disability insurance, as well as workers compensation. Paid time off includes 13.5 holidays. That sort of says, yeah, 64 hours of administrative leave, which can be cashed out if not used in an annual accrual of 200 hours of vacation for the benefits include classic CalPERS member retiree benefits and attack deferred savings plan. These benefits are set forth in the contract attached to the staff report. All right. So we have what we need to do is approve the agreement, appointing even Shin as city attorney. So moved. All right. It's been moved in. Second roll call vote. Councilmember de San Knox. Wait. Hi. Yes, Vella, I. Mayor, as I said, yay. We approve the agreement unanimously. Thanks, everyone. Okay, number seven, City Manager Communications.

A resolution approving a proposed Revival and Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Correctional Management, Inc. to add additional funds for residential and non-residential community corrections services. Amends a contract with Correctional Management, Inc. by adding $60,368.01 for a new total of $6,029,912.01 for residential and non-residential community corrections services provided in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 (201951095). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-16-19. Council member Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 8-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0880

I have called out Constable 803 and 805 and under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? All right. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the first item on our screens. Councilman Hines, please put resolution 880 on the floor. I move that? God, I'm sorry. I'm with the Council Resolution 1980 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to make a quick introduction. I saw Mr. Mauro here a second ago. I think he went over to overflow. Hi. I've heard from the press that there may be comments directed to you personally. To be clear, I want to direct all my relevant questions to the communication. Community communications. Excuse me. Community Corrections Director. Not to you personally, as in Mr. Moreau. So I think you're a good person. I think that you're doing a good job. I'm going to do my best to separate the person from the role. And if I've stumbled on highlighting that separation, I apologize. Also, I recognize that I may have a few more questions than I might otherwise normally have. I learned about this bill on Thursday when a Brownstein attorney called me to ask me for a yes vote, and I didn't know about it before then. So if this weren't a direct file to the floor, I'd ask these questions of most of them in committee. So who? My colleagues understand. So I'd like to start with some basic questions. Mr. Moreau, if I could have the director come forward. So thank you. And also the. A little bit. Also on my apology tour, just because the industry has been accused of placing kids in cages or running concentration camps doesn't mean that these kind of contracts are authorizing either one. So I'll just ask, do any of these facilities affected by the contracts place kids in cages? Well. First, let me say good evening, President Clark, members of Council Councilman Hines, to your question. No, thank you. And do any of the facilities affected by these contracts run concentration camps? No, thank you. So also, just because one of these companies is currently in the defendant of a class action lawsuit alleging slavery doesn't mean that these contracts are authorizing slavery. So do any of these facilities affected by the contracts use their inmates as slaves? No, thank you. So I want to set the stage for the next few questions. Denver City Council can either vote yes or no on contracts given to us by the executive branch. We can't make any amendments, so we asked for alterations a few weeks ago and we voted on the contract that was put for us forward. Forward to us. We now know that that particular contract was unpalatable for council. So, you know, if it was an unpalatable, unpalatable a few weeks ago, chances are pretty darn good that it will be unpalatable in six or 12 months when these proposed contracts expire. So I'd like to ask some questions to get a better sense for where we are now to set us up for a successful transition later. So what is different about these contracts versus the contracts we voted on three weeks ago? So Councilman Hines, just a point of clarification in my to respond to questions about other resolutions tonight or the one that's on the floor right now, because this is just a revival and a mandatory agreement. Oh, are we discussing just this one or are we discussing all three? Right now, the only one that's on the floor is 880. But I mean, I think if they're all in the same vein, then I think we can. You could ask questions about all of them, make comments, you know, or if someone specifically has one on another one, they will put those on the floor. And you have that opportunity at that time, too. But I think it's okay for you to answer all of them if you just wanna maybe want to clarify as you're asking, is this for all of them or a specific one? So. Mr. President, I'd also like to move 881 and 882 so that we can consider them all at the same time. I have I have thought we were going to go one at a time through on voting. But again, I think if you want to ask your questions and make your comments and then we'll just vote on them individually, if that's okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you for the clarification. So, yes, what's different about the three contracts that we have in front of us? I guess there's one new contract and then two others. Is that correct? Correct. I think there's a total of four items before council that have to do with community corrections. I'll start with 880. This is to revive and amend an agreement with Correctional Management Inc. for the fiscal year seven I'm sorry, fiscal year 18 and 19 final payment during the course of July one, 2018 through June 30 of 2019. CMI are Core Civic Incorporated provided services to an additional two individuals plus some additional treatment dollars. So as we move money around with all of our contractors at the end of the year, they exceeded their original budget amount. We moved money from underspent contracts and we were reimbursed from the state for the full amount. So. Okay. Should we go on ahead? I don't have any issues with this one. Should we go ahead and vote on it and then talk about the other two separately? Yeah, I think we already have this one on the floor, so let's just vote on it and then we'll move on to 81 and I'll kick it back to you. Yes, we think I don't see anybody else in the queue on this one. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 880. HINES Eye. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an Eye. Gilmore Eye. Herndon Eye. Cashman. I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. US Results. 1339. As Resolution 880 has been adopted. I'm secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens, on our screen. And Councilman Hines, if you please. Resolution 81 on the floor.

A proclamation congratulating the Denver St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee on the occasion of the 58th annual parade on March 14, 2020.

DenverCityCouncil_03092020_20-0242

Thank you, Councilmember. All right. That concludes our announcements this evening. And there are no presentations and there are no communications, but we do have three proclamations. First up, council members advocate, will you please read Proclamation 242? Thank you, Mr. President. Congratulating the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee on the occasion of the 58th Annual Parade on March 14, 2020. Whereas Denver has one of the largest cultural parades in the United States and the largest St Patrick's Day parade west of the Mississippi. And. WHEREAS, this year's theme honors law enforcement, firefighters and first responders in. 58th Annual Parade, whereas the Denver St Patrick's Day parade exemplifies a peaceful celebration, along with a community of diverse citizens who gather together with a glance at the Celtic past and a look to the future while enjoying Irish cultural fanfare. Pipe and drum bands, Irish step at step dancing and honoring all divisions of our military to the delight of over 300,000 spectators. And. WHEREAS, congratulations and thanks to all volunteers of the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee, including many who have passed on but are still remembered for their endless hours and never ending commitment, which makes this celebration possible. And. Whereas, we hope the Colorado Sun and Mile High Air lifts the spirits of all who march or attend the 58th Annual Parade on Saturday, March 14, 2020. And we hope for a warm wind at our backs as we celebrate the Irish culture in the great state of Colorado. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City of City Council of Denver that the Council hereby congratulates the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee, a volunteer organization on a well-organized, peaceful and spirited gathering at the 58th Annual Event, and that the clerk and 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 that a copy be transmitted to the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee. President Teresa miller. Miller. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Your motion to adopt. I move that proclamation 20 dash 024 to be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember CdeBaca Thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to thank all of you for coming today, for keeping this alive. We're happy to have this event in our district, a long standing tradition that we've participated in and hope to participate in this year and can't wait to hear all about it afterwards and get on with the planning for next year because, you know, the cycle never ends. So if there's anybody who wants to speak. Oh, wait, we have a few steps before we get to that. A few other people in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman, for bringing this forward on this occasion. I know that this is going to come as a true shock to my colleagues on the council. But I have actually kissed the Blarney Stone three times, mostly mostly to recharge it. The as as a person who can trace my Flynn ancestry back to the old Abbey Cemetery in La Croix in County Galway, and has had the privilege to visit there with my with my dad and my brothers. A while back, I just want to say how much this means to me personally, but it also means a lot to the city of Denver and all of our all of our cultural celebrations. Indeed. And and no, none of my remarks would be complete without a historical note. So my historical note is that today, March 9th, is 88 years since Eamon de Valera, one of the heroes of the 1916 Easter rebellion, who escaped execution very narrowly by the British. On this day in 1932, he ascended to the presidency of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State and went on later in the fifties to become President of the republic. So with that, Mr. President, thank you very much. Thank you. Council member and thank you, council member CdeBaca, for bringing this forward. This is always such a great event for our city every year. Looking forward to it. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on our proclamation. CdeBaca I. Black eye clean i Gillmor. I. Herndon. High high. Cashmere high. Can each i. Ortega Sandoval High. Sawyer, I. Torres High. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting in US Results. 13. 839 as proclamation 242 has been adopted and now we do a five minute set aside for proclamation acceptance if there's someone you'd like to bring up. Thank you. Council president and council members. My name is Teresa miller, and now I'm the president of the St Patrick's Day Committee. And we would like to say thank you so much for this proclamation. With me today, I have much more important person and it is little Mr. Shamrock and Miss Shamrock, Charlotte and Wyatt, if you could wave. Thank you very much. A round of applause for you. Wyatt's only concern is that why the parade goes around only once. We're thrilled to be able to celebrate our city and celebrate our heritage heritage in this wonderful way. Our grand marshal this year is RSA, a Brady. You know her as a news anchor for Fox 31. She was instrumental in introducing us to Shield 616. Now, what this organization does is it provides body armor for Denver police, firemen and EMS. And we're thrilled to partner with them. And we held a fundraiser last Friday that Mayor Hancock attended. And we are just so thrilled to support our police, our firemen, our EMS on our own committee float. So you will see them leading the parade and we will be honoring special policemen, firemen and EMS paramedics for excellence in their careers. We also want to tell you about our queen, Colleen. She is Madison Dawn camp. You might know her from last year. She was Miss Colorado USA. So we have a great lineup of people and we are thrilled that we will have about 300,000 people downtown to celebrate Denver. Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. That brings us to our second proclamation, which is mine. So I'm going to read Proclamation 20 Dash zero two for three, recognizing the Women's Being project for its invaluable service to our community for 30 years.

A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and R&R Properties, LLC. for the City to purchase the property located at 710 W. Colfax Avenue. Approves a $4.2 million purchase and sale agreement with R&R Properties, LLC. to acquire property located at 710 West Colfax Avenue for approximately 11,250 square feet of office space for support staff of the District and County Courts in Council District 10 (FINAN 201841587). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-27-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0669

Excellent. We'll have it done. Thank you. Next up, we have resolution 80669. That's on our screens now. Councilman Ortega, you wanted this for a vote. So, Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put this resolution on the floor for adoption? Yes, Mr. President. Move that resolution six, six, nine, be adopted. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So this is creating the appropriation for the properties that Councilman Flynn just called out. And as you all know, I. I had been asking the administration to give us a comprehensive master plan on all of our real estate needs looking into the future. As you know, we have done two contracts at the Denver Post building. One of them is a ten year contract. We did one that came through I think it was this year for an additional contract. I. QUESTION What was the status of the building that we bought over on Jason Street for the Solution Center? To my knowledge, we don't have anything in that building right now. We've tried to put the solution center at the Family Crisis Center that that property needs to be resolved. The community has opposed that. Right now. It's my understanding that's on hold. That's the last communication that we received. So we're kind of all over the place in terms of where we're going with with real estate needs. I understand the courts have a need for more courtrooms, but I think we need to understand the big picture of where we're going and what our long term needs are so that we don't keep getting these big financial requests asking us to approve our needs piecemeal. I think it's helpful for us to know that big picture. I did receive some documents that I had requested from the administration and that that was somewhat helpful. But it's it's by agency and it's only some of the agencies. And so for those reasons, I will not be supporting the request for the appropriation. And when the bill comes next week, I'm not going to support the acquisition either. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Is there somebody here to answer questions about this? How great. How many square feet is the land? And then the second question will be, what is the difference in the sales price per square foot of the building that result? I mean, what's the what's intrinsically different about the the the space of these two buildings? That one is $236 a square foot and this one is $373 a square foot. Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate, the I don't have it by per square foot, so I apologize while I stand up here. The building itself at 710 was Colfax is 15,000 square feet. Just a little over the land itself is 11,250 square feet. We have appraisals on both properties so that both appraised either just over what our purchase prices or right at the purchase price. So it had to do with the value of the improvements as well as the land. Right? So there was no legal description. So if they could get copies of those for both properties. Of legal descriptions. Yeah. GREENE And actually, since you have the appraisals, could I get copies of the appraisals as well? They're draft appraisals right now. But let me see what I can do to at least get you a summary. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Yes. Mr. President. Lisa, could you talk a little bit about the planning for the expansion of of civic and municipal offices from here to the west beyond the U.S. Mint? Sure. So we have and the presentation which we had forwarded or tried to meet with the majority of you as Councilwoman Ortega referred to, it is not possible to do just one city plan. We need to look at our different agencies and our campuses and our buildings. And we are in the process or we have already completed studies for this particular area. We are looking at right now a court's master plan for 2019 to address the needs in this civic area that is separate from then the 303 West Colfax building that we are also reviewing and analyzing to see within a few both the facility assessment as well as a base programing assessment to understand those needs as well. While you have heard us here to talk about web building expansion and needs, what we have not seen until this year that became apparent in the last couple of months is the growth that the courts are experiencing and not just courts for courtrooms , but then it is also the supporting and ancillary services that are provided in our buildings around this general area that need to stay in this general area for the courts. And so that is what part of this request is. It's strategically looking at a couple of buildings that are currently on the market to try and keep these services in the downtown core. While we're completing these studies to understand what the long term planning is that we need to do with the courts. If I recall correctly, the we're proposing you are proposing these purchases now because these properties are on the market right now. Correct. And not because we wanted to go out and buy them right now. But if we don't purchase them now, they may be unavailable. That is correct. A significant different kind of use and potentially cost more money down the line. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. I just want to point out that, Councilwoman Ortega, you mentioned that this was the measure that appropriated the funding for the purchase that we've just postponed. But this is actually the purchase and sale agreement for the second property. So I didn't know if it was your intention also to call out and vote on this supplemental appropriation. So I just want to clarify, Mr. President. Let me just respond to that. It's my understanding that that bill has been asked to be postponed as well. Is that? Is that not correct? No. If that's not correct, then I do want to vote on 746. 746 I was the one that we you in under introduction that you had pulled and then didn't pull. Yes. Okay. Then we'll get to that one when we get there. Thank you for the heads up. Any other comments or questions on this one? All right. Seeing nun. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. Sussman black eye. Brooks Espinosa. Staying. Flynn. I Gilmore. I. Herndon, i. Cashman. Can each. New. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and announce the results. Ten eyes. One day, one abstention. Ten Eyes Council Resolution 669 has been adopted. You put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Brooks, you have a comment on 0830.

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, to work with all appropriate departments to report back to the City Council in 60 days on a security and safety program that can be implemented to improve safety conditions for street vendors operating in our city.

LongBeachCC_06152021_21-0552

District one, District two, high district three. I. District four. District five. Yes. District six. District seven. District eight. District nine. All right, Ocean Cares. Thank you. 24, please. Communication from Councilwoman Sara, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman and Vice Mayor Richardson. Recommendation to request city manager to report back in 60 days on a security and safety program that can be implemented to improve safety conditions for street vendors. Thank you. Can I get a motion, please? Can I get a second? Councilman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor. So I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson and council members in Dallas and Councilmember Allen for their support on this item. The street vendors represent some of the community's smallest local business owners and make up some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Vendors are typically low income, elderly and undocumented migrant workers. These are people who have been particularly economically vulnerable in the pandemic, often operating on slim margins. But they are also a vital and integral part of this community. The violence street vendor have experience recently is the result of a system that has not invested in them, their business and their families. Their vital role in our community and economy provides many of our low income residents with quick and easy food access. These entrepreneurs are not only supporting themselves, but their families with their daily earnings from their pushcarts and mobile stalls. Vendors are put at greater risk due to the fact that they are often alone and may be handling a large amount of cash. So we must protect these members of our community from robbery and physical attacks that have risen against them in recent years and the past year. We should support these vulnerable workers who are trying to make an honest living and support their families. So Security and Safety program is requested to provide protect these street vendors through crime prevention and economic development strategies that include but not limited to some of the following. And have an overview of street vending laws in California and Long Beach strategies to decrease robbery by eliminating cash exchange through assistance and support to use online and alternative non-cash transaction signage program that indicate the vendor does not possess cash and support for vendors from the Long Beach Recovery Act, protect their business with their security cameras and other potential tools they can use. Information on how they can report crime safely. As always, information on the Long Beach value acts and the protection in place for undocumented residents when they're interacting with the Long Beach Police Department. And so that that concludes my comment on this item. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. I want to start by recognizing Councilwoman Sara for bringing this item in, Councilwoman. I think it's an important item, and it has the potential to impact so many vendors in our city. I personally just love the street vendors, especially all the fruit carts I see around town. They are just an important part of our community and unfortunately lately there has been a string of attacks and violence against our street vendors and we need to take all the steps necessary to protect them. The initial direction that Councilwoman Sara provided is excellent. And particularly with respect to exploring paperless transactions because they do carry so much cash and how they can safely report these incidents. I look forward to seeing the full report back in 60 days. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much to Councilwoman Sara for this item. I'm very happy to see this item. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen and Vice Mayor Richardson for also supporting this item. Instances of robbery, assault and harassment towards our street vendors are not new. What has changed is, is more of these cases are being recorded and shared on social media. And and that, I speculate, has helped encourage more street vendors to make police reports when they are otherwise when otherwise they would not do so. And talking to our street vendors and listening to these stories of harassment and simply put disrespect hurts my heart because they are such hardworking individuals and have so much integrity and they're such a big part of our Long Beach community and they deserve respect. Two of my residents have been victims of of this, and that's Mr. Fernandez and most recently, Mr. Elliott. I'm hoping that this item will send a clear message to all of our street vendors that not only are they welcome in our own city and their own city, but they are valued by our own city as well. I also really love this item that it emphasizes on making information about Long Beach values more accessible so that people know. That they're there. That there are protections in place for undocumented residents when when interacting with our Long Beach Police Department. So that will hopefully also take away some of those fears that discourage people from reporting such cases to the police. Moving forward. I also wanted to share that our community based organization, Centro Cha, has responded to the assaults and robberies of these two Long Beach street vendors who had been assaulted in recent times with they've helped them with legal services, rapid recovery assistance. That includes the following assistance. Victim assist victims to obtain. I'll be the police reports. They assist vendors and their families to navigate and complete the victims of crime application for medical and trauma. On top of this central charm maintains their commitment to serve our undocumented community and street vendor community through the following resources of emergency rental assistance, brochure, gift cards, small Business Development Assistance, Free Immigration Legal Services, and ongoing case management services. I'm so, so very thankful again for this item. I think that we owe it to these these very vulnerable street vendors to let them know that they are protected. So, again, thank you, council woman. So for bringing this item forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues, Councilwoman Sorrell, for taking the lead on this. This item. I think what's most important about this item that acknowledges the humanity and dignity of all of these people who are valued members of our community. And the reality is, when violence happens and violence takes place against street vendors, it tears in tears at the very fabric of our communities. And it doesn't stop there. It plays on the social media. We hear about it at church. We hear it about it. We hear about it. Our neighborhood associations. It creates tension within our communities. And we need to acknowledge this at the highest levels of our city. And we need to deploy resources and strategies to make sure that that, number one, we value the members, every member of our community. And two, that we can't allow these things to just continue to happen without a response from our city. And so thank you so much for your leadership on this. And it's incredibly important that I'm proud to sign on. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Yeah. I was just wondering where we can go to public comments and and I would like to provide a comment afterwards. Yes. Let's go to public comment. I'm quick. Thank you. Our first speaker is an Burdette. And Burdette. Hi, Mr. Mayor. And Councilmembers. This is an Burdette resident of District seven, also a member of Long Beach Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. I want to thank the council members for excuse me who have co-sponsored item 24. Only a couple of you on this panel are from my generation, but when we were kids, we strained our ears listening for that ice cream man or Helms Bakery truck. And these were the street vendors of our day, and they sold their donuts and their cream circles directly to us. So they were such an important part of the life of the community. They made our lives better. They made them easier, often tastier. But now on my street, I look forward to the bell of the police, the man on his bicycle or the fruit vendor with his cart. They remind me that a community thrives with all kinds of economic activity, and we don't always have to get into a car and pollute the air and clog the streets to get quality produce or ice cream. So now we see our community members, local street vendors, under attack from racist hate crimes. Recently, two longtime residents were assaulted and received very little support from law enforcement. They are being attacked by people who are encouraged to fear and disrespect others. So as a city, we need to respond to these crimes with clear civic support. For these street vendors that make our city international. I'm a Long Beach native. I strongly support any protections that Item 24 can give our street vending entrepreneurs. Please vote yes on item 24 tonight and help Long Beach live up to the purpose of the California State Safe Sidewalk Vending Act and our own local statutes and really promote the health and safety of our community. I think we're only going to recover as a city economically and morally if we just protect each other. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessica Quintana. Good evening. Eric Garcia, members of the city council. I also want to thank council member Sally Sara and our vice mayor, Rick Richardson, Mary and their husband, Sandy Allen, for bringing this forward. This is definitely long overdue. Sensitized in full support of item 24, we have experienced firsthand hardship and the trauma of these benders in our community. It's just only recent that we've learned of the assault, but this has been ongoing for a very long time because vendors don't come forward. They fear. For their status. And their fear of police and the local government. They won't go through with testifying against perpetrators who have assaulted them. Unfortunately, these you know, these cowardly assaults and robberies on immigrant vendors have a long lasting trauma effects on them, their wives, their children and the neighborhood that they live in. Their well-being and healthy lives have been impacted for for a very long time. You know, they cringe when they hear loud noises at night. You know, the wife tells. Of how. Their their husbands are jumping in their sleep because their child, you know, because of our experience of working with immigrants, have a trusting relationship with their community and have the ability to be able to rapidly respond to the needs of these offenders. As you know, they are not eligible for a lot of government support and help. And through our donations and community foundations, we've been able to respond to these vendors who lost their earnings and pay for their rent and provide them with food security and get back on their feet and being able to help them navigate the system of victims of crime. If anybody has ever tried to navigate that, it is a hard, hard system to to apply for these services so vendors and their families can get counseling and get their medical needs and bills. Wait. It's a long process, and the process starts first with getting the police report. And so that sometimes is very hard for them to navigate as well, too. So, you know, it's important that as we look at this initiative and, you know, we started discussions that the vendors are included in the discussion. And when we're talking about their cards and. Cash and money. Making sure that, you know, we're listening to them is what's going to work for them. And then also that we're inviting immigrant service organizations to help with some of the solutions as well to, you know, it's important, just like the speaker said before, that. We continue to help. Thank you. Our next speaker is Robin Cortez. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. I'm Robin Cortez. I live with my husband and my two young boys over in the third district. And I'm here tonight to advocate for greater protection of our street vendors. And Councilman, woman follows agenda item number 24. And really just echo much of what's already been said this evening. I think that we would all agree that one of the best things about Long Beach is its people. The diverse, hardworking community of Long Beach essentially is human throughout all of its unique districts are part of what makes this incredible city stand apart from others. Our wonderful street vendors are such an important part of this beautiful community. The growing impact on our beloved street vendors has been alarming to me, to say the least. It is time, I believe, for us to really stand up for these valuable members of our community and ensure that they are protected and supported with dignity as they work to simply make a living. I would just simply ask the council this evening to support the security and safety program. I'd really like a clear message to be sent that we stand in solidarity with our street vendors and we don't condone any degree of violence toward them. And I'd really like to leave this evening knowing that our city's leaders are collectively committed to preventing crimes against these vulnerable people. I'm very grateful this evening for your vote in favor of this agenda item. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tito Rodriguez. Good evening, guys. Mayor Council members. My name is Tito Rodriguez. I am the executive director of Local Heart Foundation. I'm born and raised in District six. So all my life I grew up with street vendors stopping in front of my house and giving us the goodies, you know, like we've all had. Right? So I've dealt with about 400 street vendors through our nonprofit where we've protected, we've helped, you know, get them legal assistance from some similar to central PA. But as we've seen in the city of Long Beach, you know, it's increasing, right? We've seen it on social media and we've seen it on every news network there is. Right. So I want to give a huge, huge thank you to so far over the agenda item 24 for stepping up and in saying enough's enough, we need to protect our vendors. So I'm asking you guys to please, please do something for our vendors. Out of all the vendors I've spoken to, they all want to pay their fair share in taxes. They all want to get committed. They've all they all want to get license. They just want to go out there and make an honest living. And with your guys with support and protection, you know, it would make things a lot easier for them. So I just want to give. You guys, you a, you know. A big hug, virtual hug for taking the time to hear us out. And hopefully, you know, this thing gets passed and you guys continue to do great things for for the people city of Long Beach. And, you know, I like to say the city of Palm Beach, if it takes us to say bus and you know what , that would be greater for us. You know, me being from Palm Beach in Long Beach, being one of the first cities to step up and say, hey, we're we're willing to protect our street vendors and hopefully other cities follow. Okay, guys, so God bless you guys. Keep up the great work and thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Let me go back to Councilman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor. So I want to thank all of our committee members that made public comment and especially to Senator Char, as well as Local Hearts Foundation, who have done so much to support our street vendors prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic and the various philanthropic work and efforts to providing the services and support needed . And I hope to count on my colleagues on their support for this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to comment that I stand with our street vendors. I think they're an important part of our community, and I think it's critical that they have a security and safety program in place that could be supportive. I think it's also important to note that the police department has experienced a 10 to $14 million cut in the last year. That includes a reduction of 51 police positions. And I'm interested in knowing from the city manager what departments he feels are appropriate to include in this. And if there would be funding to support it, I would be very supportive of funding to support this specifically if there was a way to link it into violence prevention and our our federal funding that just came in. But I think that to really be effective, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Is is there is that a question to the city? It was Mr. City Manager. What departments do you feel would be a part of this? She said appropriate departments. I think that usually comes upon you to determine what those are. Yes. So we think economic development is going to have a role in this. A number of these vendors can kind of qualify under some of our recovery programs. So we are looking for a funding source that could help police, not as much. They really don't get involved in street vendors. We went back and checked. They aren't, you know, out there issuing tickets or anything like that. But they will have a role in kind of explaining the Values Act. We also have business licensing and health because some of these do need a health permit, but they don't need a business license. We do need to be updating our ordinance at some point. It's a pretty big undertaking to do that. So our audience is a little bit inconsistent with state law and therefore there's parts of our ordinances that we are not enforcing because they're in conflict with state law. But that is also what the city attorney's office, something that's going to have to be done. Thank you. I would just like to, again, give a little bit of additional praise to Councilman Zendejas for the program that she has implemented in partnership with the police department. That I feel has been completely effective. I've seen some statistics. I've heard from the community that it's been effective. And I don't know if expanding a component of that which which does include really a partnership with police in helping our community understand the resources available to them, the situational awareness, the design for safety and control that our police department has effectively utilized for our standing brick and mortar facilities, such as our liquor stores that have now had significant reductions in victimization. I think some of those things that have been proven to work should also be considered. So that would be my $0.02. Let's also use things that have worked. Thank you. Councilman, congratulations to both Councilman Zero and Councilman Zendejas and Allen. Not to mention De has. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. One of the things that I was hoping that this would also fall under our Latino initiative and the recovery plan that we have and our anti-violence aspect of those two. I also wanted to give a big shout out to Tito Rodriguez, who is from the Hope Foundation, who has been just great and in supporting our street vendors. When one of my residents was assaulted, the most recent assault that happened, he sprung into action with with his organization and created an event where the whole community came out and supported the vendors that were assaulted and they had like a button buy them out kind of event and everybody was there and supporting this vendor. And it just was such a great energy to be there with the community. And I just want to thank them for the work that they do. And I really look forward to seeing this report come back and and working together with staff to make sure that we protect our street vendors. Thank you. I think it's been very clear tonight that Long Beach support for street vendors. I certainly do. And I've also been concerned with some of the reports and some of what I have also been been reading and seeing as relates to their safety and to ensuring that they feel welcome in this community. I've shared my my concerns and my hopes for for them feeling welcome and supported to our city leadership team over the last few weeks. But I'm really thankful that Councilman Sauro has brought this forward and really brought in the conversation around safety and support, particularly around. I love what you said, Councilman, about access to technology and to the, you know, the types of services and needs that would help them not just in their business, but also for their safety. So I really appreciate how thoughtful your legislation is that we have in front of us. So I just want to thank you for that. And of course, and a huge thank you to the community that has rallied around our our street vendors, particularly Centra Cha and so many others. That was also really, really great to see. So just a really excellent conversation and an excellent item to bring forward. So thank you. Roll call vote, please. District one i. District two, i. District three. I District four. All right. District five? Yes, District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Ocean carries.

Recommendation to direct City Manager and all appropriate departments to seek approval, access and reimbursement from Caltrans and all other appropriate agencies so that the City can perform needed maintenance and clean-up of these areas in the most efficient, cost effective, and expeditious way possible.

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1144

Hello. My name is Elizabeth Magnuson. The freeway intersection at Willow and Lakewood serves thousands of residents and serves the Long Beach Airport. This intersection is currently the worst reflection of Long Beach. It is unsafe to use the crosswalk and drive around with debris of trash overflowing onto the onramp and off ramp and onto the street. The city must take actions not just at this intersection, but at every intersection, and Caltrans must be aware of this cleanup crisis and held accountable. I applaud Councilwoman Stacey Mungle, who is in touch with the community and gave an update on her newsletter. I support this recommendation that trash needs to be cleaned up regularly and care needs to be taken before it turns into a crisis. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the. Council on Mango. Thank you. I drafted and brought forward this item because on a continuous basis, the requirements related to Caltrans, they just keep not coming forward or city manager has done everything that he can and that is the power, including several meetings of managers all over the region. And we have to come up with a solution. They will not clean it up. We must clean it up. And they must provide the means to to reimburse us. So thank you to all the staff for contributing on this. I think it's critical for our communities and neighborhoods to stay safe. Q Thank you. I need a second on that, please. May I give you. My okay second by Councilman Ringo. Roll call vote. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I District six. I District seven. District eight. By District nine. Right. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and get that item. Great. So now we're going to go we're going to go back and do item 63 and then we're doing 62.

A RESOLUTION delegating temporary authority to the City Clerk to set the time and place for a hearing on any appeals from the report, findings, recommendation, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_Res 31965

Décembre 2021 Resolution 31965 delegating temporary authority to the city clerk to set the time and place for hearing any appeals from the report. Findings, recommendations and decision of the hearing on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 6751 and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of a hearing in the manner. Required by law. Thank you, Madam Cook. I will move to adopt resolution 31965. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. I am happy to report that Councilmember Juarez is with us this afternoon as the sponsor of the resolution. She is going to address this item in a fashion that is much more. That is much better than the way I did this morning. So I'm happy to have you here and hand it over to her to address this item, Cosmo Juarez. Thank you, President Gonzalez, particularly for leading the introduction around the waterfront lit assessment this morning. In defense of you, however. This has been going on for many years, so you shouldn't hold yourself out to be not doing a good job. I think you did a great job anyway. This is a necessary piece of legislation and administrative and required by law. The Council may not approve the final assessment role for the waterfront with that the local improvement district, without revealing and deciding upon appeals of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the final assessment role. And I'll come back to that in a minute. Council President This resolution delegates temporary authority to the city clerk to meet the deadline to set the time and place for appeals in case the deadline occurs during summer recess. That would be from August 24th to September 4th. Appeals will be referred to my committee, the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, and this resolution stipulates that the clerk must schedule no earlier than December 1st to accommodate for recess and budget proceedings. As I shared the letter, the local improvement district and the unpacked it lid number 6751 which that means it is the 6,751st Lyd to be approved or on the on for us to consider. We've been doing lids since the early 1900s. We've been working on this with the waterfront for well over three years, working with the sale of waterfront folks and businesses, nonprofit condo owners, property owners, commercial property owners working with the Office of Waterfront for over four years, which has been great working with Marshall Foster and Jerry Costa. If you recall Council President about two years ago, I believe we hired a hearing examiner to get public comment and concerns that would be noted about this tax to be imposed. We were working with law in the executive to adjust the tax, the amount, the deferral and the time frame and calculation of such tax. We had a report from the hearing examiner last fall and we expect one final report, the final assessment rule. We're hoping that that report comes in late August to late September. So basically, this resolution is just a protection in the event that the report by the hearing examiner is filed during the recess. And this would just give the clerk the authority to and Erick's on the line to, I'm guessing, to go ahead and hold this. And so we had an up council had an opportunity to put it in our committee and make a decision. As you know, this kind of tax requires notice to those affected and those who may want to appeal. So with that being said, I would encourage my colleagues passage of Resolution 31965. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Juarez, for that description of the resolution and for your ongoing work on the waterfront. Live through your committee. Also want to thank the hearing examiner for all of the work they've been doing in response to your direction and vision on how to structure the substantive an appeal process issues in a way that is fair and equitable and transparent really appreciate all of the work that the hearing examiner and his staff have been doing. And lastly, just want to say thanks to our city clerk's office, who's also going to be playing a role now. So I will be gladly joining you in support of this resolution. Madam President, may I make an inquiry? And if you want to note this, that. We are still in a quasi judicial phase. A law that we are not allowed to be taking any kind of personal emails or comments from the public while this is still under the guidance and jurisdiction, if you will, of the hearing examiner. Absolutely. I made comments to that effect this morning at council briefing, and I think it's important to note it again here in open public session during our full council. So appreciate that reminder and admonition to council members related to this particular quasi judicial matter. Thank you. Absolutely. Any other comments? Any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing and seeing none. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. S seven in favor. None opposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will. The Court is the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 22 Will the clerk please read item 22 into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Loyal Heights Elementary School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120361

Agenda item six Council Bill 120361 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation, imposing controls upon the Boyle Heights Elementary School. The committee recommends the bill pass. Accused Mr. Morales. Thank you. This elementary school was built in 1932. It's located in the Loyal Heights neighborhood, and the Preservation Board's Controls and Agreements Agreement would indicate that it applied to the site, to the building exterior and portions of the interior, but not to maintenance and repairs that are necessary of the designated features. And the committee recommends that we pass the bill. Thank you. Any comments or questions for Councilmember Alice and not seeing any customer? Also, I'm guessing you're okay with moving forward on the vote. I'm okay. All right with that. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera. I. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Councilmember Salant Solent. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council president was high. Ran unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it metaphorically. Sticks my signature to the legislation. And we are on item number seven, which is also Councilmember Ellis again. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. And Item seven Councilor Bill 120362 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing Controls upon Ingraham High School. The committee recommends the bill pass.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to Lakefront Investors 1 LLC and Lakefront Investors 2 LLC to construct, install, and maintain four sets of private communication conduits under and across Boren Avenue North, north of Mercer Street, and under and across the alley between Boren Avenue North and Fairview Avenue North, north of Mercer Street.

SeattleCityCouncil_05222017_Res 31742

Agenda item ten Resolution 31742. A resolution granting conceptual approval to Lakefront Investors one LLC and Lakefront Investors two LLC to construct, install and maintain four sets of private communication conduits under the under an across Bourn Avenue, north north of Mercer Street, and underground across the alley between Bourne Avenue North and Fairview Avenue, north north of Mercer Street . The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thanks. This will grant conceptual approval for private communication conduits connecting four buildings in South Lake Union that will become Google's South Lake Union campus. The final term permit ordinance will come later this year. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of approving resolution 31742 Vote I II oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Item Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31753. Please read the title. Adoption of Other Resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31753a Resolution Relating to Police Accountability instructing the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and Community Police Commission to review and recommend changes to Seattle laws, policies and practices within the scope of their expertize. Introduced May 22nd, 2017. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales already talked about the contents of the resolution during council briefing this morning. I'll just say for the record that this companion resolution to the legislation that we just passed as part of the report of the Gender Equity Subcommittee's numerous committee captures activities that are related to police accountability but that do not need to be codified in the Seattle Municipal Code, largely because they are one time in it nature rather than ongoing aspects of our accountability system. So with that being said, I would move for the adoption of resolution 31753. I second that. Any questions or comments all in favor of adopting resolution 31753 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Council members so want. To be excused from the full Council meeting on June 5th, 2017. June five? Yeah, it's moved in second and the council members won't be excused on June five. All in favor vote i. I opposed any other business. I think we should note that Amy Shea is still sitting here, and then I think it's time for her vacation to start. As is Andrew. Yeah. Thanks to both of you. All right. The council will be adjourned. Thank you. So.

Proclamation Declaring May 30 through June 7, 2015 as Alameda Elks’ Bike Safety Week. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_06022015_2015-1695

Proclamation declaring May 30th through. June 7th as Alameda Elks Bike Safety. Week. And Dean Seacrest will be receiving this correct? You may approach the podium, please. And I'll read the proclamation. Whereas bicycle riding is an integral part of life for children in the city of Alameda. And. WHEREAS, proper bicycle training is an important precursor for the enjoyment of riding. And. Whereas, registration with the Alameda Fire Department helps to protect the bicycle from theft and assist in the recovery of stolen property. And. WHEREAS, Bicycle safety checks help to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly. And. WHEREAS, everyone who rides a bike should do so while wearing a bicycle helmet. And. WHEREAS, the Alameda Elks Lodge number 1015 supports youth activities throughout the community to quicken the spirit of our youth, to explore the many miles of beautiful bicycle paths of the city, and to do so safely now, therefore, be it resolved that I. Trish Herrera Spencer, mayor of the city of Alameda, do hereby proclaim May 30th through June 7th, 2015, as Alameda Elks Bike Safety Week in the city of Alameda and encourage all citizens to safely navigate the streets, bike lanes and bike paths and to equally respect the laws and the riders throughout this community. Here we are. Spencer Mayor, thank you. Mr. Seacrest, you can say a few words if you'd like. Thank you. Mayors Council members, thank you for this recognition of the proclamation. As you know, for 110 years, our lodge has been supporting and and giving back to this community. Each year we try and do a little bit more, a little bit more. And this year, two of our members came up with another idea. And so during the our lodge meeting, they came to the floor of the lodge and proposed that we take and support the bike safety program. They presented their plan on how to do it, how we would get the funds to a Grand Lodge. I received a grant and researched the thing and got the how much and proposed this, which was voted on the lodge unanimously. And here we are. Thank you. And so June 7th is another one. So look forward to having the people come out. We still have plenty of helmets left, plenty of hot dogs, and so come on out. Well, certainly want to thank the fire department for being there for the 4 hours, you know, registering the bicycles. It's amazing how many bicycles are stolen each day in Alameda. This will help get them back, hopefully. Thank you. All right. Next item. Oral communications. Non agenda items.

A RESOLUTION endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District.

SeattleCityCouncil_02222021_Res 31993

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item 11 into the record. Option of other resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31993 Endorsing the creation by the State of Washington of the Rainier Valley Creative District. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 31993. Is there a second? And then moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Morales, you are the sponsor of this resolution and are recognized in order to address this. I thank you. Council President, colleagues, as I mentioned this morning, this resolution supports the application to establish a Rainbow Valley creative district. As we heard in public comment, a community led group has been leading the charge excuse me, over the past several months to submit an application to the Washington State Arts Commission for the creation of this district creative arts district designation. This kind of state certification endorses the creative activities in a community, recognizes the potential for growth, and can help promote the community's creative identity. You know, create a jobs in the creative sector, attract artists and startups to a community. So really can provide an opportunity for economic development and for the growth of the artists and performers in our community. Sorry. Turning that off after a community has certified, they're eligible for grant opportunities, technical assistance, training and can get some support from the state in tracking the progress of their communities. Creative Economy. So this is an important opportunity for our artists and creative folks in the South End. I want to thank the Planning Committee, which was headed by a 48 day, as she mentioned in her comments. Includes also community organizations such as one awarded South Seattle, Emerald Seed Arts, Seattle World Percussion Society Arena Beach Action Coalition. Rainier Beach Merchants Communities Rise Queen Care Inter African Connection, Lexington Hall, West Tap Connection and others. So I want to thank them for their advocacy and really for bringing this forward to our office. I'm really proud to sponsor this resolution, to support them and their mission to build out an active arts and culture coalition advocates for Rainier Valley's artistic and cultural community by fostering collaboration, boosting collective visibility, and addressing inequity. Inequity. There are, I think, eight creative district communities in Washington. There is no Seattle representation. So this would be the first. And it really supports the vision of a rainier valley that is a thriving creative hub. Distinguished hosts of important multicultural events that can celebrate the rich heritage and diversity of the community can really serve as a center of economic opportunity for artists and residents. And I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution that urges the Washington State Arts Commission to invest in the important cultural legacy of South Seattle and support the leadership of the valued community members who have its application forward. Designate the Rainier Valley as a theater district in the state of Washington. Thank you so much, Councilmember Morales, for the resolution and for those remarks. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution? So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson. Yes. President Gonzalez. I am in favor and opposed. Emotion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Hearing on colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is set for Monday, March 1st, 2021, at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful and safe afternoon. We're adjourned. I have something. Madam President, I just want to say happy birthday, Madam President. From this weekend, we hope you had an excellent weekend. And they have very happy birthday to you. Thank you. Happy birthday. Thanks, everybody. Take care.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Department of Development Services to evaluate the feasibility of establishing, in accordance with state and federal auditing requirements, a single Emergency Rental Assistance application for landlords with multiple tenants in communities at elevated risk of eviction. This funding would cover past rental arrears and up to three months of future rental obligation for eligible tenants. Participation in this program should allow tenants whose rental debt was covered an additional 90 days of protection from eviction past the final date of payment of back rent, and Direct the Department of Development Services to publicize data regarding the rental assistance program on a public dashboard.

LongBeachCC_10052021_21-1022

Public comment. Thank you so much for your testimony and testimony and certainly a lot going on in the town. Right now, we're going to move forward with item 34. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Zendaya's. Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Department of Development Services to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a single emergency rental assistance application for landlords with multiple tenants and communities at elevated risk of eviction and direct the Department of Development Services to publicize data regarding the rental assistance program on a public dashboard. Fantastic. Thank you. I can't keep up. So I'm going to make the motion on table for me and pull up the presentation. Right. So thanks to community partners, thank the city staff, thanks to everyone who provided data and helped shape this proposal tonight and thank you to council members and they have an Allen for your support on this proposal. So a little bit of context. Long Beach has been a leader in the region, in the nation on the Recovery Recovery Act. $250 million in Recovery Act. The most significant effort with 64 million in rental assistance so far. The ERAP program, emergency rental assistance program that allows for the full payment of back rent for vulnerable tenants and is our most significant tool to keep people in their homes and keep people housed. The city has distinguished itself itself as a leader for efficient management of the pandemic and the recovery. We led the way on vaccination. We're now preparing to be among the first on booster shots. Our rescue our Recovery Act was the first meaningful recovery package, making good use of recovery money to strengthen our city. And our rental assistance program has been recognized by the US Treasury as one of the more efficient programs in the nation. We have just under 30% of our of our funding disbursed, beating the state and national averages. We've already helped over to about 2500 households with rent and utility payments. Those are 2500 households that are now no longer on the brink of eviction. Our Development Services Department and our community organizations have done a great job really rallying and making this successful. At a time when some agencies simply gave the money back because it's a challenge. Compare this to L.A.. L.A. was underperforming, and a month ago they chose to give the money back. And all of those people had to go back through the same process and go back to the back of the line. There was no context on it. Okay. So so here's what we're finding. So in Long Beach, ah, or here in L.A. County, our eviction moratorium ended September 30th, and we still have 15,800 households who are still behind on rent and vulnerable to eviction. That's estimated that over 43,000 people in our city, that's 99% of our population is in this very precarious position, that 16,000 children are at risk of eviction. And we can help make a difference if we expedite getting this funding out at the current pace. We'll take until August 20, 22 to distribute all of our money. And where is the money? What are we hearing? What is the most significant burden to getting the money out faster? Well, first, stringent requirements, so continue to have to prove that their 80% area median income or below. Right. They're below 80%. They actually have to prove their economic situation was was impacted by the pandemic. And, you know, they have to prove that they're at a point of housing insecurity. Those are things that we have to provide documentation of proof. You also have unique challenges. We understand that Long Beach is a very diverse community. We have digital divide issue. We have some areas where it's harder to connect to the to the Internet. We also know that immigration status makes it more difficult. And so the burden. In order to provide the worthiness of this program, although it's a really good program, you know, there are things that we can do to improve. Currently in a currently a ten it alone can apply or as a tenant and a landlord. The tenants who need the most help are often the one who are more likely to not have the required documents in order to actually receive the have a completed application or received the assistance. So the folks who are out of work are having a difficult time getting into work. Those are also a thing. People are having a difficult time completing the application and sometimes the documents just simply don't exist. The proof, they just simply doesn't exist at 4500 unfilled applications because they are processed by one side and not the other. We have 8500 incomplete applications because a tenant or a landlord is having difficulty finding the documents or none of the current proxies like Medicaid or unemployment insurance. Enrollment can be applied in lawsuit scenario. We have a tool called a self attestation form that we just began using. In some cases, it can be hard to complete with language barriers if you're signing up to a test, right? Sometimes it takes a little bit of effort to talk someone through what it attestation form. And there's also again, issues with digital access. And and so these are some of the barriers. The Urban Institute study show that 36% of tenants who haven't finished the application, they couldn't because of eligibility criteria. Another 24% expressed difficulty communicating with landlord. 21% said that the process of preparing and filing documents is why they didn't finish. And landlords expressed a very similar problem. 30% have said they haven't completed applications due to the complicated criteria. 30% said they expressed issues communicating directly with their tenants. 22% have said that they've had trouble preparing or filing documents. So here's the opportunity. You know, we've been recognized as a leader. We have responsibility, continue to lead. We've learned a lot. We've kicked around some different ideas. Today is to look at some new opportunities put forward by the Treasury. Look at the some of the things we've been kicking around and create some streamlined approaches to get more people in vulnerable areas approved. So the new Treasury guidance allows for advance payments to landlord with lower requirements for proof of eligibility. 2000 applications where landlord have done their site but the tenant haven't found their documents or you know, that could double the allocation overnight if we were to all those 2000 applications. Creating a single, streamlined application. Process. Targeted to property owners of buildings with large clusters of incomplete applications would help us to get the money out faster, allow you to protect more tenants and reach those who those hard to get tenants who we know. Maybe they haven't signed up, maybe they haven't initiated their own application. But if there's already a streamlined application happening within that building, it's easier for them to piggyback on and protect both those units so the neighbors know who their neighbors are, the landlords know who their neighbors are. Want to make it easy to protect more people if we speed this up or be eligible for additional funds. What the Treasury is doing and what the state is doing, they're rewarding the jurisdictions who get the money out faster by reallocate, reallocating funding from other jurisdictions. And so some some programs are mismanaging. Some aren't getting the funding out fast enough. We can reward ourselves by protecting more people with a win win. Of you promising example Kentucky. If your zip code is low income, you automatically qualify. So they're just looking at if you live in a zip code or area, you don't have to prove all of this. You can simply by living in that area, you qualify. Another example, the Carmelita projects. They're different because they're public housing there, but they're one of the only single application processes that have happened. And because they were able to do it that happened right here in Long Beach, they were able to cover, I think, a 20 some odd application, 80, 80 tenants and one application protected. All right. Imagine if we were to do this that most law departments in our city, Harris County, Texas, they use the amount of rent owed per month as a proxy for housing insecurity and lower rent, higher risk. And so here's the recommendation today. The recommendation is create a streamline single application process for landlords, for vulnerable tenants to cover the whole building. Allows tenants to organize with one voice and allows landlords to target their home their whole building, so allow people to organize around one one application. This proposal has had support from folks at every stage of the rental assistance process from tenant and tenant advocate to rental asset. The report provides rental assistance providers to city staff and landlord. You know, it's not often we can hold up a letter from the apartment association in a letter from Long Beach forward both saying the same thing. I'll be leader will continue to look at these ways to continue to innovate. So given the city's mandate to push the state to lower the burdensome application process, we've already had some success in getting the state to do that. I think we're we will be one of the first we will be the first city in the state to make this happen if we can make this happen. So the ask is move forward, begin engaging with the state on a single, streamlined application. If there are other ideas that come out of Federal Treasury or other ideas the City Council has, we want to throw that in the kitchen sink as well. The idea here is to streamline this process and then secondly, create a rental assistance dashboard that can be public, that helps show progress, equity concerns, where where we're making progress , where we're not adding transparency. That's something that's been good during the pandemic, is our most significant tool to address housing insecurity. And so we should have that same that same concern. And again, we're open to additional ideas as well. So that is the presentation, and I'm happy to make this motion. Councilwoman Allen. Yes, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That was a really great presentation, very comprehensive. And I just want to say thank you for asking me to sign on to this item. Housing is a priority to me, and this item provides a real opportunity to improve our Erap program. The item also streamlined the Erap application process, which is really important and helps get those assistance dollars out faster with more tenant that can be covered under the program. So people really need this. I know I've heard from a lot of my residents and looking at your numbers, we all know that this is really necessary. And and I also encourage DAP, if there's anything that happens along the way that you think we can improve this process, we're always looking for that and being a leader. So just happy to support this item today and just a great work by mayor. Thank you. I think I need a second on this notion, actually, Cliff. I'm going to second. In a second to Councilman Allen. Councilman in the house. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor, again for. Ask me to sign on to this very, very important item. Why do we have inequalities? Why do inequities exist today? Because for centuries, certain communities, and particularly our black and brown, low income communities have been left behind. They have been neglected. Policies and programs have not been designed for them because they have not encompassed nor even acknowledge the additional barriers that exist for the working class families. So I really, really want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for putting forward this item, as well as Councilwoman Allen for your support. Because in this item we are doing, what we are doing is acknowledging the inequities that exist within our rental assistance program, and it is proposing a solution for it. And I think that's what we really have to focus on. There are about 8500 applications that have been incomplete. That means that there are thousands of potentially low income households who need this support, yet, because of technical technicalities, wouldn't otherwise be receiving that kind of support. I am proud that Long Beach has been a leader in the management of this program, but we need to do more with more than 43,000 people at risk of being evicted. We need to do a better job of ensuring that no family is evicted, especially as we have our holiday season coming up. And since most of the funds that that are for this particular thing are available, so we need to make sure that there are not only available, but that they are accessible to all of those who are really in need of them. In regards to the new application options for landlords, I propose that as we identify specific neighborhoods and buildings with the highest needs, that we ensure that every individual in those buildings receives funds if they are in need of it. I would like for the application to process to be as easy as possible. I think that that's also where we get hung up and where these technical technicalities occur. So I think that it's very important that we make it as easy as possible for for the landlords to apply for the residence to apply, and for them to actually receive this these funds in a very timely manner. Not only are we helping out our residents that are in need of this, but we're also helping out our landlords who have been and who have also been very patient and have been allowing, you know, all of the tenants to just stay there without paying rent. And they are also suffering as well. So we really need to make sure that as much as we we can that we help our tenants. Thank you, Councilwoman. I don't see anyone else cued up. Is there. Should we do public comment? Well, cancer. Thank you. And I want to appreciate this item I figured out. It's one that I'm happy to support. I was proud to introduce the original item for rental assistance only about a year ago, and that was $5 million commitment from the City Council, from our CGP CDBG Fund. And since then our, our emergency rental assistance program and the funding coming from the federal state government has expanded significantly. I think that that we've been able to help a lot of families and and I really appreciate the commitment of this council and our staff to, uh, to help not only tenants but also to housing providers during a very, very difficult time. We've come a long way and over the past year I think we've learned how to deliver and continuously improve on our processes and systems to provide rental assistance to families and keep families house. So I fully support anything that eliminates barriers and red tape that improves transparency in the process. And allows us to deliver on these critical services to families in need. So with that, I'm happy to support this motion. I think you and I will do public comment, but I'm quick. Can the following people please line up for public comment? Elaine Hutchinson. Garcia. Lopez Reyes. Married. You gone, Mike Murchison. John Edmund and I can face an uncertain. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Garcia. Honorable Vice Mayor Richardson. And members of the Long Beach City Council. It might not working. 1/2. The mic is on and I. Know it's on. It's just not projecting it. I'm not speaking into it. We're going to we're going to check in with this. HUTCHISON Can you please put your mask on while you're doing public comments? Thank you. Thank you. May I go ahead or. Why don't you wait 1/2? Thank you. I think it was working before, and now it's not. What do you do? Why don't you restart and we'll just restart the time, all right? Okay. Now? Yes. And your mask must. Remain on the mask on. Put my mask back on. Yes, please. Thank you. Okay. Like this. Okay. Okay. The Honorable Mayor Garcia and Honorable Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the Long Beach City Council. My name is Elaine Hutchison, and I'm here this evening on behalf of the Apartment Association of California's Southern Cities, located at 33 three West Broadway here in Long Beach. Just to mention, we're very proud that this year we are celebrating our 97th year serving the rental housing industry here in Long Beach. We want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson and council members the data's and Allen for bringing item 34 forward to streamline the application process for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. We know from calls coming into our office that both tenants and owners have difficulty in communicating to meet the requirements, either because of language barriers or difficulties with understanding the process or simply to understand the purpose of the program and how they felt. And then the steps to be taken. We here in Long Beach are very fortunate to have seen several awards of rent relief funds, and we still have 46 million of unspent funds. So while there may be federal or state guidelines to work with, we must remember that our end goal is to help pay unpaid rent and thereby prevent homelessness and to help stabilize the tenants in our community who need assistance. We are very pleased to support item 34 and urge the City Council to approve this item. Thank you very much. Good evening. Mayor and council members. My name is Grisha Lopez Reyes. I'm the director of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. COVID 19 has revealed the vast inequalities in our communities, but we applaud the city's efforts to develop a strong recovery plan for the COVID 19 pandemic to ensure that we get the necessary resources to residents that have been impacted by this public health crisis. The rental assistance program is key to making this happen. However, while this program has tried to help many households with rental and utility payments, the difficulty of the application process discourages tenants, especially low income renters and or undocumented communities from accessing these funds. It is confusing, inaccessible and requires the necessary amount of documentation. For this reason, we strongly support the recommendation put forth in tonight's item by Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Sun has and Councilwoman Allen to lower administrative burdens for eligible residents to ensure that those needed the most are receiving the assistance. Our Coalition has engaged thousands of renters through our organizing efforts this month, but I wanted to lift one story from Shelly Ward. She's a Long Beach resident who tried to apply for rental assistance but experienced difficulty due to the long and complicated process. Due to the drawback she faced when starting the application process. She was then served an eviction notice. Shelly and her family are now facing the threat of displacement, which could have been avoided if the process was easier and more accessible. This new process will open up the opportunity for tenants and landlords to work together and make it easier for the funds to be distributed effectively. By voting yes and improving this recommendation, Long Beach will continue to be a strong leader on COVID 19 recovery and an example for other cities. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia and the city council members. My name is Mary. You. I am a pastor and. A faith rooted organizer with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, also known as crew. I represent hundreds of. Faith leaders connected through crew to speak in support of this item today. First, I want to say thank you to the city for developing such a strong recovery plan to provide resources for our community. And specifically, I want to say thank you to Vice Mayor Richardson, council. Members and Council Member Allen, for bringing this item up. We all know that availability and access are two different issues. We have our city has the rental assistance funding available to tenants, but the tenants who need it the most don't have access to this resource because of the burden of paperwork. The majority of our vulnerable tenants, of people of color. So streamlining this application process is the key to address the issue of access rooted in the racial injustice. In our society. And as a pastor of an immigrant congregation, I have witnessed firsthand how family and children have been impacted by this pandemic. And our youth have been feeling stressed out because they see their parents struggle to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table. So this burden impacts their capacity to engage in school with their studies. So if we want to make sure that our children can have a healthy development and can succeed in school, then we need to make sure vulnerable families have access to the resources that they need the most right now. So this new, streamlined process will change the futures of many families and youth, which will change the generations to come in our city. Our Christian sacred text teaches that we are all connected in one family as children of God. And some of us, if some of us are in pain, all of us are impacted. For this reason, we believe that developing the development of the streamlined process to provide rental assistance to our tenants as quickly as possible will support the well-being and healing of our city. So we ask that you vote yes to approve this recommendation. Thank you. Mayor. Vice mayor, council members. Good evening. My name is Mike Murchison. I represent Spier. I represent 100 hundreds and hundreds of other rental property owners that want to commend the vice mayor for bringing this item forward. We also support your fellow colleagues who signed off on this. Councilwoman and Councilwoman Allen, thank you very much. I also want to mention the hard work the development services does on this issue because it's been a difficult one. I want to thank Christopher and Oscar for their dedication to this. I support the vice mayor's recommendation on this. I support, believe it or not, and be on the same page with a good jobs and healthy community. That's going to be a first for me. But I think the two main issues that I want to bring forward is, number one, streamlining the permit process. And I think other speakers have brought that up. That's critical. But the other bigger issue, and I brought this up months ago, is that the federal government has income requirements. And you all saw that in Rex's presentation, the 80% of area median income. Those are going to change because you're not going to get to all the tenants in Long Beach. You have, I don't know, 250,000 tenants that live in Long Beach. And I don't know how many of them a high percentage, the oh deferred rent, if you want to get to every one of them. Then you go to your California congressional and federal delegation and you talk to them about waiving or reducing significantly that 80% of area median income until that changes. I support obviously expediting and making a one page permit or excuse me, application process, but that income level is what makes it extremely difficult for everybody in Long Beach. That has to change. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same boat four or five, six months from now. So I just want to encourage you to reach out to Congressman Lowenthal and others and see what can be done to reducing or getting rid of that income requirement. Vice Mayor Richardson, thank you very much. Council people. Thank you. I really appreciate it. One of the rare moments in life where you know me and Mr. Murchison agree. I think that. Am I wise? It makes no sense. We have we have a zip code. I love the example that the firemen are use with respect to the state of Kentucky and using zip code measurements. You know, we we know which zip codes are poorer than others and area median income is based on that. There are zip codes that have a spectrum of incomes. 90804. If you live on the western, part of that zip code is much different than the eastern part of that zip code. Narrative five is another example. Nine over six I mean, there's a there's multiple zip codes where you have, you know, quote unquote, low income people with middle income and higher people living in the same zip code. So if the process is to streamline this effort to pay off the first rent, then I would have to agree we have a rate of above 80% because it's just not realistic. There's a reason why over 12,000 applications are not processed yet. I'm unfulfilled, and it has to do with the, you know, the education of those who even know the paperwork, the understanding of it, how difficult it is. And with respect to the streamlined effort, for one, I agree in green in agreement of this. I have to say honestly that a lot of the third party organizations that have partnered with the city don't have the reach that they claim that they have. You know, our piece was, I don't know, these no bid contracts that are going through organizations who aren't present in the communities that allegedly they represent in regards to housing . They have not been able to fulfill their part of the bargain, if not solely on the backs of the city, for why people get these applications in. And with respect to the city, we're going to need massive, you know, boots on the ground. You know, maybe a couple of dozen fellowships need to go out and really streamline this on the city side as well as on the applicant side. And also, you know, these rare times that we get federal money to do anything with housing, it shouldn't just be about paying off rent. You know, we should be pushing and creating opportunities for tenants to become homeowners because this is just going to become cyclical. Who's to say what's next for Corona 37 or whatever that's going to come down the road and completely shut down our economy again? And then we're just going to have to keep doing these things. We need to create opportunities for tenants to become actual homeowners. So just for future mine, because we shouldn't be sending back any money. And although 30% is a, you know, better than everyone else, that's still, you know, a failing grade. So thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor and Council Members. My name is Elsa Tung, District seven, resident and program manager at Long Beach Forward. I'm proud to join this eclectic group of public commenters in support of this item. Language four does support item 34 to explore creating a streamlined single application process for the ERAP program. And we thank Vice Mayor Richardson and Council women's and they have and Allen for their leadership. Now as the presentation showed. Despite Long Beach ranking above our pier cities in rental assistance allocation, the dual eviction and homelessness crises require us to do much, much better at our current rate of rental assistance. Disbursement. Long Beach will not be able to pay out its full allocation until August of next year. A streamlined single application process would allow property owners and tenants to organize around submitting one application for groups of vulnerable tenants in eviction clusters to get erap money faster and for more tenants, especially the more vulnerable tenants are covered under the program. Here I want to emphasize the data driven policy opportunity. This is an opportunity for the city to develop a proactive process that matches tenants based on vulnerability and geography. So let's first identify clusters of incomplete applications, potentially from a single building or a single particular neighborhood. And then let's use well known, publicly available data and metrics. Median household income, racial concentrations of poverty. COVID 19 impacts even concentrations of rental arrears that fall below 80% area median rent. To then target the city services and screen requests for advance payments. On the note that the previous commenter made about various income levels being within the zip codes. Yes, that is true, but there is lots and lots of data at the census tract level that can pinpoint and target services and rental assistance even more precisely. Emergency rental assistance is not the answer to the eviction crisis, but it is an answer. So let's please vote to make it a more efficient and effective answer. Vote yes on item 34. And finally, justice for Moana Rodriguez. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Mayor. Vice Mayor, City Council, honorable city attorney, city manager, city clerk and staff. Thank you for your time and dedication to the city of Long Beach. My name is John Edmond and I'm the executive director of the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities. I'm a long time watcher and a first time speaker. I'm speaking today in support of item 34, sponsored by Vice Mayor Richardson and co-sponsored by council members that has an Allen Long Beach has been a leader in distributing of the erap funds. And I just want to say leader in the state for sure. I'd my hat is off to city staff and being able to put together a program and executing it and doing what they've done so far. And it's pretty tremendous at the time that they've had to be able to do that. And I think what's happened is we've learned best practices about what can be done, what needs to be done, and what can be implemented with a one application process. Property owners, many of whom are small property owners, stand at the ready to be able to assist. They have a lot of information that the tenants need and that the city needs in order to be able to make that happen. And so we want to work with city staff and the city to ensure a streamlined process and being able to make that happen so that we're able to get those funds to those in need . Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. My question is really for staff. I know I've been talking about this for a long time with you guys. And I know there were some efforts, like kind of a summary. What are we doing? What have we done about the income level? That's something that I think our office has been very focused on and trying to expand and broaden that income level because we had a lot of landlords and residents in my district who were not eligible. So what have we done? What can we do? What are our limitations? And then the other question I would have is, I think a streamlined process is great, but our streamlined process is really just more of the application process. The requirements are still going to be what's required statewide, regardless of the type of form they have to fill out. We're not we're not able to eliminate any of those. Documents that are required. Is that correct? Well, thank you, Councilmember. I believe this motion will allow us to reach out to the state and Treasury Department to see if there's other mechanisms beyond what the current regulations allow in order to streamline the process. We've been having conversations with both entities to further push the the risk profile to be able to streamline the process. So we will continue that based upon your motion today. In terms of the area, median income, we they prescribed very detailed requirements, 30, 80% and 50% priorities. The charge was to start with 50% priority 50 and my priority then the 80, 80% and my priority. We've also modified that a bit to focus in on those that have potential risk exposure to eviction. So we've been moving that forward in terms of any adjustments. That's something that we would need to discuss with the the state and the federal government. Is the risk factors. Are those still tied to the income requirements? So there's no risk factors that would outweigh the threshold income requirement. That is correct. The risk profile is really based upon the the information and the type of information that we collect. We've been using the attestation process to help those that are requesting funding assistance. We've provided forms in multiple languages to be able to do that, and we keep pushing the envelope, I think. The vice mayor indicated the zip code. We've been pushing for the zip code here in Long Beach to be able to have an easier attestation process that goes along with the zip code in areas of need to be able to do that. So as far as the the income level, those haven't changed. And so we continue to review that and better understand what we can do to help those income allocations. Yeah, I think that's good and that's great and I appreciate everything you're doing. Obviously, we want to be trying to help as many people that are in need as possible. But the. The the fact that the risk factors there's no mechanism for the risk factors to alter that threshold level for aid is ridiculous. Because the whole point of this is to try to keep people housed and not. It's ridiculous. Not by your doing. I make that clear. You're limited to what the regulations require you to. But the whole point is to keep people housed and not on the street at a time like this. And if someone is at risk of losing their home and they happen to live in an area based on their income and the rent, that they're still going to be kicked out of their home, there's no alternative for them. There's no there's zero alternative for them. And I tell you, we get emails all the time from people who are at risk of losing their home and because of their income level, they're not eligible for any sort of aid. You know, I've got staff members calling around the property owners, begging them to open up properties at a lower cost so that people don't get evicted. And that's just it's ridiculous that the risk factors don't have some sort of mechanism to lower the threshold for people that are at higher risk regardless of their income. And I just don't know if there's any way around it. So it's really loud. Council Member There There isn't a way around the income level, but just in case anyone is listening, I would encourage people to apply. So what we are able to do with applicants in that situation. So if your prior income was over 80% and you know you would not qualify based on your tax return, we can still qualify that person, but we have to qualify that person. So if my income was at 200% of am I on my last tax return but it's fallen to zero and I can document that it's fallen to zero for a sustained period of time, that the more complicated application. But we may be able to qualify that person if a person's income used to be at a very high level and has fallen so much that they qualify for a different form of assistance, whether it's food assistance or any other form of government assistance because they've been qualified as low income under that other program, we can use that as a proxy to qualify them. So we are working on those cases that are more complex or difficult, but it's also because they are more complex and difficult. You know, they require hours of staff, time for one application and obviously we have thousands of pending applications. So we're doing everything, everything we can. But I think with this item, we're going to have some backing to talk to the state about, hopefully providing us some further flexibility. That's wonderful. Thank you. But I did not know that that option was available. So unfortunately, I may be routing some people over to you. So thank you. And Councilmember, one last thing. If nothing else, there may be a level of legal protection if they do apply, and we haven't been able to process them because of various levels. So we would encourage everybody that may or may not qualify, that may have a need to nevertheless submit their application to the city. We think that concludes public comment. And in the motion there is a motion and a second on the floor just just added. I obviously am very supportive of this. I think the streamlining is really critical. And I do want to thank Mr. Murdoch and our team. And you guys are working really, really hard on this topic for many, many months. And I appreciate the regular updates and I know how creative you're all you have all tried to to be and to get as many people support as possible. And I know that it's very we have a very complex regulatory and state system that we're working under. So thank you very much. And thank you to all all the folks involved in this proposal, particularly Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman Allen and Councilwoman Linda has. Please cast your vote. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to: 1) Approve a Nine-Month, $713,000 Services Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority Concerning Program Administrator Services for the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and 2) Appropriate $493,000 in General Fund Monies to Fully Fund the Agreement. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2724

Okay. So I had pulled this item. I have concerns about the way this is being implemented. And specifically, for instance, I attended one of the workshops for the tenants and it was during the day. And initially a concern of mine had been that there most of the workshops for tenants were in the day and not in the evening. And then I know workshops were added in the evening to which I think is to accommodate the tenants. The workshop I went to, which was a tenant workshop, had four people present, one from person from Echo, another person from the business industry, and then two tenants that were concerned about being evicted. And something that came out during the presentation was that there was no ability to meet with anyone in person that you could expect. You could leave, you could telephone and expect a return call within three days, which the tenants that were there said that that was what had happened to them. It had taken three days to get a return call, but I am concerned that I would like to. I think we should consider having the ability for a person to get in line somewhere and talk with a person or make an appointment to meet with a person. Yes. So are you objecting to spending the money to fund the work that has to be done? Because I think those comments are good comments for the execution of what has to be done. But I think our charges to allocate the money. So, yes, I am objecting if we are not including in-person contact. Yes, I will be objecting. So I think that that's critical for this. I think that tenants have serious concerns. And actually, if you go to the housing authority right now for an issue regarding affordable housing, there is a line that you weigh in and then you can get assistance. But that and also, if you go downstairs to the Planning Department, both departments which use this program, for instance, the Planning Department will be connected with the CHP there. There's a way to get in line and see a person. So I am concerned that we're not offering that at this point. Yes, sir. If I understand you to be making a motion. I just want to make a point first before making the motion, because I do think that's probably a valid critique, because tenants and housing providers, for that matter, should be able to talk to a person. But that won't happen if we don't allocate the money. So I, I would like to get the, the city manager's response, but I would also like to make the motion that we allocate the money as per item five I. And I'll second that. I do have a discussion point to make to after the city manager. And I'd just like to say that we will share those that critique with the housing authority and suggest ways that they can be more customer service oriented. And just to clarify one point from Debbie Porter, the city's community development director. And the housing authority is already set up to do phone phone appointments. So they are doing phone appointments. And they have agreed to reevaluate in 60 to 90 days once they have a sense of the volume of activity, the ability to set up in-person meetings at that time so that it's not that people can't meet, they're being done by the phone. And that's really to assess and understand the volume of activity under the new ordinance. Could you clarify, is a phone appointment mean that you still are talking on the phone, not in person. So you're still not allowed to make an appointment to meet with someone in person? It is set up to take phone appointments that's over the phone. And they have agreed in the next 60 to 90 days to evaluate capacity to do in-person meetings as well. All right, member Ashcraft. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the one comment I had from the staff report was from page three that says that. Starting on page two staff report. While RAC meetings at the Rent Review Advisory Committee meetings were previously held in the council chambers. They were not televised. The decision to relocate the meetings to the IPI community room that's in the. Independent's. Independence Plaza over adjacent to where the housing authorities offices are, was made to facilitate the mediation process and provide an informal setting that was more accessible to the mediating parties, particularly the tenants. There's some suggestion that given the increased awareness, it might be appropriate to relocate the RAC meetings back to the chambers and televise the meetings. I believe I was one of the motivating forces on getting the RAC meetings moved from this chambers to a more a setting that was more conducive to the mediation process because quite frankly, it was pretty awful when it was here and not the least bit user friendly. A mediation process for those who have participated should really have all the parties sitting around a table at eye level with each other, nobody looking down on one and not, you know, making landlord and tenant shuttled back and forth. And so I we also were going to consider some amendments to our Sunshine Ordinance this evening. And I know from reading that staff report that there are times when it's simply not possible or advisable to have a meeting someplace where we can have live streaming television. I don't think that's a necessity in this particular case, as long as we had an audio recording and accessibility to that. So again, I agree with the vice mayor that none of these changes and none of our ability to be more responsive to our especially our tenants in these cases. But landlords two is possible unless we vote for the funding. Thank you. And I personally prefer that the meetings be held here. The audio went there and I think it's important. Actually, I'd like us to consider televising it. The audio, if you playback the audio, it's very hard to tell who's speaking. It's really not a recording. And and I think it's actually critical for the success of REC that the meetings be held here where they are. I think this venue is is important. So I disagree with moving it well. In any way when we're not discussing that. So that was correct. Correct. So I appreciate that. So, all right. Do we have a motion. And we have a seconds that. Can be seconded? Can I ask one clarifying question? You said you were moving, appropriating the funds. Are you also approving the services agreement? Yes, that's correct. Yes. Yes. Thank you. On the second issue. Yes. All right. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Thank you. Motion carries 4 to 1. When when it was all right. And then a5k. And I pulled this one. Okay. I know you want to do the final passage of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with two tenure renewal options and an option to purchase with LME 2.3 developers for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Street, Alameda Point. This item requires four. Affirmative. All right. And this one staff has a presentation. I don't know if you wanted to go over it. We also have one speaker. Well, why are we having a staff presentation? There is a presentation on here. I don't know if Seth wanted to present. Any of it. Excuse me. Then that mechanic from the Community Development Department based. We use department staff would like. To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation.