Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Participating Generator Agreement with California Independent System Operator (CAISO); Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE) and CAISO; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Separate Interconnection Agreement with SCE; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Meter Servicing Agreement with CAISO; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Scheduling Coordinator Agreement with a certified scheduling coordinator. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08142018_18-0671

Thank you. Item 22 Please. Report from Energy Resources Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute five agreements with California Independent System Operator and Southern California Edison Citywide. There's a motion and a second issue of public comment on this item. Please cast your votes. Oh, there is. Please come forward. No, please come forward. This is important? No, absolutely. I'm just sorry. Saying that you're here for this item, so please come forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Um, my name is Dave Shukla, um, resident of Third. The electricity. Grid. Is by far. The greatest creation, greatest artifact that human beings have created. It is an achievement. It took 150 years. It literally allows us as a species to. Send an email across the world, map the entire world. And crucially, especially in the northern part of the state. Make more democratic, efficient and resilient. And that's very important. Resilient. Our electricity, electricity production, consumption, uh, procurement. There's a lot, especially the last item about process, about choice, about options. But specifically, having hearing on this and having presentation on this, having more public input on a lot of the. Tremendous changes to the grid that are still possible through AB 813, which is bad News Bears. I urge you. To. Really, really slow down and read through all of the. Implications of this and all the implications. I know he built half the city. I know that. But all the implications with all the. Liabilities that he has. This is. Important. It's very important. Please don't scoff, Kelly. So. Thank you. Thank you. This remark of a comment. Please calm down. Good evening. City council members and everyone in attendance here this evening. Well, just thank you for. Taking those off of the concert calendar for last week and making it an agenda item so we can have a comment on it specifically. I'm wearing a pin right now for the United Nations SDGs, which are sustainable development goals. I just want to you. Really see more information on this. I pulled the attachment and wasn't able to find too much. Spent quite some time looking at different grid alternatives that have been proposed by CAI. So from their last meeting on July 24th, this is goal number seven. Which is 7.2 by 2030 to increase system sustainability. Item 78.1, which actually pushes for us to reach targets for 2020 following the Climate Action Adaptation Plan. Just want to see more things which connect the dots and the public to participate in what's actually. Having spent time as a production partner in the cryogenics industry. At one point in my life. A difficult subject to broach with the public. So more information, possibly more attachments. Thank you very much. I see no other public comment. There is a motion of a second Councilman Price. I support this item. Okay. Councilman Pierce. Keep it. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. Looks like it is 23.

AN ORDINANCE granting BGO Plaza 600 JV LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a vehicular and pedestrian tunnel under the alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, north of Stewart Street; repealing Section 7 of Ordinance 119508; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120075

Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120075 An Ordinance granting Riggio Plaza 600. Permission to continue maintaining and operating a vehicular and pedestrian tunnel under the alley between Sixth Avenue and Seventh Avenue, north of Stuart Street. Repealing Section seven of Ordinance 119508 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are again recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. This third item is renewal of the permit for a small existing vehicular and pedestrian tunnel downtown, as described in the title of the council bill. The committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you so much. Were there any questions or comments on this item? Seeing none with a court. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Skinner I. Peterson High Council President, Pro Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven and seven, unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Or please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Okay. Item number. Well, for the part, please read item 12 into the record. Agenda item 12 Council Bill 120076 An Ordinance granting i ici rc dp Seattle Hotel LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under an across Seneca street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, repealing section eight of Ordinance 123539 and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency, through the California Climate Investments Urban Greening Program, for the 51st Street Greenbelt project; accept said grant, if awarded, in an amount up to $2,000,000 for completion of the project; and execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the project. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_05222018_18-0445

Motion carries. Thank you. And excited, please. 14 Item 14 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to submit a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency for the 51st Street Greenbelt Project. If awarded an amount up to 2 million for completion of the project District eight. Kathryn Austin Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this is an exciting opportunity for residents in a district in a neighborhood that has been long overlooked. I'd like to thank, first of all, Parks and Rec staff, especially Mayor Meredith Reynolds, for their work on this grant and concept. And on April 21st, we had a awesome Earth Day event at the 51st Street greenbelt, where we had a great turnout of neighbors who gave us input on a conceptual plan. This grant will activate a space that will further transform the green gateway that is taking place along the Los Angeles River, extending from the Dominguez Gap wetlands to Molina Park to the forest wetlands, and now the 51st Street greenbelt. This is a great space for residents of all ages to enjoy, and I ask for my colleagues to support this. This is going to be an awesome, awesome addition to your town. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. All good things. Any public comment? See. Now, please cast your votes.

Approves the landmark designation of 4655 Humboldt Street (Stadium Arena) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the landmark designation of 4655 Humboldt Street (Stadium Arena) as an individual structure for preservation 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 3-30-16.

DenverCityCouncil_04182016_16-0215

So the purpose of the landmark designation ordinance, which was passed in 1967, is to designate, preserve and protect historic resources, foster civic pride, stabilize and improve the esthetic and economic viability of the community. And to promote good urban design within the city of Denver, there are 335 individual landmark buildings and 51 historic districts. Those districts are comprised of about 6600 buildings. Out of the 160,000 primary buildings within the city, they can take a variety of forms commercial properties, firehouses, schools, churches or neighborhoods. Applications are submitted either proactively through surveys or grassroot community efforts, or also through demolition and certificate of non historic status reviews. In terms of who can apply by ordinance, it can be the owners of the property. The managers of CPD. Members of City Council. Or three persons who are residents or property owners within the city of Denver. Once a property is landmarked, it is designated as is. There are no requirements to improve the property and the only time that there is review is for exterior changes. Only a building isn't frozen in time. There are abilities to change, but we only review work on the exterior, not on the interior. Typically, structures that are determined to be contributing demolitions are discouraged for those parts. For this particular designation, there was one applicant who was the owner of the property. It went to Landmark staff, which we reviewed and determined that it was sufficient. It went to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a public hearing, which at that point they could terminate the procedure or they could recommend it going forward, which they did. And we are currently at the public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission notifications of of renos and all the legal notices were met for this particular designation. The property is 4655 Humboldt. We are designating everything that is in blue and that is the designation boundary. However, the only contributing structure within this is the stadium arena. The applicant for this is the city and county of Denver and it is supported by the owner of the property, which is of the building as well as the owner of the land, which is the Western Stock Show Association. There are currently several non contributing additions on this building. There's the stadium hall from 1991, the education hall and the exhibition hall. All of those would be allowed to be demolished, which is part of the the master plan for the National Western. The period of significance are when this building is important is from 1908 to 1951, when the stadium arena was the primary entertainment venue of the National Western Stock Show. In order for a property to be listed as a or designated, it has to maintain its historic and physical integrity and then meet two out of the three following categories in history, architecture and geography, as well as relate to a theme of Denver history. In order to maintain physical integrity, it has to convey its historic or architectural significance, and that is typically defined by the location setting design materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Stadium Arena's integrity is compromised by the construction of I-70. However, the stadium arena has historically been surrounded by transportation corridors, whether it was East 46th Avenue or the railroad to the west of it. It also maintains its physical integrity, although it's partially covered by non contributing additions. These additions attach very lightly to the building. And it's actually quite remarkable that the oval shape is still seen through it, even though there are attachments around it. In addition to meeting its physical integrity, it needs to meet history, and it does actually under all three of the criteria. It has a direct association with the historical development of the city. The National Western Stock Show is an important part of the city's history, and this is an iconic building within the National Western Stock Show complex. It is also the site of a significant event as the statue has been held for over 100 years. And this was the major event space of it. And it's also hosted thousands of other important events within Denver history. It is also associated with groups of persons who are directly or substantially associated or had an influence on society. This ranges from governors and senators to business people who have advocated for the construction and use of this particular building. It also meets it under architecture in two different two different areas as being an embodying, embodying distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style and portraying the environment of a group of people who. Characterized by distinctive architectural style. So it has a neoclassical style is seen in the curved cornices, the geometric embellishments on the brick walls, the hipped roof towers, and the regular symmetrical form and fenestration. It's also an important and early example of steel skeleton architectural design. It's also emblematic of the architect of the agricultural society. It is a descendant of the round barns and show barns that were historically used within the agricultural community. And finally, it meets geography as a prominent location and is making a special contribution to Denver's distinctive character. It's near the juncture of I-70 and I-25, and it is visible on I-70. It's also a well-known landmark within the city of Denver, within the global Elyria, Swansea, a neighborhood and within the national western complex itself. And finally, it makes a special contribution to the character of Denver. The National Western Stock Show is an important part of Denver, and this is its iconic building. The landmark designate, the Landmark Preservation Commission, also deemed that it met the history and context criteria under transportation and livestock industry being related to the National Western Stock Show, the city beautiful movement in Denver, and the development and growth of the Globeville, Illyria and Swansea and neighborhoods. At the public hearing, there were three letters of support for the designation. There was a ten minute presentation by the applicants and owners and three public speakers. All were in support of the designation application. The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the criteria and determined that it met its historic and physical integrity, that it met its criteria under history in all three areas under architecture into and geography into. They also felt it related to important historic contexts and themes in Denver history. And the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend the landmark designation move forward to City Council. All right. Hmm. We have three speakers signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call those three if you come up to the bench. That'll help speed up the proceedings. Liz Adams. Kelly Lead. John Olsen, Miss Adams, we will start with you. Members of Council. Mr. President, Pro Tem. My name is Liz Adams and my address is 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 1800. I'm here tonight to share comments from Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show. He has sent sends his apologies that he couldn't attend tonight. Here are his comments. Members of city council. As a property owner, the National Western Stock Show is in full support of historic designation of the stadium arena in 1909 1909, when the Western Stock Show Association built the arena, then called the National Amphitheater. This building was considered the most modern and prestigious place to show cattle in the country. It positioned Denver to become the livestock center of the West. For over a century, the Grand Champion steer has been shown in the stadium arena. It is a tremendous honor to show cattle and other livestock in such a historic place, and those who win in that arena know that they are forever etched in history with the other winners from the past 110 years. As we look to the future, we hope that the arena will continue to be a showpiece of the property. The Western Stock Show Association supports this landmark designation and looks forward to continued partnership with the city on preserving this and other important historic assets of the National Western Center. Redevelopment takes place. Thank you. Paul Andrews, President and CEO, National Western Stock Show. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Mr. Kelly. Lead. Members of council. My name is Kelly LEED, and I'm the executive director of the new Office of the National Western Center. It's a great honor and privilege to be here tonight to make a few comments about the application. The city and the entire team working on this project have made a commitment to honor and interpret the rich history of the Natural Western Stock Show. As the site evolves and redeveloped, this has truly been a partnership. This is the first win of many in a continued partnership between the city, the Western Stock Association, Community Planning Development , the National Western Citizens Advisory Committee, historic Denver History, Colorado, Colorado State University, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science to preserve and protect the resources at the future campus. The symbolism of this tonight shouldn't be lost. The Arena was the first permanent building built by the Western Structural Association and was a marvel for its time. Now it is the first historic landmark and one of many will be bringing forward to this council. The intent, future development in and around the arena and rehabilitation of the arena itself serves to complement and showcase the arena as a prominent, iconic and historic place at the National Western site. We've worked hard with our partners to determine an appropriate landmark boundary that would protect the views of the arena's historic features and also allow for historic growth around the building as envisioned by the master plan. On behalf of the Mayor and our entire team and all our partners, I encourage you to support this local landmark designation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leigh. Mr. John Olsen. Members of council. Thank you very much. My name is John Olsen. I'm at 1420 Ogden Street, Suite 202, and I am the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. And on behalf of Historic Denver, I am very pleased to offer our support for the designation of the 1909 Stadium Arena on the National Western Stock Show. I'm also truly happy to be here at Council for a well supported designation. Historic Denver has been actively involved in conversations related to the National Western site since 2011, advocating for the historic buildings and site features which convey the deep history of the site and provide much of its unique character. In 2011, we provided the city, the stock show and other stakeholders important background and contextual information about the history of the site and its historic buildings. And from 2013 through 2016, we have participated in the master planning process as a matter excuse me, as a member of the National Western's Citizens Advisory Committee, this character and associated cultural identity of the site are critical assets to the stock show and to Denver as a whole. The designation of the stadium arena, the first official stock show structure constructed and the oldest actual building still used much for its original purpose is the first a very and very important step in the preservation plans for the site. The designation will enable the city and the National Western's Doctoral Association to earn grants for further analysis of the building and to design specific restoration or rehab actions necessary to reactivate the building for ongoing year round use. We congratulate the City of Denver and the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative specifically and the National Western Stock Show Association for their work towards this very important action and offer our gratitude for their commitment to the stadium arena and the heritage of this uniquely Denver site. Thank you for your consideration to vote in favor of creating this very new Denver landmark. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Could I ask her a question or two? And the first one is, do we know? I read through the staff report and I did not. It looks like we don't know who the architect was. Have we been able to is he just not a he or she just not a famous architect? We don't know. There was actually a consulting firm that was hired to to write this. And I know they spent an extensive amount of time looking and trying to find the architect, and they simply couldn't find it. There's connections with the Chicago. Cattle in the stockyards. Yeah, sorry. There's a lot of connection between them and they think it was maybe inhouse designed by them, but we couldn't find anything. Also, then when I looked at P at Slide, I think it's eight with the blue box, the area being designated. Can you tell me, does that boundary being designated, does that restrict what can happen on the on the on the grade on the on the empty space, on the parking lot that's within that box? Or does it just affect the building? So the intake, so the entire blue box, that's the designation boundary. It would have design review for what would occur there. It doesn't necessarily say that nothing could occur there, but there would be design review for that, what's within that box. And we felt it would preserve the view sheds of because the building itself is oval and we wanted to preserve that. Great. That that's an excellent that's what I wanted to hear. KELLEY Can I ask you one thing to follow up on that? Can you tell us what are what are the project plans for the the stadium hall and the exhibition hall and how that might play into the designation? Sure. So the the other buildings you're referring to that are attached, correct? I mean, ultimately, those buildings would be demolished or torn down. They will be replaced with new facilities. And, you know, for those that have toured the 1909 building, there was a lot of care taken that those attachments to the old building. It won't be that hard to disassemble those buildings without damaging the 1909 building. So that's one. But, you know, those buildings, the ancillary buildings would be torn down. And then we'll go through a process. The master plan talks about the 19 or nine building as if you've been to the Pike Street Market up in Seattle, which is a year round food market. We've talked about that as a possible use, celebrating Colorado farmers and ranchers and products from all over the state. We'd have John Elway throw the ribeye instead of the salmon, of course, but we don't know. I mean, we're going to go through a process, but it's a it's a it's an incredible building that needs to be shared with future generations. And our goal is to preserve it. That's only because the Broncos don't really have a starting quarterback at the moment. So we'll get Mr. Sanchez an opportunity to throw one as well then. Do you know, have we studied whether those buildings, those ancillary buildings, can they be detached without damaging the exterior of the of the 1909? We believe so. I mean, again, we'll you know, part of the exercise is to get a grant to obviously study the structural integrity of the 1909 building. But just in our walks around the old building and how those ancillary buildings were attached, again, there was a lot of care given. It's literally lightly touching the building with with with very minimal invasive connections so that we can hopefully disassemble that without much damage to the 99. But thanks very much. Appreciate that's all the script. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinoza. Uh, a question for Kelly as well. The So do you have an actual set aside or project budget or one of those tasks that you've got many tasks over there at the stock show for restoration or real rehabilitation of this building? Because those old pictures show clear, a lot of clear story windows and things that are all lost to history. I agree there's a real light touch, so I'm just trying to figure out, do we have an actual plan in place yet? So the current budget, the 856 million covers phases one and two of the project, which includes land acquisition, some infrastructure in and around the site. The 1909 stadium arena actually falls in phase three, so we do not have designated funds specifically for its restoration. So part of this designation allows us to start to go after grants. And the first would be a structural assessment, and then we'd be looking at other grants to restore the building. But my hunch will be that we would look for partners to work with us as we identify the final use of that, that old building. Yeah. So just be I'm sure you're well aware the restoration that occurred at the capital and the rehabilitation of Union Station, somewhere in between, there would be nice to sort of restore the grandeur, the sort of exterior glory of that and the ramifications that that has on the interior. If those clearer story and all those windows were reintroduced would be pretty impressive. And then when you're doing your research, you mentioned Pike Place do take a look at Atwater Market in Montreal has similar sort of relationships to a two expressway freeway mass transit in a sort of moderate to low income community. But it is a year round indoor outdoor market in a climate that is not unlike Denver's. So it's a very good analogy. Plus, it has a walkway. I mean, actually both a canal and a bikeway get immediately within walking distance as well. So it's a very, very good analogy for this and. We'll add that to our list. Thank you. And just one more comment. But John, you mentioned well supported application. And I just want to go on record that those prior years that you've also been here while I've been on council were equally well supported in that they had tons actually tons more community support than I see here, a unanimous votes by landmark. And so just because it's owner designated doesn't take away from the fact that those were also well supported applications. I would absolutely agree. The the aspect of of of, you know, the aspect of saying that this is a well supported application. We have several of these that happen all the time. And of course, the ones that get a lot of press and the ones that fill up the the council chambers are generally the one. They're a little bit more contentious. But, you know, it would be wonderful if we actually had many, many more people here for an event like this, because I think this is going to be a really good feel good story for the entire city of Denver. And also, you know, obviously for the National Western Stock Show and the whole future that it begins here with the with the preservation of this very important. Piece. Of the National Western stock. And then we can take that and then and run with all of the other things that are planned for that site. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, President Pro Tem. You know there are any other questions for Constable 215. All right. This public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Let's start with Councilman Brooks, because it's in District nine. Then we'll go with Councilman Flynn. Go for it, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. First I want to say, uh, do not let the absence of Globeville area Swansea, a citizens advisory committee at the National Western Show for you. Because they're not here. Someone we're here just got a blow to the stomach around marijuana and they left. But there is a ton of support around this project. And, you know, this is one of those collaborative projects that you just got to be proud of, of the owner, the neighborhood, the community, the support of to see all coming together. And so really excited about that. And it's a job well done for thinking about places to emulate. Granville Island in Vancouver is another man, just great space that encompasses a lot of what you talked about. I think the process that happened with. The community here folks at the national western in D.C. see Kelley his team. Historic Denver landmark commission actually meeting at the site. I've never seen that before was it's a best practice. I don't know how many times you can pull that off, but that was great to see. Commissioners actually walked the site with lay folks like myself. And and you could really and I'll just mention one piece. The 1909 arena sits within another structure that was built several years later with just I mean, inches it did not touch the 1909 arena. Inches of space between it and you could really go in and notice the difference which kept that structure in place. I've been to the 1909 arena many times. Never have I really sat in the seats. I mean, people are literally back there. Little people. Little people. So to be able to see the historic nature was just incredible. And so I will be supporting this. I hope we you know, this is this is something I think the community can come around. But I think on an a macro level, to see more and more historic structures be supported by owners community, the historic community is is is a hope for the future. So I hope we see a lot more of these. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, it's it's really an honor to be had any role at all in designating structure for landmarking that is as significant as this one. And I know that there are going to be changes, interior changes. But when you walk into that building and I was going to say it takes you back, but it doesn't really take you back into the past. It takes you into the heart and soul of what made this city. And that's what's so beautiful about it. And it's it's just an honor and a pleasure to be able to vote. Yes. And that's really all I wanted to say, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinoza. Yeah. I just wanted to thank the stock show and everybody involved with, you know, bringing this designation, an owner designated application. It's it's just, you know, it doesn't have to happen. And it did. And so I thank you for that because it's an important piece of Denver history. And then, Councilman Brooks, just four words, high fructose corn sirup. That's the difference between back then and now. So I hope in the future, Kelly, as you're making this the food mecca of the world or agricultural mecca of the world, we sort of try to address our sugar problem. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. And thank you all. We had a great discussion in our committee meeting and delved more deeply into the topic. And I just wanted to say thank you for all of your hard work. Clearly, we're all really excited about this. So thank you. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman. I just want to congratulate you also, Kelly, for the leadership you bring to the National Action Center. And the development is going to be quite an asset and a really jewel for Denver. And not only the new facilities and new partnerships you're bringing to the side, but also the most important thing, preserving this historic part of the important part of the structure. So graduations and we look forward to a great, great National Resource Center. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very excited and pleased to have the opportunity to support this designation. And I want to give just a little bit go a little bit East Coast here. So when I came out in 1971 to Colorado, I really expected I would be in the midst of the Wild West and there would be simulated gunfights on the streets and there would be all this stuff. And I was quite seriously really surprised at how little respect the city seemed to have for its Western heritage. You know, we had the I discovered the stock show early on, you know, for several weeks each year, but then that feeling kind of went dormant. And I am really looking forward to seeing the transformation out on the National Western Center grounds and expect that we will finally give Denver's Western heritage a real showcase that it deserves. So, again, I'm real happy to support this. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, are there any other comments? All right. I just wanted to say I am glad this is going to be designated. I think it's an amazing arena. I remember walking in before we had the the amendment on. Well. Before to see. And it's falling apart. So I am glad that this is going to get designated. I'm glad we have resources pouring into this. This is one of those structures that we just cannot lose. It's overshadowed by the skyline most of the time. But we cannot lose this. This is an amazing arena. So much history has been here. And I'm looking at both of you in different capacities. You've worked really hard and to help make this happen, you, sir, as well. But also, I think one thing that we can one group that we cannot thank you enough and is the voters of our city. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for that. So thank you. Mr. President. Councilman Brooks? Yes, I'm I'm sorry. I just want to say every time and a big issue comes up in this part of the district, I never say this enough, but I just got thank Councilwoman Monteiro. Who. Yeah, she teed up everything. I mean, I've only been over this for six months, and so I just want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro and her leadership for 12 years in this district. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, I think that's it. Can we have a roll call on Council Bill 215? Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I can. Absolutely. I can eat. You. SUSSMAN Black eye. Mr. President. All right. BROOKS You're hanging fire. Sorry. All right. Madam Secretary, close the voting. And as a result, 11 eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 215 has passed. On Monday, May 16, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 216 Changing the zoning classification for 1400 Race Street. Any protests against Council Bill 216 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, May 19. Seeing that there's no other business before this body today, this meeting is adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE relating to public accommodations; requiring persons owning or managing a place of public accommodations to activate closed captioning on television receivers; and adding a new Chapter 14.05 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_04152019_CB 119487

That. So we are doing it. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution. Resolution is adopted. Chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. The Report The Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119 47 to public accommodations requiring persons owning or managing a place of public accommodations to activate closed captioning on television receivers and adding a new Chapter 14.05 to this out of respect, the committee recommends the bill passes amended. Member Herbold. Thank you very much. Like to first get the amendment before the council and so Amendment One adds a new section two in re numbers. The remaining sections numbers accordingly. Thank you. Speaking to the amendment, the amendment itself is one that my staff worked with the Office of Civil Rights to specifically focus that we get more detail in the form of a report on the racial equity impact within the 180 day outreach and education period, specifically detailing the impact of enforcement of this ordinance on immigrant and or refugee run businesses. The law itself goes into effect 30 days after the mayor signs, but the enforcement of the law does not go into effect for 180 days . And so this amendment, as it's written, allows us to get that information before SOCOM begins enforcement. And just as a as a reminder, the enforcement mechanism and approach that OCR is going to be using for this ordinance is very similar to that used for the all gender restroom ordinance. So it's much more of a an education and outreach approach, seeking compliance rather than seeking violence, the issuance of violations and fines. Very good. Thank you for that. This is just the amendment only. Are there any comments on the amendments articulated by Councilor Herbold to a vote on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i i those opposed vote no or nay. The nos have the ayes have it. So we have an a minute piece of legislation. We would like to describe the base legislation as a minute customer. Well, please. Thank you. So this ordinance basically puts into law what is currently arguably a already a required accommodation as it relates specifically to to a public accommodation obligation under the ADA. And so what this does is that it shifts the onus, which currently exists in the ADA, where people have to request an accommodation. And instead what it does is it shifts that onus from the individual in the deaf or hearing loss community to request closed captioning as the public accommodation, to instead have the expectation that it be provided in a in advance. And this is again the objective is to shift norms so that people are better able to engage in public life. And so the ordinance itself is modeled in some ways better than similar ordinances in other jurisdictions. Some cities, some states have similar similar ordinances. Portland's Law Passed in 2015. Ann Arbor, Michigan's ordinance took effect in 2017. And there's a similar bill in Rhode Island. And basically what it would require is it would require that in public places that the closed captioning on a television be basically turned on. One of the things I learned through deliberations on this bill is TVs all have the ability to simply turn on the closed captioning with their remote. So this is a simple and easy thing for for businesses to do. The background on this is that the Commission with People with Disabilities adopted a resolution last November to support this ordinance. They identified it as a a priority in their work plan with the intent, again, to ensure full participation and inclusion for members of the hearing loss and deaf community to take place in public activities. The again, the Office of Civil Rights will be the enforcement mechanism, and enforcement will consist of a report of violation and an investigation notification to the business and a request for a written response. And the again, the model is very much replicating that of the all gender bathroom ordinance. The the other benefits of of this bill are there are also benefits not just to the hearing loss community, but folks who are have English as a second language and the really appreciated the opportunity to work with the business community in introducing some amendments that that they had requested. One requested amendment was to create some exceptions for programing that. Is not that is already exempt under state and federal law. Another amendment clarifies that if multiple televisions are for sale in a public area, that at least one of each model must have closed captioning turned on. And, you know, one of the again, one of the things that I've learned through through working with the disabilities community on this is that the, the, the need to have to request a public accommodation really has a psychological impact on groups that have been historically marginalized. And some of some of those studies have been some some of that that experience has been captured in studies that are academic studies and that point to the fact that internalized bias and inferiority inhibit the ability for people to be confident and take advantage of opportunities and activities available for the rest of the public. And I know that we here in Seattle want to make sure that we're removing those barriers whenever we can. Thank you. Very much. Any further comments on the legislation as described by Councilmember Herbold? Okay. If not, please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Macheda O'Brien High School. John Major Gonzalez Herbold. I was President Harrell high eight in favor and. Unopposed bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item into the record show title.

AN ORDINANCE amending Seattle Municipal Code sections 22.206.160 and 22.214.075 to prohibit evictions of residential tenants from rental housing units if the units are not registered with the Department of Planning and Development as required by SMC 22.214.040.

SeattleCityCouncil_03232015_CB 118340

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item six. Three by the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Agenda. Item number six Council Bill 118 340 Amending certain Mr. Code Sections 2.206. 160 and 22.21 4.0 75. To prohibit evictions of residents residential tenants from rental housing units if the units are not registered with the Department of Planning and Development as required by SNC. 22.2 14.0 40. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Thank you. This item relates to a bigger policy and program change that the city instituted a couple of years ago, which is the requirement that if you run a rental housing business of however many units that might be small or large, you have to be registered with the city. And it is part of attesting and proving that rental properties in the city of Seattle are actually safe and habitable for people to live in. One of the things that was unfortunately not addressed at the time has to do with evictions, and none of us really like to talk about evictions, but they happen, and both parties should be well aware of their rights within that. One thing that we didn't note was that really in order to pursue an eviction, one needs to be legally registered and operating under the law within the city of Seattle in order to have protection of the just cause ordinance. So this proposed legislation prohibits a rental property owner from evicting a tenant from a rental housing unit. If the rental unit is not registered as required, not properly registered under the city's rental registration and inspection ordinance. Under the city's ordinance, owners of rental properties must be registered by a certain date, depending on how many units are in the building. So properties with ten or more units, they needed to be registered by September 30th of 2014. Properties with 5 to 9 rental units must be registered by March 31st of 2015. That's very soon for anybody who's listening. Properties with between one and four rental housing units. And that's really the larger the larger mass of owners in the in the city must be registered between June 15th and December of 2016. So again, this makes clear that in order to pursue an eviction, if you're supposed to be signed up with the rental registration and inspection ordinance , that you had to do that in order to be pursuing a just cause eviction in the city of Seattle. There we did have some helpful commentary from folks who unfortunately have experience with evictions, be it on the tenant side or the landlord side in court. And so we did work out an amendment that was forwarded by the Washington Multifamily Housing Association, and I appreciate their careful review of this. And there was the issue brought up that if really there's a health and safety issue coming up and if the if the property owner is pursuing a court level eviction and if it really is a health and safety issue, you don't want somebody to have to start over. You want to be able to help cure the problem quickly. So this amendment allows a rental owner who has filed an eviction lawsuit in court and who becomes aware that the rental unit is not registered under under REO to be able to pursue the eviction with just cause that they have time then to become registered and then to proceed with the lawsuit, they would not have to start over from square one again. It allows the owner to comply with you and then to proceed with the lawsuit without it being fully dismissed by the judge or the magistrate. The situation could arise in the early phases of implementation of the rental, registration and inspection ordinance. I think we have we have another report coming up soon, letting us giving us some idea of how many people we think are registered at this point. And so the numbers are climbing, but it is an education process. The committee recommends adoption of this change. Thank you. Questions or comments? Council members who want. I think this is a good step forward, and I'm happy to support this council bill to close the particular loophole as described by Councilmember Clark in the city, still in protections. And we all know this is happening rampantly throughout the city where there are more and more horror stories of tenants in Seattle losing their homes to the greed of developers. And just as an example of how much farther we need to go, my office I started organizing with a building full of tenants near Otello, and those tenants are being told that they will not have access to relocation assistance because of the kind of leases they sign. And they are being told by their landlord that they sign away their lives, their right to relocation assistance from the by the leases that were signed years ago. This particular law that we're voting on today is a good thing, but that's the the loophole that is allowing the landlord to exploit those tenants in Ontario will not be addressed. But this law and I raised this to point out that there are so many loopholes that are being used as use against tenants. And we need laws to close all of those loopholes and to protect tenants. Any other questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Clerk Darren Harrell. Licata O'Brien II Rasmussen. So while President Burgess. Ian Favre. None oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items seven and eight.

Recommendation to request City Attorney prepare a resolution condemning the insurrection and violence that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

LongBeachCC_01192021_21-0064

Bush and Kerry's. Thank you. Our final item, please. Item 28 is communication from Councilmember Ranga. Councilwoman Sunday has Councilwoman Allen Vice Mayor Richardson recommendation to request city attorney to prepare a resolution condemning the insurrection and violence that occurred at the United States Capitol on January six, 2021. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Councilmember Arango from the motion. Who's the second? Sun has company in Tauranga. Your comments take us back. Richardson. First of all, I want to thank my colleagues for staying with me. I also want to thank Congressman, but also Congresswoman Nancy Levitt of Oregon State Senator Dina Gonzalez for sending their letters of support of the sale. This unit since November 3rd, 2020 124. President Trump spreading misinformation about the 2020 election. He has claimed without evidence that he won the election. Courts around the country have debunked these claims. 61 campaign lawsuits have been filed. And none of these lawsuits found evidence of widespread voter fraud. January six was meant to be. A day when the. Routine procedure of counting intellectual ballots and certifying the election of President elect Joe Biden was to take place. It was anything but routine. Earlier that day at the urging of President Trump and with the help of his enablers, rioters stormed the Capitol in hopes of stopping the count, changing the vote and declaring Trump the winner of the election. What we have learned over the period of the last two weeks is that the event was planned and orchestrated and an insurrection that threatened the very lives of members of Congress and the president and the vice president of the United States, and that it resulted in the loss of five souls. Consequently, I mean, courageously, Vice President Pence and the United States legislature were not intimidated by the violence. I reconvened later that evening to ensure that the votes of the Electoral College were counted. When these insurgents stormed the United States Capitol, they were attacking the very idea of democracy. It is important that we stand united in defense of democracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning the violence and desecration of the United States Capitol building that took place on January six, 2021. And I also urge you to join me in condemning. The actions and inactions of President Donald J. Trump that led to the lawlessness in the United States Capitol. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gringa, I mean, council members. And they have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I really want to thank Councilmember Otunga for bringing this item to council today. I know I'm speaking for each of us and expressing how horrific it was to watch the events on January six unfold before our eyes. The act with this act of terrorism was just a horrible, horrible, horrible attack on the values of our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. And the only thing that that's more difficult to me is, is to the understanding on just how horrible this attack was, just watching it on TV. I was I was broke and I felt helpless. And I am sure that a lot of our residents felt the same way. It was such an invasion to all of us. It was such a horrific hit to all of us. We are a country that as a group that has great gratitude to our to those who step up and become lawmakers and to be who become the press and who are officially working to protect our nation, our nation's capitol. And that day was just horrified to see everybody scramble and everybody fear for their lives. I will never be able to shake off the fear in their faces of our of our elected officials that were on in that floor that day. And with that, I just want to say thank you again. And I join Councilmember Rotunda. And in condemning that day for what happened, that horrific terror terrorist act that happened against our capital. Thank you. Any city council comments? Madam. Madam Clerk. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I want to thank Councilman Ranga as well for bringing this item forward. I know some of my colleagues, I that I've shared this personal story with know this, but some probably don't. And some members of the public may not know it at all. But when I was seven years old, I was living in the country of Iran, and we were going through a political revolution. And I remember the day right before my mother and I left the country, when my mother and father were late picking me up from school and I was hiding under the desk of the school principal with the principal waiting for my parents to pick me up. And when wait, when they got there and we went through the streets, the streets were just crowded with people we could barely get our car through. There were trash cans filled with fire. There were burning books related to the existing government trying to bring in a new government. And watching what I was watching on the sixth was the first time since I was seven years old. That's 41 years that I recall the vivid scenes from that day, the way that I did. I mean, it was just to me, it just was a reminder of an unstable government. And that made me so sad. And I know that a lot of Americans felt that way, and I know a lot of Persians felt that way because that's exactly the environment that we all fled. And there's no doubt in my mind that if the people who were climbing the walls of that building looked anything like me or some of my male relatives. There is no doubt in my mind it would be called terrorism or in the mind of anyone from my community. And so what happened to our nation on that day was horrific. It was unbelievable and completely unacceptable, regardless of what political party you're in or who you supported for president. And I'm grateful for Congressman Lowenthal and Congresswoman Barragan, who have kept in communication with me since that happened, because my very first thoughts went to them when I was seeing all of this unfold because they were there and I was safe here. So. I appreciate Councilman Ranga bringing this forward. This is not a partizan issue. This is an American issue. And countries that are unstable politically and are fractured go through things like that. America should never go through a thing like that. That's why those of us who fled unstable governments worked so hard to make this government, our government, great and strong. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. Thank you. Is there any additional comment? That concludes council comment. Thank you. I'll add my comments here. First, I want to thank Councilman Turanga for bringing this forward. I know and I want to thank the city council members for their for their comments. Are. Certainly. Going to do it now. Councilmember Okay. All right. I'll get my comments. And I think Councilmember Alan Watts wants to speak. So to be brief, I certainly agree with the sentiments of our city council members. I think this is this is, you know, this this transcends politics. This was a moment for American unity. And it was a and it really put things in perspective. The scenes were were were they weren't pretty. They were very disturbing to see the Confederate flag flying inside the United States Capitol, particularly now. And it just reminds us all that, you know, it may be convenient to turn the cheek on racism or to, you know, be neutral or, you know, these things are I'm not racist and so on and so forth. But it's not about whether individuals are are neutral on racism. It's about acknowledging the existence of a violent white supremacist movement that that was put on display for national for the entire world that day. And we need to make sure that we're all on the right side of this thing. And we we are clear as a city council that, you know, politics aside, we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, United States and Constitution in California. And that's why I think this was was appropriate. A lot of times we focus on, you know, the politics in our own backyards, and that's important. But this is one of those moments of significance that we need to stand up and say what is right and wrong is wrong. And we have work to do as a country to bring everyone together. I want to acknowledge our our congresspeople for staying in communication with us constantly through this process. And I have to say, you know, we you know, the 20 that Wednesday's inauguration can't come soon enough. And we'll look forward to marching together as one community, as one country starting tomorrow. So. So thank you so much. Councilmember Allen, were you trying to get in to the conversation? Yeah. Just real quickly, I just want to say, you know, I signed on to this item because I believe that in every community and in every corner of our country, we have to speak up against the violence that was perpetrated on our nation's capital. In this country, we settle our disagreements peacefully through the democratic and the legal processes. I, i, too, want to thank Councilmember Turanga for taking the lead on this. Him and I had long conversations about this, and it was just a horribly sad day for our country. And the inauguration can't come soon enough. I also want to thank Congressmembers Lowenthal and Berrigan and Senator Lena Gonzalez for their support on this item. It's fantastic. Is there any public comment on this item? Yes, we have Tiffany Deeb. Tiffany Davey. Good evening, Mayor. City Councilman Tiffany Daly, District four resident. I'd like to thank Councilmember Ranga and others for bringing this item forward. I support this item in which the city condemns violence and desecration on the Capitol that took place on January six, as defined in the US government community awareness briefing. Violent extremism refers to violence committed in the name of an idea ideology to further political social agenda. The ideologies protected force of violence on its behalf is not within the United States. On a local, state and federal level, individuals and communities will face the challenges of violent extremism going forward as a result of ignoring the building extremist movement over recent decades. And though much can be said of the role of the individual in the role and engage in forming a resilient community can and must aid in preventing violent extremism, it is imperative we build community capacity to respond and prevent type. Encourages city and community members to embark upon this important work, which is also necessary. Creating a local prevention framework in conjunction with the local intervention framework for preventing violent extremism. It can happen anywhere. It is possible that the city may seek similar funding that was available to Callaway. USA is preventing violent extremism program Iran in the past three years, funded under Homeland Security Goal ten, which was preventing violent extremism in multi-jurisdictional jurisdiction and the collaboration coordination. Now that programs start to create these plans, which were aimed at preventing violent extremism. A community effort. In 2016, white supremacist crimes rose 67% in L.A. County, and over the past six years, hate crimes rose 36% across the county. Now. Tomorrow, we're going to welcome a new administration that's tasked with some of the most grave problems and crises we've seen at such a scale in our lifetime. Our collective focus is not yet on healing, but rather addressing this crisis. I look forward. To speaking up when I see him and expecting the same of my community members. Dalton went on to report hate crimes. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you for several, probably. Councilwoman Sunday has. High. Councilwoman Allen. High Councilwoman Price. I. Councilman Sabrina. Hi. Councilwoman. Mongo. By Councilwoman Sara. I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. Motion carries. Thank you. That satisfies our agenda. We'll now we'll move to new business. Any announcements from the city council? Just jump in if you have an announcement. All right. Well, hearing done. Thank you all and have a great night.

Recommendation to receive a report on the Strategy for the Tidelands Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan and approve the Tidelands Capital prioritization criteria. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02032015_15-0051

Great. Thank you. Next item. Item number 13 report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive a report on the strategy five year capital plan and prioritization criteria for the Tidelands Capital City Wide. Thank you. Before I turn this over, I just want to say that there has been a lot of conversation, obviously, about our Tidelands Fund and the challenges we're having with oil, the production of oil, the cost that we are evaluating our our price of oil, and both the Highlands and the Uplands Oil Fund. I wanted to just take a quick moment and thank the city staff. You guys have done a great job up to this point for giving us a report and especially point out Councilwoman Price and Council and Vice Mayor Lowenthal, who have been all over this issue. And so I'm sure we'll hear from them tonight. So I'll turn this over to staff. Mayor, council members. Obviously, we have been paying a lot of attention to the oil industry and the price of oil during the past six months as it affects our budget both operationally and capital project wise. So tonight, we're gonna give you a quick update on where we're at. Does it or does it not affect us in the current fiscal year? What premises will we have to accept as we go forward in next fiscal year as we put together the budget? Our finance director, John GROSS, is going to talk more about the operating side. And then our assistant city manager, Tom Modica, is going to talk about the capital side. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much. City Manager West, we're going to be talking as as the manager said about the strategy for the decline in the price of oil and how it impacts our main funds, primarily the Titans fund. But we're also going to talk about the Uplands Oil Fund. This is essentially going to parallel the memo that was that you got on December 31st, and it's included in your packet with some updates based on the most recent information that we have. Once I figure out how to. Get this. Slide to move forward, the you're going to hear about a background on oil prices, an update on the Uplands Fund and the general fund, an update on the Tidelands operating budget, the impact on the Tidelands capital budget and the five year plan. And then Assistant City Manager Modica will be talking about the impact on the capital projects, the updated strategy for Tidelands Capital Project and the five year plan and then next steps. Let's say you're allowed to do that. The oil was at about $100 a barrel for the last three years. There was no problem until about August of this year after the budget had been developed for oil price began declining. At that time, it looked like it was a pretty normal oscillation. But oil has continued to decline, and it's currently about $40 a barrel. Actually, today it's about 45, but it continues to oscillate subsequent to that decline. It's been pretty well determined that the price decline was caused by basic economics, that the supply of oil simply exceeds the demand at present. This is a chart that shows the history of the price of oil over the last eight years. It does oscillate, but in particular it jumped up and to that in 2008 and dropped in 2009. And then from about January 2011 to now, it's been at about $100 a barrel. It was at $100 a barrel when the price was when the budget was developed this year. And then it started its decline, as you see on the chart. So what is the impact of of these price declines on the budgets of the city? Well, the operating budgets of the city assume oil is at $70 a barrel. The titans capital plan assumes oil is at $100 a barrel. Those are the prices that are used when the budget is developed. We use $70 a barrel for the operating budget so that there is leeway. If the price of oil drops in this case, it could drop by more than 30%. We would still be okay with our operating budget if if the price of oil dropped no more than 30%. We've seen more than a 30% drop. The assumption of $100 for the Tidelands capital budget allowed for planning of important city council projects and how those projects would be allocated and when they would be done. If oil remained at what had been a relatively steady price for the last few years, so we used $70 to the operating budget and $100 for the capital budget in developing this year's budget. What has actually happened. Obviously, we're no longer at one. We looked at the market when we did this update at the end of November and felt that the best projection was that oil might be at $60 a barrel for FY 15 and 16 and maybe it would be at $70 for FY 17 through 19 for projection purposes. That projection is going to be just a starting point because any long term projection of oil is going to be problematic because the future price is unpredictable. That being said, there is no indication at present that oil is going to return to $100 any time soon. But it certainly could happen. It could continue to rise. It could fall at any time. The current oil price of Iran, $45 a barrel does require us to do an updated projection. The $60 and $70 projection that we just did no longer seems appropriate. We will be updating it in the first quarter of this year, the January through March period. On the next slide, I thought it was important to show what the commodities market and the people who speculate on the future who bet money on the price of oil, what are they saying in this chart? Shows what they have said at three different time periods. On the horizontal axis is years. This is a chart that represents 2014. Basically at the time the budget was adopted through 2020 and shows the prices that people are betting money on what the price of oil might be over the future. The top graph, which was as of June 30, 2014, when we did the budget, shows that in 2014 the price of oil people bet on the price of oil being $100 and the betting was then that it would drop it down to about $82 a barrel over the next five years through 2020. That was what the expectation was of the commodities market when we did the budget, $100 a barrel and dropping over time. The next graph, the line, the gray one is the price of oil in the commodities market over the years, over the future. On November 28th, the day we did this projection that you're seeing tonight, it said that the immediate price of oil would be around $60 a barrel and the betting was that it would rise to a little above $70 a barrel over the next five years. Today or as close today as we could get January 28th. The bottom curve says that the commodities market, oil market is betting that the price of oil will be in the area of $40 over the next few months and then rise slowly over the next five years to about $60 a barrel. That's the betting of the market, that of the commodities market. That by no means mean that that's what actually going to happen. It probably doesn't represent what is actually going to happen, but it is a guess by the people who actually bet on the market. So how does that information impact our revenues for our various two oil funds, uplands and Tidelands? As I mentioned, the Uplands oil fund revenue is budgeted at $70 per barrel by policy. Anything above $70 per barrel is budgeted the next year and used for one time expenditures. Uplands oil money has two sources. It isn't just from the sale of oil. That's about half the revenue. The other half of the revenue is actually a contractual fee assessed on production and exploration costs in the city's oil production area. That is as production and exploration goes up. The money in the uplands fund goes up also. So based on the current projection of $60 and $70 oil, we expect that the uplands oil revenues will be adversely impacted by several million dollars a year from both the lower price of oil and lower production costs. That is important because the uplands oil revenue supports the general fund and general fund operations. We transfer about $17 million a year to the general fund to support operations such as police and fire and parks and public works purposes. That's about 4.4% of the general fund. And we put that number in there to show that it's not 10%. It's not 15%. It's not that big of a number. But it's also not a small number like 1%. So it's significant, but not not an overly large percentage of the general fund. We are also suggesting by way of this projection that all the money will be needed for operations and there probably will not be any one time revenue that the city has had for the last several years. Coming from the Uplands Oil Fund, that one time money is typically used for capital purposes to support improvements throughout the city . We do need to update this projection. The projection is and was not very specific in November because the production costs were changing. We knew that whatever projection we had would be out of date before we even printed it. So we will be doing an updated projection in the first quarter of 2015, January through March. As an aside, we also expect that production of oil will decline somewhat in Long Beach and that will reduce revenue from an oil barrel tax. Probably not a huge amount of money. It generates about $600,000 a year, $6 million a year. So there'll be some reduction in that source also. So let's switch to the Titans fund entitlements, oil revenue first that revenue. Oil revenue is impacted by three factors the price of oil and the amount of oil produced. The price of oil times the amount of oil produced gives you a revenue, but that revenue is offset by the cost of production and exploration. Both production cost and investment in oil exploration are being reduced in Long Beach. This is happening throughout the country where many oil companies are scrambling to reduce their production and exploration costs. And the company in Long Beach is doing exactly the same. Those lower production costs and lower investment in oil exploration will somewhat temper the loss of revenue because even though will have lower revenue will also have lower costs. Also, the projections show that even if oil returned to $70, the revenue that's generated in this current market may be somewhat lower than the current $70 limit that we had. So some of these dollars in the future may not being quite as much revenue, at least in the immediate future, even when the price comes up. So let's talk about what the impact is on the Tidelands operating budget. The projection at the 60 and $70 level shows that all Tidelands revenues will be need. Oil revenues will be needed to support operations. Even with all the revenues going to operations and none to capital, that tidelands operations may still have a shortfall in the area of 1 to $2 million in FY15, and deficits could exist in the future. Also, in fact, they're likely now we are doing an updated projection. You you've heard that oil is now in the 40, $45 a level, which is much lower than the 60 to $70 projection you're seeing here. But production costs will also be lower. So we're not sure what those numbers will say. And that's why we need a new projection. And we're working on that now. In the Tidelands Capital area. I mentioned before that all revenues will be needed to support operations, so there aren't going to be any new capital moneys available for the foreseeable future until revenues increase and oil prices increase. However, there is still a substantial amount of capital revenue available, even if there's no new money. We have a total of about $95 million available that can be used for capital. 22 million of that is unassigned from unassigned funds available. Bottom line, money that hasn't been assigned yet and $73 million is available that has already been assigned by city council to existing projects. But these projects are either incomplete or not under construction and could be reassigned or could be used for the projects for which they were originally intended. So $95 million estimated is available. We're still fine tuning that number. It could be a little different as we really fine tune the accounts that also be updated in the first quarter. At this time, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Assistant City Manager Modica, who will talk about the existing capital projects that haven't been built, what our strategy is and what our next steps are. Thank you, Mr. GROSS. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As John mentioned, we do have significant resources available to us in cash, not a projection that's actual dollars. That's that $95 million that we have identified that can be reprogramed for funding. And so while that's a very large number, we also have approximately 232 million in projects that are budgeted or in the five year capital plan that are incomplete or that construction has not started. Those projects, it's a long list. You have it in the in the materials, but includes things like remaining phases of the elements. Bay, Marina rebuild remaining phases of the Naples seawalls. The Belmont Beach, an aquatic center, the Seaside Way Bridge, Belmont Pier, Pine Avenue, public dock concession stands, and many, many other smaller projects. And so what we are recommending is that the Council prioritize the existing projects that we have and go through a prioritization project process. And so we will be prioritizing those incomplete and unconstructive projects based on prioritization criteria, which are what are before you tonight. We believe by putting those criteria in front of the council and getting direction, we'll be able to use those criteria to put essentially all of our projects into a priority order list. New oil revenues when they are received, will also be assigned to that list based on the prioritization. And then we will proceed with those projects when the funding matches the estimated current project cost. This won't be a static list. We will have the council adopted this year, but then we'll be able to update it as we go through the budget process annually. And so the proposed prioritization criteria that you'll be considering tonight in ranked order are public health and safety. The extent to which it's a health project or a safety project to the number of California residents impacted. We are in the Tidelands area, so we do have to think of all of the residents in California. We're also obviously very concerned about the impact on our local residents as well, urgency and whether there's an urgency to do the project, the poor condition or of the current project or the need and unmet need that we have in our community. Number five, the contribution to the quality of life. Number six, whether or not it generates revenue and and the extent that operating costs play a factor in that as well. Number seven, the ability to attract additional funding or a match. Number eight, the lack of alternative funding sources. And number nine, the capital cost. And as we look at all the projects, we also want to bear in mind that we look at the overall diversity and balance of projects as a criteria, as an overall criteria. And so tonight, we're looking forward to your direction on those proposed criteria and and receive comments and direction. We will then take that criteria once adopted and create that list of prioritized capital projects and return to the City Council in the first quarter of 2015 for further discussion and approval of that list. We'll continue to update our projections for capital, Thailand's capital and our operating budgets and our uplands oil fund budget during the first quarter as well. And then in March is when we kick off our budget process and we'll be coming back with how does oil factor into all of our revenues. So while oil, as you see tonight, is is trending downward, there are other revenues that are moving in other directions and there's costs as well. And we'll be putting all of that into a comprehensive analysis to come back and talk to you about in March. With that, that is. Our report and staff are available to take your input on the criteria and to answer questions. Thank you. I want to thank the staff for putting together this presentation and want to share that. Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I have had an opportunity to meet regarding this issue and the agenda item tonight, which is specifically limited to prioritizing the projects that are pending in both of our districts and determining whether or not the criteria that's been proposed by staff is something that we believe is is a is a proper way to assess what the priorities of our districts are and how we will be able to fund the most necessary projects. And I think we have a very good start. We're moving forward in a spirit of collaboration and looking forward to addressing these issues together as we move ahead. I do, and I'm going to be actually motioning at this point to approve the recommendation, and I would ask a few questions in regards to that. First of all, I will say that the number one question that I get asked about this issue in my district is whether or not this is going to impact the building of the Belmont Pool. That's the first question I get. Well, actually, it depends on what community I'm in, but the first general question I get is whether it's going to impact the pool. If I'm in Naples, they ask if it's going to impact the sea walls and if I'm near a body of water, they ask if it's going to impact the marina. But generally speaking, people are concerned about whether it's going to impact the pool. And I will say, I think it's important to note that and perhaps Mr. Modica can help me with this, the pool where we're approximately 12 months away from being in a position where we would be able to start construction on the pool because we still need to go through the Coastal Commission process. Is that correct? That is correct. There's a number of steps that we still need to do. We need to unveil the Environmental Impact Report and to comment on that and on the design and then go through the entitlement process, including the Coastal Commission. So we are at least a year away, if not longer. And so we would not be in a position to fully fund the pool and begin construction this year regardless of the condition of the Tidelands Fund. Is that correct? Correct. At our at our most aggressive estimate, if all funding were available, we would not begin construction until the beginning of 2016. Okay. And as I understand from your comments, Mr. Modica, we will be this is whatever priority list we come up with is not it's going to be fluid and we're going to adjust as the market adjusts and as funds become available. Would that be accurate? Absolutely. In regards to and and so we my my position has always been that I would rather build the right pool for our city than a lesser pool based on a fluctuating budget that could change at any time. And that that it's my opinion that we wait and we do it right. And that is just the prudent thing to do and it's the fiscally responsible thing to do. And that's just my personal opinion. In regards to the operating budget and this is perhaps a question for for Mr. West and he and I have talked about this. I think it's really important at this juncture that we take a look at our operating budget and make a determination as to whether all of the charges that are going to that fund are appropriate and that we are exercising diligence and making sure that we're not charging anything to that budget that perhaps doesn't belong in that area . Mr. West, is that something that you think city staff is committed to or can take a look at? Absolutely. We're committed to that and we will look at that. Okay. Because I think if there's opportunities to tighten that budget up a little bit more in terms of what we're charging to it, then then the deficit issues may be lessened to that potential deficit. So that's something that I would request be given some priority. And my understanding is that we are going to come back at some date certain to talk about the specific projects and the priority list for those projects. When do we expect that to be? So in our report, we were saying the first quarter of 2015, which essentially means February or March. So I think we're shooting between March, end of March as the time frame to come back once we get this criteria will be going through it and kind of ranking each one, probably using a color coded type of a system so that it's easy to and visual to see and then put those in a list to see how much funding we have to fund the projects and then bring that back. I want to take a moment to thank our Parks Rec and Marine Department. I had an opportunity last week to take a tour and look at all of the bathrooms in. That are on the project list in my district in the Tidelands area, and it was very informative. I mean, we literally went in and looked at every stall and tried to be to think in a fiscally prudent way to determine, is this something that we can rehabilitate by changing a few tiles or changing the paint? Or is this something that we really, truly need to rebuild? And I think that for me, that was a very diligent and thorough process because it has allowed me, in my mind at least to reprioritize a few projects. And I think that that's just something we're going to need to do. The reality of this fund is that it is a fluctuating fund, and just like one would do in a regular household budget, we have to make some adjustments in light of the fluctuations. And so I do expect that as a result of the information I received from our city staff during the tour, that was very helpful to me that that we will really be focusing on things that need to be fixed and need to be repaired, and so that we are as fiscally prudent as we can be with the amount of money that we have, understanding what a what an asset is it is to the city. So I want to thank staff for their work and for educating us on the issues and giving us the options that you've prepared tonight and for working with us to come up with the best possible solutions in light of the circumstances. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. In looking at these criteria for prioritization, I see somewhat of a relationship between number seven and eight. In regards to revenue can be made on some of these projects eight and one number seven says the ability to attract additional funding. And number eight says a lack of alternative funding. But in the wording here, it has the extent of number seven, the extent to which partially funding this project from talent funds will result in additional funding from Nancy Resources to support the project. The projected financing and eight. It says the extent to which the project lacks the ability to be funded from other city sources. There's somewhat of a contradiction there. So what I would I would ask you maybe to change number eight, to see the ability to look or seek or get additional funding by either these these these methods , as opposed to saying the lack of it. We need to look at positive ways of trying to generate some revenue that would supplement or add to the criteria so that we could be in a stronger position to look at those. So any comment on that? Yeah, Councilman, we're actually we're we're in agreement with that. The reason it reads this way is we were trying to set up a metric that was consistent so that when we use a red, yellow and green and green means the same thing for each one. So in this one, if it had if it lacks the ability to be funded, it would probably be a one that is green rather than red. It just has to do with the scale that we were using. But we totally agree with you. It's it's the question is whether or not this thing in this project has to be funded out of Highlands or it'll get a different score if it can be funded out of a different funding source are opposed to. And when I say different funding source, we're not talking general fund. That's the one thing that everything could have been funded by the General Fund. It's we're talking grants or assessments or donations, those types of things. Well, I'm always very complimentary of people who have fully sighted with color. I'm colorblind. So the only thing that I can rely on are words. So if it's not clearly stated, color coding doesn't doesn't help me understand. So that's why I bring that up in regards to the the prices of oil. We saw the chart here in terms of the projections for the next four years to 20, 20 or six years. And it has there been any discussion in terms of where we're at? Lowering the bar, if you will, from the 70 to 80 something that's more reasonable with what's going on in the oil markets as a whole and what other agencies are doing to adjust their budgets from 65 to 50 7 to 40 or whatever I would look at, yeah, if we were, if we were at 70 and we're projecting a 30% loss, maybe we're looking at putting it somewhere between 40 and 50 so that when in the event the price stabilizes and it starts coming back up and the projections are that it will be around 60 to 65, we at least have a little buffer that we can have between now and 2020. How does that how does that look? It's there. We think that's exactly the right thing that we should be doing. We plan to be doing that in the next several months as we go through our 16 budget development process. And we'll be recommending to you what that new number should be. I don't think we're prepared today to say whether it's a certain number, but that will be what we recommend in the budget to the council. And then the council will have the ultimate ability to say we want to lower it and which will have an impact on the general fund but actually have higher impact on on capital that would come in or, you know, maybe go the other direction. So we'll we'll definitely have a recommendation for you on that. And I know it's a little premature to bring this up now, perhaps, but for my council colleagues, we might want to start revisiting some of these funds and the the assessments that we have currently that would that have been stable for many years. And when I look at revisiting those and making some adjustments to that, and I'm specifically looking at the you you to the utility users tax as a one that we need to revisit. It's been with that ten or 12 years maybe since we changed it, we might want to revisit that. And that's that's just a comment. Let me say it might be premature. The the the the sky hasn't fallen yet, but it's certainly something that we might want to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Kathryn Richardson. Thank you. So. Right, I. Appreciate that. A lot of this has been worked over and reviewed by both of the council members with titling areas. I think it's that is the appropriate way to do things when local council members become experts on these projects is very difficult for us without knowing the nuances of these projects to to help establish a priority for one project versus the other. So that is a good thing. I have a few comments and questions. One. Regarding the uplands fund. How much? I know we we we budget our general fund based on this volatile commodity. How, how much of our budget, what percentage of our budget is based on oil revenue. For the operating budget? That number is in the general fund. It is 4.4%. 4.4%. And and. Okay. And then when timelines factors in I know that they take on certain services that that our general fund doesn't have to take in. Is that considered in factored into that 4.4% as well? No, that's a different percent. I don't have that on the top of my head. I don't know if John has it. Okay. The the Tidelands Fund is is a it's separately calculated. So, no, we don't. Have there's no way to evaluate like how much, how dependent we are on. Oh, well, you know, it doesn't matter. I know that you were going to come back with some recommendations soon on how to make those adjustments. I would just chime in and just say that, you know, now is the time. We we are seeing what the what the impact is on basing our our budgets, our police and fire vital services on oil funds. It's not it's a gamble for our constituents. And I think we need to continue to have a discussion about new revenue, identifying new revenue. So I would hope and expect to see when these things come back with some recommendations that it's a balanced recommendation where we look at adjustments to the budget, whether that means cuts, but also opportunities for new revenue as we move forward . Secondly, so what so we we budgeted $70 a barrel in UPLANDS for operating, correct? Yes, sir. And what do we budget per barrel entitlements. Same thing. We budget $70 as the operating amount. And then we had planned out a five year capital plan at the time based on $100 a barrel, knowing that if it dropped, then projects would need to be extended out further until funding was available. So the expectation that, you know, if we don't have those resources, then for infrastructure for a one time projects, we can extend those and we can extend services on an ongoing basis. Right. Is that the thinking behind that? Correct. And the council really should be applauded for taking such a conservative approach with such a volatile substance. So and, you know, both in operating and in capital, it's actually been very, you know, very encouraging that the council over the last several years has been very diligent in being conservative. And I think that's that's been very good for us. However, this this is kind of a unique time where it's dropped even further than than what anybody had expected. Well, I would say that this experience underscores why we shouldn't necessarily be conservative when it comes to operating, but we should also do the same thing as it comes to capital projects. Why base a plan around development of a project based on a certain level of income with the plan that if this goes away, we'll just extend the project? I would think we need to keep that same approach for capital as we have with operations, but that's just my opinion. And then lastly, one of the criteria that I think is I see a lot of criteria here. And and obviously I think, you know, what you're doing here. And I would just say one thing, you know, we're taking steps to to do local hiring. We're taking steps to consider adopting a project labor agreement. I just think that with a lot of these things, we always talk about the impact that these infrastructure projects have on the whole city, and that should be considered. The job aspect needs to be considered in this criteria. Like what does one project in terms of jobs mean versus another project? Does does it make sense to advance one project that has a larger impact on local hire and an economic impact than it does to advance another? So that would be just a suggestion to the maker of the motion to include that as well. It's okay. I'll give it to you again. No problem. It's all good. For good. I would say. Would you would you would you be okay with adding in jobs? You know, economic impact to everyone, like jobs to one of your criteria as you figure these these infrastructure projects out. Yeah. I think jobs for Lumbee should be considered in the criteria, as you know, as we decide. Does it make sense to move one project versus the other? That's something that should be factored into the actual factor in. Member? Richardson That's a really great point, but I don't think that that's something that we'd be prepared to. And I'm not going to speak for Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I certainly would not be prepared to go down that road. Right now, there are a lot of projects in there that I don't know that everyone on council is as familiar with. I mean, we live and breathe these projects. And so is it more important to me that the residents of Naples have seawalls that keep them seismically safe or that people get jobs? Seismic safety is obviously. I get it. I think I do. Or, for example, is it important that that, you know, a bathroom in our neighborhood has the ability to have a flushing toilet that's more important to us than jobs? So I think, you know, it's a good point and it's certainly a valid point, but I think it really is something that you have to have a deep understanding of the specific projects, because the focus of these projects are, for the most part, public health and safety and that kind of thing for a lot. By no means would ever want to make you choose between a job and a toilet. That is not the point of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the point of what I'm saying is, you know, a lot of us on the council, we rarely engage in these timelines issues when it comes to us here at the council. We in good faith a lot of times go along with the council member in District two, in District three, and we've had a long discussion about jobs and local hire and stuff moving forward. I would just think that if we're going to continue to say that these projects are city wide projects, then it should be represented in the documents and the criterias we put forth. I'm pretty sure city staff is going to confer with the council members as we move these projects forward. I just think that it is it is a good point to say as we evaluate criteria for projects, we look at the local job piece and that's fine. That's fine if we don't want to do that. I just wanted to. Say I think it's a good point, but I will say that any policy that we set as a council in regards to local hire will apply to Tidelands projects as well. Those are considered city projects. So if we have, for example, a play in effect that would apply to all city projects, presumably unless there's an exemption for , you know, a specific type of project. Is that correct? Mr.. City Attorney. Mayor invites member members of the Council. There could be exceptions under Tidelands that would prohibit the certain aspects of a play, for example, or would have to be tailored specifically because of the restrictions on the Tidelands funds. It couldn't impact like a Long Beach hire. It would have to be a regional or a regional impact. And so the economic benefit could be taken into effect, but it couldn't be directed specifically to Long Beach residents. So that my view wouldn't be my suggestion wasn't limited to like a play or a union job. I just think when staff considers a priority for what projects, we should always keep jobs in mind as a criteria. That's just the point. And Councilmember Watterson as a second year of the motion. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I just. You're actually cued up next. Good. Thank you. I think what you raise and address is something that everyone on this council is behind. And so I trust that the staff has that in mind when we're going forward. But as Councilmember Price and city attorney affirms, in some of these situations, we don't really have a choice to prioritize that at the top of the list, but certainly it is a priority. Thank you. Oh, I am queued up. I just. That was you. Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilmember Price for the extensive work that she has done with her constituents regarding the projects. And I know that this particular item and this meeting is not to discuss projects specifically, but really our set of priorities. And so I think the list will achieve the intended result of prioritizing the available funding that we have for Tidelands projects. I want to thank staff for helping us work through how we can continue to fund the most critical projects. As Councilmember Price mentioned, the criticality of these projects. Sometimes it doesn't seem obvious when we're just talking about a restroom facility, but it really is obvious there is a safety issue and the way these restrooms have been redesigned will ensure that we offer as much safety to the extent possible. Now I want to just re restate my commitment to working with Councilmember Price and the rest of the Council to ensure that the projects move forward in the interest of our residents and businesses. And while all these projects are within our two districts, when you look at the patronage, especially the huge amount of patronage, that is whether it's at Bixby Park or in the downtown area of the block from all over the city. And in large part, they're also from other parts of cities around us. So it's a great obligation that we have to ensure that it is as inviting and attractive and safe as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Andrews. Yes, thank you. I have a question, you know, to the Mr. Walker, what what impact would this have on our civic center? If things continue to go at the rate is going now. So we don't expect an impact to the civic center from oil. The funding source that we are using to as part of the DB UFO DB foam isn't specifically oil related. It's from the Civic Center Fund and all the other funds in the general fund. But it certainly oil does impact our general fund. So we'll have to as we update our project, we'll have to make sure that there is available funds to be able to as we update our budget, available funds to be able to fund that commitment. Yes. And also, I'd like to commend, you know, our vice mayor and Mrs. Price, you know, in the way in which you individually are working on these projects, especially when we talk about priorities. Because the fact that, you know, I'm just like Rex, you know, my whole, whole concept is all the way. It's about jobs. And if I know the priorities come into that, I would hope that anything that you talk them down along the shoreline, anything else, it would be local jobs. You know, I understand that we can do a lot of those things. But if you do in prioritizing those things, I would really hope that you would take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other comments. Are there any public comment? Please come forward. That evening. Council staff My name is Susan Miller. I've lived across from Belmont Pool for 22 and a half years. First of all, I'd like to thank the city for protecting the old growth trees during the demolition of the pool. This is a renewed energy in this park land with the hummingbirds, the squirrels, the monarch butterflies. We wait the migration of the snowy egrets in the black crowned night herons. The pool project being considered at Belmont Plaza would require expansive site preparations due to the liquefaction ground and the new sea level rising rules, which require raising the entire structure. These two factors alone could mean wasting 30 to $40 million if this site is selected. Instead, this site can easily be restored to a beautiful natural park on the ocean. Make it in an area that can be enjoyed by residents, visitors in the increasing wildlife population. This was the intent of the California Coastal Act and the local coastal program. It would cost very little to return this area to a natural park, but the value is priceless. The oil market has changed the title and funds adequately and projects that are truly needed must become Ford luxuries. If and when the funds are available for an aquatic facility. A downtown location such as the Harry Bridges Memorial Park is ideal for this purpose and would be covered by the tidal bond funds. There is far less site preparation that would be needed. Plenty of existing parking doesn't negatively impact the endangered birds, would not intrude on reserve residential neighborhood, and has easier access for those traveling to the aquatic center. Most importantly, there would be substantial cost savings to end up with the same facility. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Your timing is not very good. Hugh Clark has the address. First of all, is this suggestion for the council person that has color blind issues? I think that's easily addressed. Seem to be we can put the city staff can put on BGR. In other words, the first letter of what the color is. Put it in bold. I need sheet for. A number of issues. First of all, I think this this argues well for immediately stopping. Any further urination of money relative to the bike path of the extended bike path. The dual one going down. Whatever is there now of the if it's not filled in. Cover it up with sand. If we get money later, I think by that time we'll be able to get some clear thinking and realize it's a it's folly to do it anyway. I want to make sure, absolutely sure that we're that there's a clear understanding of what the projects are. I heard for the first time that I've ever heard the word Belmont Beach Aquatic Center. I don't know where that is. I've never seen that in any any city listing. Want to make sure. Also that note, we don't go within 100 yards, 200 yards, a leeway center. That building does not need to come down. There certainly could be some renovations within this existing the existing footprint, so forth. Additionally, no single state, no structure within the Marine Stadium needs to be touched, period. I want to make sure that that doesn't that doesn't happen. The restrooms that are there that are used only at special events and they're fine that are operational. I'm speaking at the three. Yes. Will be rebuilt. And the cost for that will not be borne by the taxpayers, that the courts will make the decision and assign the portion of liability to those found complicit in the crime of not only taking it down, which I believe was close to 300,000, but rebuilding it. And the last thing is I want to make sure that. The. The Belmont pool itself goes through. As was originally planned. It is not that is that swimming pool is actually a magic I think to the aquatic dynamic here and to return it to a. Open Space Park. Is at war with, I think, the concept of a full range of aquatic dynamics and so forth. Obviously it's going to be tough. We will find the money eventually, but I strongly object to returning it back to what it was before the pool was there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Gonzales that is on file. My comments are in line with the previous speaker, the speaker before the previous speaker about the Harriet Perry Bridges Memorial Park. I just wanted to just make one suggestion about the proposed prioritization criteria. I would like for impacts to the environment to be considered, especially considering that these revenues are oil driven revenues. And some of the procedures to drive this or this oil are unconventional and controversial at best. I also did want to say that I support the councilmembers comment that the city look into generating new revenue with whatever whatever is set forth with these funds. And I also wanted to be very specific about the $22 million that are unassigned. I wanted to ask that less than a 10th, actually, 1/22, 121 20th of $1,000,000 be set towards something that can actually generate energy, clean energy. I just think that would be a very symbolic gesture to one of our buildings by generating solar energy or some sort of green technology to one of our parks or to one of our buildings. I believe if we're going to take the money from an oil source, it would be appropriate to reinvest it in technology of the future. I know that we often speak about these types of things on Earth Day or things like that, but it would be great to see that practice in action. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public speakers. There is a motion on the floor by Councilwoman Price and Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And I just want to add that I did like Councilman Price this last week, and I did my own unofficial Tidelands tour, and I ran from the Villa Riviera and went and visited all of our new restrooms and went all up and down the Titans through past the around the peninsula and back over to to Naples. And one thing that I was really struck by is first, the amount of work that is currently happening right now on the Tidelands. And if you haven't had a chance to run up and down the coast, it is amazing the amount of work that's happening, not just clearly the Bluff Project and the The Path project, but the new bathrooms that have been installed. The work that's happening up and down. And so I just wanted to take a moment to also just kind of call out Eric, who's in the audience here. And if you don't know Eric, you know, Eric does an incredible amount of work in the Highlands area and, you know, thank you and the whole kind of tidelands team for for all those projects, it is not easy to manage and they're doing a really good job on that. So thank you very much. With that, there's a motion. Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Thank you. Next item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to negotiate and execute a real property lease with Epic Life Church, for a site located at 10503 Interlake Avenue N; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119780

Agenda Items 436 Capital 119 780 relating to the Department of Finance Administrative Services authorizing the Director of Finance Administrative Services to negotiate and execute a real property lease with Epic Life Church for a site located at ten 503 Interlake Avenue North Council Bill 119 782 relating to the financing of fire facilities, creating a fund for depositing proceeds of limited tax general obligation bonds and 2021 Council Bill 119 781 relating to the Seattle Department of Finance Administrative Services authorizing acquisition acquisition of real property being identified in King County Records. It's good to see you. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk. Council members. The clerk read items four through six into the record and will discuss these items as a package. But we will take a separate vote on each bill. Councilmember Herbold, as the lead sponsor, would you like to address these bills first? Absolutely. Thank you. I will address all three of them together. Council Bill 11 9780 is a bill that establishes an interim lease for fire station 31. The site lease itself addresses issues such as lease terms, monthly rent, parking and funding. The lease term period goes from January 1st, 2021 through December 31st, 2026. Council Bill 11 9781 primarily authorizes fees to purchase property in the vicinity of 113th Ave and Meridian Avenue North as the permanent site for Fire Station 31. And the bill limits the maximum purchase price for the property to $4.5 million. Council Bill 11 9782 does a number of things. It creates a new fund called the 2021 Multipurpose Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund. The purpose of the fund is to receive funds and distribute LTG bond proceeds. We will not be issuing the bonds right now. We are going to be punishing that fund with funds from an inner fund loan. That's $8.2 million of an interphone loan from the Construction and Inspections Fund to this newly created fund. We will then pay back the $8.2 million to the Construction and Inspections Fund once we issue the LTE LTE go bond fund. And then finally, the bill itself creates a new capital project within the capital improvement program. The new capital project is called Fire Station 31. Replacement Project. And really appreciate the leadership of Chief Scoggins, FRC Director Kevin Calvin Goins, Local 27, and Councilmember Juarez, who is also a sponsor of this legislation, really tipped tip of the hat to Councilmember Juarez for her efforts during the budget process last year and identify $100,000 of funds as a way to jump start the need for this replacement station. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments on the bills before us? Um. Council, president, council or more is here. Did you want me to address briefly the three, or did you want to do this? Yeah, we are. We are discussing all four bills right now. We'll take separate votes. So if you have any comments on any any of the the three bills, now's the time to make those comments. Great. Okay, great. Yes. Items four, five and six. First of all, thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for covering the basics and some of the detail on the financial plan. Obviously, I'm glad to see this legislation before us today to relocate fire station 31 in the Northgate neighborhood in District five. A special thanks, of course, to Chief Scoggins, Calvin Goins, Bass and Kenny Stewart, the president of Firefighters Union IAFF Local 27. The fire station is located south of Northwest Hospital, north of Northfield College and west of I Am and Northgate Mall. As many of you recall, the growing Northgate neighborhood lost our station 31 last summer when firefighters were all relocated to other stations. Relocation was necessary due to environmental testing, which revealed unhealthy conditions. And as you remember, this has been an ongoing issue for a few years. And since then I've been pleased to be in regular contact with both Chief Scoggins and director Calvin Goings about next steps. They review the current station capacity, the current system demand on the station, and the forecast for future demand, according to Chief Scoggins, Fire Station 31 is one of the busiest stations in our city. In addition, the relocation of firefighters last June resulted in higher response times that exceed the fire department standard. So high response times that makes us very happy. In the end, the city concluded that the current station 31 is too small to meet the needs of anticipated population growth in the North End, particularly with light rail coming at Northgate and hopefully our other station up the road and on 130th. But in any way, immediate needs of growth and increased service demand. So rather than trying to salvage an environmentally unhealthy and uninhabitable station that will soon be too small, the recommendation was that the station should be replaced. And so with that, I urge my colleagues to pass. Item Council Bill 119780 Council. Bill 119782 Council. Bill 119781. Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Warrens. Any other questions or comments on any of these three bills? Customers want lawyers. Thank you. And the bill is, of course, support improving the infrastructure of this yellow fire department, including the development of the new fire station 31, which is essentially being authorized by these three bills for council members who agree with the power station 31 charge. I just wanted to point out, for the benefit of the public that the building agenda item five is. Totally routine legislation authorizing the internment loan. The city uses an indefinite loan to make your funding immediately available when it can most efficiently be used and stage the plan for how the loan will be repaid. And I hope members of the public notice the difference between how the political establishment has talked about this and de-fund loan products proposed by Mayor Durkan. That is not at all talked about it. And the interest on loan proposed by Councilmember Morales and NE in our Amazon tax bill to make COVID relief stimulus checks immediately available to the neediest of Seattle's working class families, ultimately to be paid for, of course, by the tax on big business. Rather than discuss the substance of the Amazon tax and the COVID relief and the jobs program that it will fund, the political establishment instead has mostly focused on the administrative, intertwined loan legislation in an attempt to sow confusion and distract from the substantive issues the mayor has toward new station, saying, quote, The entire fund loans, the funds that they want to rob, I am not sure that they have the authority to do that because those were all voter approved initiatives. As importantly, to the extent that there is the ability to having to fund loans, which is a budget technique, we may need that just to balance the budget this year. So there is no scenario under which people will receive checks this year. And I think that's really not responsible to tell people during these really hard times and good oatmeal. Durkan will clarify if she also thinks that irresponsible to tell the fire department that they will be purchasing the land for Fire Station 31 this year, funded with this indoor fund loan, obviously an indoor fund loan of $200 million for COVID 19 relief for up to 100,000 working families. Is that a totally different scale than the $8 million on loan at worst, ongoing question today. And it would be appropriate if elected officials were openly to discuss whether the city had actually had funds to cover a loan of that size, which is precisely why we made sure that City Council's Angel staff's research was presented that strongly demonstrates that the city does have sufficient funds. Instead, the mayor has dishonestly claimed that it was somehow technically impossible or even illegal to carry out an internal fund loan, which is a common tactic used by the political establishment to confuse ordinary people in their fight for social justice. You know, for example, in Congress for decades, they have justified opposing single payer health care by claiming that it is just impractical and too complicated. And working people should not believe that those lies for one moment. So I will, of course, be voting on yes on all three legislation, including the totally routine legislation authorizing the interest on loan to provide the bridge funding for the fire station 31 project. And I urge members of the public to see this example of how an interest loan authorization legislation was approached as a completely uncontroversial issue compared to the way the mayor has reacted to the Amazon tax legislation related interest. If you council members want any other comments or questions from my colleagues herbal. Captain Kathryn Swann partially made this. But I just want to underscore, this is a very, I think, different in scale. This Interphone loan is for $8.2 million and the source of the Interphone loan is a is a very different source so that the source is the construction inspections fund for a small number of dollars. It is not $50 million from four different voter approved levies. I'm not commenting on the legality of of the latter funds. I'm just saying that this is a different source of of funds for the the Interphone loan, and then it's a much smaller number of funds. I think he can't remember any other comments. Okay. Great. Thank you so much to both councilmembers Herbold and Suarez for walking us through these bills. Looks like there are no other additional comments, so we're going to move forward with each bill and councilmembers will have a final opportunity to provide comments if they wish before we vote on each item. So we'll begin with item four. I will move to pass Council Bill 119780. Is there a second? Second, second, second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Herbold has already spoken to this bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing and seeing the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Want. I think. Strauss. I. Purple. Hi. Suarez. I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Mascara. I. Peterson. Hi. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Item number five I will move to pass Council Bill 119782. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved in second bid to pass the bill. Are there any further comments on the bill? Hearing and seeing none. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill? So I. Strauss. I. Purple. I. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Macheda. I. Peterson. I'm President Gonzalez. I. Not in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and I laugh at the company's affixed my signature to the legislation. Moving on to agenda item six, I will move to pass Council Bill 119781. Is there a second? Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any further comments on the bill? Kasim Nunn. Well, the Clark piece called Roll on the Passage of the Bill. The one. I. Drought. I verbal. I. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Let's get to. I. Petersen. I. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I'd ask the clerk, please affects my signature to the legislation. Okay, colleagues, we are now in other business. I understand there's one item of other business, so I will hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to quickly walk us through that item.

Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing the "Gann Appropriations Limit" (Limit) for FY 17 pursuant to Article XIII (B) of the California Constitution. (A-9)

LongBeachCC_09062016_16-0818

Motion carries. Next item, please. Item 16 Dash 818 Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing the Gann appropriations limit for FY 17 pursuant to Article 13 B of the California Constitution. Can I get a motion, please? In a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. I think. Were those all the items? My section was the one more. No, that is. That is the items. I just wanted to clarify that. My understanding is the prep fees would be taken up next week. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you again to Councilwoman Mongeau and Councilmembers Price and Austin for the BRC work. I know we have a series of other votes and discussions that will happen next week when we have a majority of the debate around the budget.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB PW21-095 and award a contract to Accelerated Modular Concepts, Inc., of Victorville, CA, for furnishing and delivering a prefabricated Junior Lifeguard Facility Modular Building, in a total amount of $930,395, authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $93,040, for a total contract amount of $1,023,435; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary subsequent amendments. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_01042022_22-0038

The motion is. Kate. Item 38, please. Item 38 Report from Public Works Recommendation to award a contract to accelerated modular concepts for furnishing and delivering a fabricated junior lifeguard facility. Margin of a building in a total amount of $930,000. 390 5263. Thank you. Is there emotion? Can I get a second, please? As you probably comment on this item. Members, please cast your votes. Oh, yes. I just wanted to thank city staff on this. This has been a project that we've been working on for years now, and it's finally coming to fruition. And I'm so grateful to Chief Medina for his work with the Junior Guard program, and I'm excited that there's going to be a new facility that comes close to resembling the gem of a program that we have here in Long Beach, because the current building does not. So thank you. Thank you. And sorry about that. This Councilman Allen, do you have any comments? Okay. There's a motion to second. Please cast your votes. Councilwoman Zendaya's, Councilwoman Price. The most of these.

Rezones 2901 North Grove Street, 2921 North Grove Street, 2890 North Hazel Court, and 3120 West 29th Avenue from U-SU-B, U-TU-C to CMP-EI2 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 2901 North Grove Street, 2921 North Grove Street, 2890 North Hazel Court, and 3120 West 29th Avenue from U-SU-B (Urban, Single Unit, 4,500 sq. ft.), U-TU-C (Urban, Two Unit, 5,500 sq. ft.) to CMP-EI2 (Campus, Education Institution, 2 or more restrictive form standards) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-28-15.

DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0775

services with dorm style residents on site. So the proposed zoning district is simply too and that stands for a campus context and education institution, too. So it's pretty self-explanatory. The campus district proposes uses such as educational facilities like schools, churches and so forth, and the two designation is a more restrictive campus district that's designed to be located near single family residences and embedded in the interior neighborhoods to provide a sensitive transition to lower intensity uses. So now we'll get into the existing context. The current zoning on the north side of 29th Avenue is UCB, which is a single unit district, and on the south side of 29th Avenue is U, t, u c, which is a two unit district. So the site is also completely surrounded by single unit and two unit districts. And these are all considered residential protected districts, which in the CMP, A2 District calls for enhanced transitions to those protected districts. So the existing land uses are a combination of single family, two farm, two unit or duplex uses, but which is also unique. At this corner of Grove Street, there is an established nonresidential presence today with a vacant medical office building, which is in the red on the south side of 29th Avenue, and the parish center, which is owned by Saint Dominic's Catholic Church, where they have offices and other meeting spaces on the north side of 29th Avenue. This gives you an idea of the existing building form and scale of development. Again, image number two on the top right shows the parish center, a two storey nonresidential land use. Image number three, just below that is the single storey medical office building with a surface parking lot that's alley loaded on the bottom of the slide. So the the public process followed our standard approach, which entails notification to the registered neighborhood organizations and the affected council districts. In addition to that, the applicant, prior to submitting their application, engaged both registered neighborhood organizations on concerns about the proposed rezoning and met several times over a period of several months to come to agreement. However, at the Planning Board hearing, several of the immediate surrounding neighbors were not notified and did not and did not know about those conversations and did show up at the planning board and expressed opposition and concern not only about the proposed rezoning, but also about other church properties that were outside of the proposed zoning area and what might happen to those in the future. So after the planning board hearing at the request of Councilman Espinosa, a mediator was brought on and a mediation process took place with the surrounding neighbors, the applicant and both registered neighborhood organizations. And they met several times to come to a good neighbor agreement with which all parties signed off on, which basically spells out a communication protocol as when the or when the church develops any future projects with their property that the all parties be notified and engage in a process. So now I'm going to get into our review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plans. We have two adopted plans for this location comp plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver compliant comp plan 2000 or the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and has several policies that are consistent with this promote for proposed rezoning talks about promoting infill development, increasing more amenities in neighborhoods with a variety of variety of compatible uses, and increased density support for Denver educational facilities and institutions. More flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and encouraging investment in neighborhoods and community facilities. In terms of Blueprint Denver This area is a single family area of stability and it's also on a residential collector street and near an enhanced transit corridor, which is Federal Boulevard. So Blueprint Denver articulates the definition of areas of stability as preserving the existing character. But one of the strategies to preserve existing character is to encourage reinvestment in stagnant commercial centers or other areas where reinvestment would be desirable to make the surrounding neighborhood more attractive and stable. In this case, we feel this meets the goal of of areas of stability, because the existing building on the south side of 29th Avenue is a vacant medical office building, has been vacant for a number of years, and it's deteriorated somewhat. So this encourages the revitalization of that property and contributes to the stabilization of the neighborhood. In addition, residential neighborhoods, according to Blueprint, Denver call for not only residential land use, but also complementary nonresidential land uses such as small shops, parks, schools and cultural amenities such as churches and other services for residents. So obviously, by this investment with the church, with a supporting use, it encourages additional residential complementary amenities and nonresidential uses. We also feel that this furthers the uniformity of district regulation and public health district regulations and public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. It's also meets our justifying circumstances review criteria in that it responds to changing changes in the surrounding environment and encourages a redevelopment consistent with the character of the area has been prompted by growth in the neighborhood that's contributed to an increasing demand for church services. And so this helps respond to that changing circumstances in the neighborhood. The proposal is also consistent with the neighborhood context and the zoned district purpose and intent. So this MPI to district was specifically written and designed to be applied to smaller and medium scale campus sites that are located adjacent to single unit two unit townhouse and other lower intensity, lower intensity residential zone districts where it's important to have a sensitive transition to those lower intensity uses and ensure more open spaces and sensitive setbacks. So to recap, we do feel that this proposed zoning case meets our tests for meeting our review requirements. It's consistent with blueprint members goals for areas of stability in residential neighborhoods. The CFP to district is designed for this type of scenario in this context and this location. And the proposed zoned districts use regulations standards for height, height, step backs, building coverage and setbacks are designed to be compatible with the existing homes at this location. So with that, community planning and development recommends approval based on the finding that all of our review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Upton. We have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers. And if you can make your way to the bench here at the front, and it'll be helpful in speeding up the proceedings. So first you have Thomas words and forgive me for messing up names. You can call me. You can mispronounce mine if I do yours. Thomas words that Texar Mariana MaryAlice Browning, Teresa Cooney, Andrade afe. Tom Squirts. Hi, my name is Tom Wirtz. I'm representing the applicant. I'm an architect here in town live at 257 South Logan so I'm not a resident of the district, am concerned but wanted to share that the rezoning effort is really to facilitate the desire for for new priory and novitiate, which really is in support of the religious life of the Dominican friars here in Denver. So it really facilitates it facilitates their common life. Saint Dominic's has been a cornerstone of the neighborhood. They have been in that location for 125 years. And as such, the relationship with the neighbors has been very important. So to that end, we implemented what we believe is a pretty strong outreach program. We met initially. The very first thing that we did was we met with West Highlands and with Sloan's Lake Citizens Group. We met with them to talk about what this rezoning process might look like and how we should we should move forward through the process. We met with them monthly. We did do a public meeting in July after about probably three or four months of meeting with the neighborhood groups. That public meeting was advertised by both neighborhood organizations through an email blast that went out to 1800 residents. All of that said we did not reach everybody. And so thanks to Councilman Espinosa and his efforts, we did have a mediation with some of the more immediate neighbors to the site. And that really facilitated, I think, what we believe is, is pretty unanimous support for the The Priory Project and the rezoning. Knowing that it's probably not going to be completely unanimous. But we do believe that we have reached everybody. We've heard all of their concerns and address them in a number of and in a number of strategies. One is a good neighbor agreement with all of the constituents, including the immediate neighbors, that talks to a communication process as we move forward, as the parish moves forward. Even beyond this project. We have talked about use and height and density with the neighborhood groups and have in that consideration we have drafted a deed restriction. It is final and in order to support that, we've got a good neighbor agreement that fundamentally says we will upon approval file a deed restriction, but with with the property. So I believe it's it's all working out well and I am available for any further questions. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Words that text. Mr. Tex. Said. Tex of 4535 Julian Street, Denver. Begin by noting that. This city must be. Really bad. Shape. Seems like there's no one in the city but a happy Heinz who's available to fill positions. It's also nice of you to spend another $140,000. Of our money to settle a case of police brutality while you're doing nothing meaningful to reform the police department. Mr. Tex. In regards to the particular issue. Given the commitment of the Catholic Church. To dealing with poverty. This parcel that you're. Rezoning tonight would really make an excellent location for another homeless. Shelter. You know, a couple of weeks ago, Councilperson. Ortega mentioned that she was afraid people were going to die because of the cold weather. That same week, the Denver Post reported a. Person freezing to death in an. Alley on Broadway. I hope that on Friday, when you're on your retreat for homelessness, you're going to be. Willing to spend as much. Money. For warm beds for. People as. You're spending for warm beds for horses at the stock show. Thank you. Mr. Tech's a very honest brownie. I'm Mary Alice Ramming 2040 Hooker Street, and I'm a parishioner at Saint Dominic's. I support this project. We're a growing parish. We've been a parish there for 125 years. And we are attracting many new young families. And the Dominicans have been really committed to our parish. Thank you. Thank you. Teresa Cooney. I'm Theresa Cooney, 4610 West 26th Avenue. I'm a member of Saint Dominic's and I fully support this project. Saint Dominic's has a long history in the neighborhood. They do very positive work in the neighborhood. They're inclusive and welcoming to Catholics and non-Catholics alike alike. They do a lot of outreach to people in need. And I think this really is a positive step forward for the parish and I fully support it. Thank you, miss. Getting ready for a. Friday, 2979 Raleigh Street and the West High in the neighborhood. I'm a member of the West Valley Neighborhood Association, and I'm on the Land Use Committee, Design Preservation Committee and on the Joint Committee of the West Highland Sloan's Lake neighborhood representatives who have been meeting with the Prairie and their architect. Handprint Architects. For the past eight months, I've seen a lot of development in West Highlands over the 30 years that I've lived here, but I've never seen a development that sought neighborhood involvement early in the process, as this project has. This reasoning should be used as a model for how rezoning should take place. St Dominic's Priory came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association meeting last winter and explained what their long range plans was for this site and asked for input on that. A neighborhood advisory group was formed with the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. This was like Citizens Group representative from historic Denver and several Prairie members who had been meeting for the past six months. We were invited to attend the Resource Rezoning Pre-Application meeting with CPD at every stage that follows. Also, the project and the rezoning was presented to CPD. CPD recommended that this rezoning not be Miss three but simply eye to the Hamparian Denver team. The priorities of the R.A. representatives agreed to that zoning was the best fit for the neighborhood in this area of one and two story homes Zone two, unit and single family residence . The heights of the new buildings were. The primary concern of the neighborhood. The primaries plans were for a three storey building. The zoning allows more than that. There is some give and take and the end result. Of the current rezoning application and deed restrictions put in place to cap the height three occupied storeys. This is how all zoning and neighborhoods should occur and process come to the neighborhood, work with the neighborhood, have an outcome that is a win win for everyone. I ask you to support this rezoning. Thank you, Mr. Defender. I'll call it the next five. That's Jacqueline Youngblood, Mary Edgar, Geri Olsen, Gilbert Martinez. And when we bring Tom Brown up here as well, too, if you want to make some room. We'll start with Jacqueline Youngblood. Hello. My name is Jacqueline Youngblood. I live at 2975 Irving Street. I am the president of the West Highland Neighborhood Association. I am also a member of Saint Dominic's Church, and our association appreciates the communication and presentations that St Dominic's has provided regarding their project. In October six, our association voted to support Saint Dominic's. I am happy to be here this evening to share with you our support for St Dominic's project. Marilyn Quinn, who has worked very closely on this project. She could not be here this evening and she is celebrating her father's 91st birthday in Grand Junction. And she writes, As good a project as this is, it is unfortunately revealed a problem with the citywide rezoning that passed over five years ago. Prior to rezoning, immediate neighbors would have received written notice of rezoning, and many in the city believe that was still the case. Unfortunately, right now it isn't, and it created a problem in our neighborhood. We like to think, Councilman Espinosa, for arranging mediation among the neighbors in Saint Dominic's church that has resulted in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We strongly encourage council to reinstitute the requirement for written notification of immediate neighbors in all cases of rezoning. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Youngblood. Mary Edgar. Thank you. Good evening. I also. My name is Marie. Edgar and I live at 3532, West 39th Avenue, less than a mile from the church. And I'm also a parishioner, and I'd like to support this rezoning. And just to say, I'm very proud of the parish and the councilperson and the neighbors for planning it the way they did. Thank you. Q. Mr. Jerry Olson. Good evening. My name is Jerry Olson, 2195 Decatur Street. Denver, Colorado. A member of the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Board. And I would like to say that we definitely support this rezoning. This site really needs to be rehabilitated. And I would just like to say. As a good loser, and I'm glad to see them doing it. Thank you, Mr. Olson. Mr. Gilbert Martinez. All right. Gilbert Martinez. I live a 1940 grocery. I've been a member of that church for 60 years. I'm a Vietnam veteran. I got married there. And. I've seen the good times. I've seen the bad times. And. Now we're going through some good times because a lot of young people are willing to the area and St Dominic's has really helped them up a lot. And it'd be a shame if we couldn't keep it going the way it's going now because these young kids need a lot of help nowadays. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Thank you for serving our country, Mr. Brown. I'm Tom Brun. I live at 2105 Newton Street. And I'm on the board of Sounds Like Citizens Group. And I'm the. Head of the zoning committee. And I want to once again congratulate. NPR architects. And the Dominicans. For. Their neighborhood outreach. We've been meeting with them for months. Going over. Their proposal. And they have worked with the neighborhood it wonderfully well. I mean, as ready to face that this should be the model for. The way people. Come into the neighborhood and want rezoning. So I definitely. Want the rezoning. To be approved. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Councilman Espinoza. Oh. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. After me. I figured you probably had a question since it was right. Let's go to Councilman Brooks, the Iranian first. Councilman Espinoza and then. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, can you. Can I ask you a question? This is kind of a larger question, and it will not be the last time I ask it, because we're going to start to see a lot of these throughout the city. But I'm wondering, is on a macro level for this city, is CPD beginning to look at customization of zoning of churches within single family neighborhoods? This is a great example of something that worked well, but we have many examples of contentious rezonings of churches in neighborhoods. And it's coming up more and more. So I'm just wondering if you guys have taken a look at scope back to to start to do some customization. Zoning. Sure. So I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. More specifically, we've seen a pattern of rezoning requests over the past couple of years in relation to both places a religious assembly, but also other civic institutions that are experiencing in some cases, decay and in some cases growth. And we're finding that that we have to look at them on a state by state basis to see what kinds of zoning solutions are necessary. In many cases, there are standards on districts available, like in this case on the books that will satisfy the needs. And in other cases, we've had to look to custom zoning options that that sometimes are what it really just depends on what the plan direction is, what's going on. But at a broader level, we see that there's this trend that we want to look at as a city. And so we've suggested that this be a topic that we look at during the Blueprint Denver's citywide plan update next year. Perfect. Perfect. I'm glad that it's going to be on the docket on a larger deal. You know, I think as for us, the city council and a lot of heartache for the community, it's a lot of heartache and for you are CBD. And if we can get an agreed upon plan of principles of how we kind of go through the zoning, I think that would be very helpful. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinoza. Kyle, don't go away. Yeah. Hey, Tim. Got it, Kyle. And here's where I. Now I'm going to screw up. Is it did you. My understanding is you came to Denver from a similar type of department in Phenix. Is that correct? Or is that somebody else? My colleague did. See, I told you I was going to screw it up. I think I would like to speak to your colleague. Yeah. And almost got out of that one. Yes. What were the notification requirements in Phenix on rezonings? So in Phenix it was a little different. They do do mailing notifications to a radius surrounding the subject property. Okay. I just I thought I understood that about Phenix and I wanted that said because it came up and I don't I would like to encourage counsel to consider that putting that back into our requirements. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Rose. I just would like to make a comment about the good neighbor agreements that I just really want to commend CPD and Councilman Espinosa and and all the neighbors for working out and developing this good neighbor agreement. I see these agreements working in contentious situations, but also in very favorable situations where you have a documented discussion about what the uses and issues are with the age of the rezoning. So I just really want to commend CPD for going forward on this and I hope this will be a this mediation and good development, good neighborhood agreements will be something that will be adopted in continuing rezonings in the future. Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions from council? All right. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council and Councilman Espinoza. All right. So first off, Tom, Brian, great pen. I really like that. So tell me where I can get one. And he's not paying attention. Okay, Tom, I just said a great pen. I like it on your shirt. So my brief comments are going to do this. Justice would mean do justice what it took to get here. Whether you think it was three months or eight months, it was still a long process. But when you come in to this dais and you see nothing but support on the monitor, I it feels like from district one , it feels like I'm in the twilight zone. So I swear Rod Serling is going to meet me out in the corridor. But listening, finding compromise and agreeing on language which allows both the developer and the community to move forward together. The fact that all speakers were in support on a sizable District one rezoning prove that it can be done. It starts with meaningful communication, and I think I speak for many involved when I say I deeply appreciate all of your hard work and willingness to dialog. Thank you all. Oh. And I encourage my colleagues to to approve this rezoning. Thank you. Right. Are there any other comments from members of the council? Councilman Ortega. I just wanted to clarify one point that was raised by one of the speakers, Jack Youngblood. She asked that we ensure that notification of the registered neighborhood notice registered neighborhood organizations continue to be a practice unreasoning. And that is, in fact, one of the stipulations of the registered neighborhood notification ordinance. My predecessor, Sal Carpio, was the author of that legislation, and there were a number of things that the ordinance required notification to neighborhoods on in rezoning applications or in fact, one of those. And if a city attorney could just nut his head, this has not been changed since then, to do my understanding. So is it, in fact, correct that this continues to be one of the notifications that neighborhoods receive? David Broadwell again, notification r and o's has taken consistent through the years. I think the comment made earlier was direct mail notification to adjacent neighbors. And I honestly, I think though the word that was used was reinstate or I'm not familiar with whether we ever did that in the past or when that might have changed. But I think that's the point the speaker was making, in addition to her now notification, advocating a system for direct notification of neighbors in writing. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. It's not my understanding that there has ever been direct notification by the city to all of the adjacent property owners. That has typically been the responsibility of the developer that is proposing a project. So thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this application today. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, is that okay if I go to Councilman Cashman first and then come back or do you have an answer? Yeah, no. I was just going to make that clarification that why don't you let Jackie, who is was talking about, was direct notification of adjacent property owners. And the rule that we used to have is within the 200 foot halo on rezonings. And then that any requirement for that when it was and it was specific conditions was stripped in the 2010 legislative Rizzo. Nope. Okay. I stand corrected. Oh, Kyle. Looks like you can speak to one question. Thanks for the opportunity to correct the record here. Kyle Dalton Again with CPD and previous to 2010 and former Chapter 59, there was not a requirement to provide direct mail notification. The only thing that changed about notification from the old code to the new code was the addition of of another hour and no notice at the time of complete application, which was not required before. Other than that, there was no change to the notification requirements. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just couldn't let this go by without saying how absolutely thrilled I am to see a property owner work so openly with a community to arrive at a solution. And I don't believe you have to be a church to show that type of respect and compassion to the neighbors. We've sat here in recent weeks and had examples of half hearted efforts by one developer and a complete disrespect for the community shown by another. And I think I don't think a landowner is obligated to do everything that a community asks them to do. But I think a landowner is is morally obligated to engage in an open dialog in an attempt to create a win win situation. I think there are places where private property rights and community property rights come together, and I think it's been a fabulous example of that. So I just want to take my hat off to my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for the role he played and certainly to to the church and the community for the time they invested in this. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Kenny. Thank you, Mr. President. I am I, too, want to thank all the speakers tonight for their thoughtful work and for sharing their support for this project and will be voting in support of it. I did just think it might be helpful, though, to chime in, since I imagine members of the public are a little confused. We've got some folks saying there was notice happening and the staff confirming that there wasn't. What I wonder if some of the members of the public might be thinking of is the Zipkin zoning plan informational notice. There are certain types of requests for oversight fences or other types of things, some home occupations that require an informational notice that goes to people. And it might have been a you might still be, I would assume is still the same amount of distance as it was in the prior code. So folks may have thought that that meant that all zoning things were notice to neighbors, and that's not the case. So if you're feeling like, hey, I know I've gotten a notice before, I've heard of notices before, you probably have. But it wasn't a rezoning notice. It was probably an informational notice for a certain category of probably what I would consider lesser changes. And Kyle can certainly step up and correct me if I'm wrong, but I just want to affirm for people who think they've seen and heard of such notices, they do exist but also affirm the staff that that's very different than notice for a rezoning. So just to help clarify that, Rick, thank you. Councilman. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, and I'm supportive of this. This is great. I wanted to speak on this notice piece again further clarifying with councilman can each that the department when you're doing a legislative rezoning when one of us as council members do a legislative rezoning, they actually encourage you to send a letter to every house that's impacted. And I know our office has done that. Five Voice Business Association has done that. So there may be further confusion there. And I also know that if a home is doing a pop up or things like that, they require to notice the adjacent house front and back as well with the letter. And so there's a lot of confusion around the rezoning stuff, but I am so supportive and so, so great to see you all come together and agree on this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, Councilman Espinoza? Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for that best practice. I appreciate that. And I'm going to commit to District one from now on when I get rezonings. Until we have a law, I will notify my neighbors that are impacted. Thank you. Thank you. Can't any more. All right. I wanted to chime in and say that I'm impressed with the process and I'm impressed at how smooth this has gone. And also, I just you know, I my daughter attended the school just north, and it's quite a catalog of such a long time. And to see the level at which you participate in the community and what different community events and everybody use in your your parking lot, I mean, it's probably the only parking lot I know out there. I know that you guys are great players and you have a great choir. So hats off to the process. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, for your work on the ground. And thank you, folks, for making this a smooth process. With that, Madame Secretary, if we have a roll call on Council Bill 775. Espinosa I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I can h. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Black Brooks II. Clark, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 775 has passed saying that there's no other business before this body. Today, this meeting is adjourned. Everybody drives safe. Denver eight TV. Your city, your source. Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Plan Business Park Classification to Clarify the Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at Harbor Bay Business Park, as Recommended by the City Planning Board. (Planning and Building 481005)

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7355

Item six A public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending the general plan business park classification to clarify the allowable floor area ratio at Harvard Bay Business Park as recommended by the City Planning Board. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. I am Alan Tigh, Planning Services Manager. So what's before you tonight is a minor amendment to the general plan text in the land use element. What it does is it's designed to eliminate an inconsistency in which the general plan describes the floor area ratios that are embedded in the zoning regulations at the Harbor Bay Business Park. So in 1991, when the City Council approved the zoning for the Harbor Bay Business Park, it allowed properties to be developed up to a factor of 2.0. The vision there was you we would get, you know, mid-rise office buildings. In 1991, we adopted a general plan that I would argue mischaracterizes at FSR as, uh, limited to point five when in the zoning that point five is that there's really a special provision that applied to the waterfront. So again, the zoning allowed properties to be developed there to porno for air, except an area that is along the water where they would be point five. The general plan characterized that as covering the entire business park. So, Mr. Tai, if I could just ask you in layperson's language, could you just explain to the audience just how how would that work? And if they are and if they are, did you already tell us about that? Yes. The floor ratio basically is the ratio between how much land you have and the amount of area that you have in the building. So, for example, in favor of two on a 5000 square foot lot means you can build a 10,000 square foot building. So that's really what it is. So over the last 20 years, there's been a lot of low density development at the business park. This really hasn't been brought to light, but in recent years we're seeing a lot more development in our business park. There's currently two projects in the pipeline Exelixis that wants to build an office building with 900 new jobs. There's also a new Hilton branded hotel that's proposed at the entrance to the Harbor Business Park that would be affected by this issue. So what the planning board and staff are recommending today is that you amend the text to just ensure that the description of their fair issue is consistent with what's already in the established zoning. And this was a unanimous recommendation of the planning board. That is correct. All right. Do any speakers. Specifically. Ask any questions about the staff report? Do you have a motion item of approval? I have a motion to move. Approval to have a second. A second with my thanks to the planning board that did a great job vetting this and getting to work. I will echo your thanks to the the planning board. They they are one of our hardworking, heavy lifting boards and I appreciate that. Okay. Any discussion before we vote? Councilmember Desai. I'm going to remain with the status quo. I think the point five is satisfactory. And if someone wants to come in with a higher floor ratio, especially over point eight, you know, they can do it. They can do that through a variance or special special permit use permit process they don't need. I don't think it ought to be by right. Because what you're saying is conceivably you can have a parcel like this. Point eight means that the building, if it's going to be a one story building, is going to be is going to take up basically 80% of that parcel like this. Or you could have a parcel like this. But instead of being a flat building, flat and squat building, you can have a stacked building. And so I think we really need to be wary of of what we're doing. I think the typical floor area ratio for light industrial is maybe around point three. Typical ratio for office in retail is .25, maybe point five. I think point five is pushing it as it is. And I think to give by right point eight, I think you're going to have. A lot of buildings that are, quite frankly, inelegant. One of the points of having a floor error ratio is to have a design that is elegant in terms of a design of a building, in terms of its massing and its height, that that is somewhat related to the area in which it is being built. Instead, I think you run the risk of having either these really, really short and squat buildings that are taking up a lot of parcel, or you end up having a lot of taller buildings that just seem out of out of whack. And so so I think it's wrong to to to go to point A and I would rather remain at point five. Thank you. Councilmember de SAG. So we've had a motion we've had a second all in favor. I and I'm going to pose I take it. Okay, that motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. For clarifying. That. Comment. Wasn't that. That wasn't that was I don't think that was an accurate explanation of exactly what we just did. I just wanted to know if you want to. Yeah. So I should. Clarify the. So the current zoning allows most of the business park to develop up to 2.0 acre by right. The zoning calls out that the there is an area along the waterfront of the business park that is limited to point five. The general. Plan. Sorry, Mr. de SAC. We didn't we didn't interrupt you guys, but let's let Mr. Todd finish his comment. We voted. It's finished, and we'll move on. We had a chance to give it. Thank you for stating your opinion. We've had another request to hear, Mr. Tai. Let's hear him out. What we're trying to amend is the is how the general plan describes that FAA. Ah, and in 1991, what we put in the general plan, it was just probably poorly written to describe that the point five that we applied to in the entire area of the business park. Not just along the waterfront, and. That's what we're trying to correct. Tonight. Understood. All right. Okay, perfect. We are moving on. So then we move to item six B. Public Hearing to consider rejection of ordinance amending the Alameda Principal Code Chapter three Zoning Ordinance to Streamline Design Review for small residential additions, window replacements and green roofs. Update the work live ordinance requirements. Update the lot line adjustment procedures and make other miscellaneous administrative, technical and clarifying amendments as recommended by the Planning Board.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 925 South Pennsylvania Street in Washington Park West. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-A1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 925 South Pennsylvania Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-5-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02162021_20-1561

Ten I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 has passed. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 20 1561 on the floor for passage? Oh, you're muted. There we go. Sorry, Madam President, I move council bill 1561 be adopted. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We've got it placed upon final consideration and do pass. And thank you for the motion and the second. Councilman Herndon. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1561 is open. Can we please have the staff report? And I believe we have three on. Afternoon, Madam President. Members of City Council. My name is Phil and an associate city planner with Planning Services. Today I am going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 925 South Pennsylvania Street. The subject property is located in Council District seven with Councilman John Clark. In the Washington Park neighborhood. The property is located along Pennsylvania Street, just west from May 25. The lot sizes around 4440 square feet and is powered by a single unit home. The property is in the urban single unity zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone their one single unit, a one zone district with a smaller minimum zone. So lot size. This would allow to legally permit an existing accessory dwelling unit that was built before the current owner purchased the property. As mentioned before, the property is currently in the Urban Single Unit district, which allows for a minimum of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by property. So us you be with a historic structure use overlay district. So the north and east and us you be to the south and you are h38 with a historic river later to the west. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is surrounded by mostly other single unit uses and some two unit a multi unit unit uses to a west and east. In this slide, you can see the existing building form and scale of the area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood in the top right and top left. And here you can see a couple of images from the alley where you can see the existing structure in the rear of the subject property. Both the images are from the alley looking north. Subject properties within the Washington Park new plane, which would allow a maximum building height of 89 feet, which of course does not affect your request because the maximum height for any you in this district is only 24 feet. Speaking of the processes, information on notice of the application was sent on October 26, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on December 16th, and to date, staff has received four letters from the public supporting the application, given the proximity to multi-unit dwellings to the west and east and two layers of opposition. One of the letters is against short term rentals. The other one actually has concerns with the fact that the rezoning is to 81 instead of B one, but does not oppose the idea. As I said, one of the leaders of opposition refers to a potential use of aid to you for short term rental. On that point, I would like to mention that the Denver zoning code and associated licensing regulations allows the resident of the primary dwelling unit to conduct a short term rental, either in the primary dwelling unit or in a legally permitted accessory dwelling unit. Basically, anyone resident in a primary structure can apply for a short term rental license as long as they live in the property. Not allowing for an 80, you won't prevent the applicant from getting a short term rental license. The other opposition expressed its concerns not with the rezoning of the district, but with the fact that the applicant is rezoning to a smaller lot size. And this could lead to a patchwork zoning or or what we call split zoning. The reason why the applicant is requesting to rezone to you as a one instead of you as you be one is because a lot size is only 4440 square feet and does not comply with the minimum so lot size of 4500 square feet. We will go over this in my analysis and we'll explain why we think it is okay to rezone to a smaller size. Denver's zoning code has five review criteria, which I will go over. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning. The rezoning is consistent with several of the tragedies in comprehensive plan 2040, and I will go over a couple of them. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Looking at Blueprint Denver The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. These place type have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Pennsylvania Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to US district with a smaller minimum lot size. It says that it is appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The blog with the subject site shows a large proportion of properties that are under 4500 square feet. Which would be consistent with the U. As a one district and a few lots that are larger than 4500 square feet, which would be consistent with the existing Southern District of u. S. U. V. One. The button east and south of the site is of smaller, lots more consistent with a U.S. A1 district, whereas on the north side of Kentucky, the lot a bit bigger and more consistent with you as you do one district. Lupine also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Now looking at the West Washington Park neighborhood plan adopted by city council in 1991. This plan is silent on energy use specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with residential land use. Recommendation number four include compatible setbacks, significant buffering and landscaping and site plans for new moderate density residential development to ensure compatibility with adjacent low density residential uses that attach a new building for was developed to specifically take these types of concerns into consideration and provides for appropriate supports between structures. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. To justify a circumstance where this rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the approval of existing the existing U.S. business district, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and blueprint Denver a stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning to you assume a one mid-season tent of this plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with urban neighborhoods, context, residential districts and the you issue a once on district. Stuff recommends approval based on finding all your criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20, Dash 1561. And this evening we have three individuals signed up to speak. And Fran, we're going to go ahead and ask if you could take down the screen sharing there, and we will go ahead and kick it off with our first speaker, Adam CAVANAUGH. Yes, I am the owner of the property and we are requesting the rezoning really for use of an existing structure. I think a lot of the points cover a lot of the discussion of the previous property applies to ours. I don't think I have anything further to add to the discussion. All right. Thank you, Adam. Next up, we have gurdy grant. Good evening. Council members and Council President again. It's me, Gerty Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado in council wonderful council District seven. And I am here on behalf of the West Park Neighborhood Association, which I believe sent a letter of support for this ADU rezoning. And our reasons for supporting it are that the immediate neighbors, both to the north and south, one of whom is Jane Kraft, Paul Cashman. And I think you remember her and they support it. The support from the neighbors was much more in favor than against. And this the architecture of this building fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It was converted to an access to a dwelling unit illegally without permits. However, it does fit in with the character of the neighborhood and West Wash Park voted to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Gary. Our last speaker for this hearing is Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Members of Count. Mm. Those watching at home. My name is just Michelle Paris. I'm represented for Black Star Action Women for Self Defense, Positive Action Committee for Social Change, as well as the United Party of Colorado and Mile High North. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight for the reasons I stated at the previous rezoning. We have a housing crisis. We have this House housing crisis before Congress. We still have it during Kobe. So any opportunity opportunities council gets to pass rezonings of this type I am a supporter of. So I support this zoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. We're going to give it an extra second there. All right. Seeing no hands raised, the public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1561 is closed. Comments by members of Council Council member Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I won't belabor this one. I think the criteria have been met, and on top of that, everybody in the neighborhood is seen as supportive and happy to this one. Just another thank you to Gertie Grant for sticking around and speaking for the neighborhood on this one as well. And that's it. I will be voting to support and would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And likewise, I will be supporting this as it meets all of the zoning criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call like I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can, Kimmage. I. Ortega. I. Sawyer. I. Black I. CdeBaca. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1561 has passed. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0006 on the floor for passage. Yes. Council President, I move the council bill $21 0006 be placed upon final consideration. Get ready and do pass. Okay.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties generally bounded by 38th Street, Walnut Street, 40th Ave. and the Union Pacific/RTD right-of-way in Elyria Swansea. Corrects the zoning classification for multiple properties described in Ordinance No. 20180015, Series of 2018, located near the 38th and Blake RTD Station in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-1-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0421

Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 to 0 4 to 1, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has. Sorry. A little slow here on the uptake. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council. Fortunately, one is open when we have the staff report. Andrew Webb. Mr. President, members of the Council, thank you. I'm Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development here with a short presentation on this request for an error correction to a recent MAP amendment. This request is in Council District nine. It's in the coal neighborhood. This is the map from Rezoning Proposal 2017 0122, which was adopted on February 12th as Ordinance 2018 0015. This was the the base district rezoning for the 38th and Blake project. So it established the incentive overlay and the River North design overlay and it also updated some of the base zone districts so that they would work correctly as intended with the overlay after that. And I want to highlight here that that's shown in red here on this map. Is the is the subject property for this request. Right after the adoption of the of that ordinance, it was discovered that an incorrect notation on a legal description exhibit that went with that request had caused for one chunk about 8% of the total base district rezoning to be given the the wrong the wrong base zone district. So it's a zone district not intended. This proposal would rezone approximately 13 acres right there at essentially at kind of Blake and 38th from C annex eight that's urban center mixed use eight storey with the you oh two billboard overlay and then the incentive overlay and the design overlay would rezone this to IMX eight that is industrial mixed use with an eight storey base height and the and the same overlays would be applied. This request would essentially correct an error that was made and the process. This request was referred directly to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It was approved as part of the consent agenda on May 1st. This is the process allowed for in the zoning code for errors that on the zone map that occur as a result of a of a rezoning 21 day posted notification was provided at the site. We also reached out to all RINO's associated with the area and we also reached out to property owners and have not received any public comments on this proposed rezoning in terms of review criteria. The original staff report to request a 2017 EIS 00122 is was included with your staff report and consistency with the review review criteria can be presumed by the Council's findings in the original rezoning case from February. So with that, CPD recommends approval of this correction ordinance based on a finding that all conditions have been met. All right. Thank you. All right. We have two speakers this evening. Turman Sekou, you're up first. 3 minutes. Okay. Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. The issue with correcting this error. Is that it doesn't even begin to address. What is really taking place. It's more of a dot and cross in the two. And so you can't argue with. What is taking place here. Can't do it. And as Paul said. This thing that we got going on now is complex. Yes, very simple. And reminds me of a grandfather analogy that he gave me called The Breakfast of Champions Nest Egg in Eggs. And then that process of building that breakfast plate, the chicken made a contribution by putting the egg on the plate. And the cow had to die and put his ass on the plate in order for us to have an excellent value meal deal so that we would be fulfilled. So the question becomes, is city council chickens or are they cows? Are you going to put your ass on the plate for what you believe in, or are you going to be a chicken and go for the ultimate thing? Can we all get sick? Sekou. So in the process, don't interrupt me because I understand what you're getting ready to say. No, actually, I can't interrupt you. Don't. Don't cuss in here. Go ahead. That wasn't the cuss word. Yeah, it was. Which one was it? What I say. Or to my bad. Okay. So I thought it was in the Bible. You could use it. So here we go. What are we going to be about? Councilman Ortega has already made it clear we've been struggling with this state for a long time. But now we got some new fresh blood in now. And we've got other folks out now because this is it for them. This is it. So what's coming? What's really come? More of the same old, same old. Or something fundamentally different that will restore the faith in this body by the people. If we allow this process to continue and keep playing semantical legislative language games, we are guilty of the betrayal of the masses of the people who deserve a better way of life. And it's our job to eliminate that suffering and make it possible. So this city is for all of us, especially for the ones who've been born and raised here, who are systematically being excluded. There is no excuse to continue this process at all other than you are in bed. With the developers. And that you have agreed to a standard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Jessie Pearce, the struggle of liberation. Jessie Pearce, you're up next. Thank you. But Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense in Denver homicide law. Because what has already been stated. We have a crisis. Denver, not so much an affordability crisis. Can you can you stay focused on this book right in front of you? That's that's the focus of this. Housing, this building code. My whole thing is if you're going to change the building code. Once again, how many of these units are going to be affordable or anywhere even close to affordable? Because affordable doesn't even seem to be in the language of these business developers. So this 1300 dollars for a 450 square foot apartment seem reasonable to you? Honestly, who can afford that? Think about that and then think about the rapid gentrification that is going on in all areas of the city. Now, somebody really needs to take a stand on this. So like cycles already stated are just going to keep allowing this to keep continuing to happen and happen continuously. So we have to keep coming to these meetings and keep asking the same questions. Where is the housing? Where is the affordability? You want to change these building codes, then make these neighborhoods where people that have been in these neighborhoods can afford to live in the neighborhoods instead of having to be pushed out, having to live in a whole different other city, different county, because they can't even afford to live in the neighborhoods that they work in. It's ridiculous. This this building code change is so they can put in a 16 storey building. Again, how many of the units in a 16 story building are going to be affordable? That is my question to the city council. Can I please get a straight answer from somebody? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa Yeah, I was looking at it and it was confused because the incentive overlay would apply to either zone district. So I'm assuming it has to do with the existing use. That is correct. So the the C-Max and the IMX districts were were proposed in this area based on current adopted plan policy for future land uses in these locations and also existing uses. And there were considerable existing industrial uses happening in these this 13 acre area. And that explains it. Thank you. Thanks. Councilman Ortega. Can you tell me how we found out that this was an error? Absolutely. So we worked our our department worked with our survey team on putting together the exhibits for this rezoning. And as you may recall, they were pretty extensive, many pages long. And after the adoption, our staff was going through and making sure that they were applying the correct zone districts to all of the affected properties and noticed that. And you'll see it in the in included with the staff report there's actually a copy of the of the exhibit that has the error. And it's it's one letter essentially in a sentence that that essentially resulted in that chunk of properties being given the wrong base zone district. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Council President. I don't know if you're going to speak to what the overlay did, but I thought that might be important too. Yeah, actually, I don't know if you want to. Sure. Yeah. I'm glad you asked about that. Councilwoman Ortega, the overlays actually address seek to address affordability by establishing base heights and then allowing additional height above that base height in return for some community benefits, one of which is increased number of affordable housing units included with the development. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right, see in no other questions before this body. Go to comments by members of council. I'll start since this is the project that never gets completed and I'm just talking we we've been working on this for a long time and you guys have been doing an incredible job. And this is, you know, folks didn't know that we actually do have incentive incentives for affordable housing in our zoning code. But this is the first to actually, you know, increase that incentive. And so there was a question as a 16 storey building, how many affordable housing units will be in there with no money from the city ? There's actually a 16 story building being built now, and it's going to be between 27 and 35 units. And so really excited about that. Without this incentive, that building would have no affordable units would be all market rate. So I'm excited about this and excited to see if it's, you know, in the future how impactful it is, but also that we have great staff to to catch mistakes. And so I'm glad you guys were able to catch this. Councilman Espinosa, I'm trying to understand that. So we're they're building a building with 27 to 35 units with no subsidy. Yeah. Which project is that? It's the Mcwhinney project. Okay. Yeah, I have an address because I was going to give you a straight answer and say no, because it's always going to be cheaper to buy out to get eight stories. But maybe I stand corrected. I will research the Mcwhinney project and confirm that it in fact does not have any subsidy going into it whatsoever. The because those public dollars are your dollars, whether they're coming from through your income tax and back through HUD or through. Now the new property tax that we charge all Denver residents or through, you know, indirect routes as well. So my I just wanted to comment because I'm a little bit torn here. I did not vote in support. I voted in support of the 38th and Blake incentive overlay. But I did not support in in favor of the rezoning, the massive rezoning, because I thought it once again raised it squandered an opportunity for that to to truly value capture that difference between the industrial land uses and this now 16 storey capacity. This is different because this is. This is an error. It probably should it never should have been CMCs because it's industrial use on this. So I am torn because I would not have supported. But we don't have the option to go back to its original zoning. We're only optioning between a correct zoning for the uses or CMCs. So if you see me vote in support, it's because I'm correcting the error, not because I still think that was a good idea. Thanks. Yeah. And Councilman Espinosa, just want to make this clear, because I think in our public hearing, when we had this on February 12th, it was unclear. You can't really buy out of residential. Some of the buyout functions are in the commercial aspects. And so we're excited about this project to be right across the street from the the rail station and should be coming soon. So. It's been moved to the Second Amendment. Secretary, roll call. Clark. I. Espinoza, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore I can connect. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Mr. President. I flew scores voting in US results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. 421 passes. Thanks for your hard work on this. Now we got it. Got to. Right. Okay. For the last bill of the night. 561 Councilman, can you please put it on the floor?

Adoption of Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of Non-Urgency Ordinance: Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Adding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers’ Decisions and Administrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently Suspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a Restated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8; Adoption of Resolution Establishing Relocation in Accordance with the City of Alameda's Rent Control Ordinance; and Recommendation to Approve the Content of the Rent Registration Statement. (Rent Stabilization Fund 265)

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7203

last three years to to strengthen renter protections and to update the ordinance. And there was a ballot measure in November of 2018 that if it had been successful, it would have precluded the council from making any amendments to the ordinance by enshrining in the city charter and subjecting it to a vote of the people. That charter amendment was not approved, and therefore, in spring of this year, the Council began the process to update the ordinance as it saw fit. And in spring council took two actions. One, it removed the sunset clause from the 2016 ordinance, which had a provision that the rent program would terminate in December of this year, December 31st , that sunset clause was removed. In addition, the City Council adopted an Ellis Act policy which spells out the guidelines for landlords who are interested in going out of the rental business. Then the council adopted two more ordinances this summer. One ordinance was to adopt what are called just cause eviction protections, essentially saying that tenants cannot be terminated for no cause. There has to be a just cause or a no fault to terminate a tenancy. And then the Council adopted an annual general adjustment, and that is essentially a maximum allowable annual rent increase bank of that rent increase and a rent registration program this evening. There are a series of other amendments that are before the council and they are being presented as two ordinances. One is an emergency ordinance and one is a non-emergency ordinance. The contents of the two ordinances are identical, except that one would take effect immediately and the non urgency ordinance would have a second read in 15 days and then take effect 30 days after that. Or in 45 days. I'm going to quickly run through the key proposed amendments that are part of the ordinance this evening. So I talked about the just cause and the annual general adjustment. Those two ordinances that were passed this summer are essentially folded into this ordinance. As I said, just cause is a requirement for rental properties. And rent registration is also an obligation for all rental units, multifamily and single family. And then the annual general adjustment rent banking. And the petition process applies to multifamily units built before 1995 under the new rent stabilization framework in the city. Rents are not regulated for single family homes, condominiums and multifamily units built after 1995. The city is not allowed to control the rents of those units because of the cost of Hawkins state legislation, which preempts local jurisdictions from providing rent control to those types of units. So those units will not be regulated when it comes to rent increases. As I go through these changes, some of these changes were actually approved previously by the Council in Ordinance 3180. That ordinance was referenda and subsequently rescinded by the Council. So we have brought back some amendments that were previously approved by the Council that are included in this ordinance and when they were previously approved by the Council as part of ordinance 3180, I will point that out just so the Council knows what was previously approved. So we clarify a number of definitions, and some of those key definitions are natural disasters. We specify that relocation payments are not required when tenants vacate due to a natural disaster. However, because there may be some dispute about whether or not a landlord contributed to a fire or two other kinds of disasters. There is an appeal process that's provided for in the ordinance and a hearing officer. If that if there is a discussion about was it a fault of the landlord or a fault of the tenant, that kind of thing can be adjudicated with a hearing officer. We are expanding under this ordinance eviction protection to Section eight housing choice voucher holders previously not covered by the termination protections in the ordinance. And then we are providing some specificity to units that are not subject to the regulations. Just to kind of clarify houseboats, dormitories, temporary housing for homeless people, those kinds of things are are made clear in the ordinance. And then we have also specified that rent cannot be increased within the first 12 months of a tenancy. It's already the case that you can't increase rent more than once every 12 months. But this clarifies that you cannot increase your rent within the first 12 months. Temporary tenancies are authorized, and this is something a concept that was previously approved by the Council in Ordinance 3180. Where are the concept of a temporary tenancy in that tenancy is authorized and it is pretty narrowly prescribed in the ordinance to qualify for a temporary tenancy. That unit must be the landlord's primary residence. You cannot do a temporary tenancy in excess of 12 months. However, in recognition of the city's long standing history and residency of folks in the military, for instances where the landlord is in active military or the tenant is an active military, a temporary tenancy can be extended for up to five years if it's in connection with a military assignment. When a tenant when a temporary tenant vacates after a maximum of 12 months, the landlord must reside in the property for one year. That's to prevent serial temporary tenancies. And then associated temporary tenancies are exempt from the ordinance, and no relocation payments are required to be paid when a tenant vacates the unit. We have made revisions to the owner move in requirements under the existing ordinance. After an owner moves in, the owner must side in the unit for one year. We are recommending that the council amend that and require the owner to reside in the unit for three years. That's a best practice. That's typically what most rent controlled jurisdictions require is that the owner live in the unit for three years. We are limiting the frequency to only one owner move in termination allowed every 24 months. So an example of this is an owner move in. There are enumerated relatives who qualify as owners. If you move your parents into one unit, you cannot. Then the next month move your grandkids into another unit or your cousins into another unit. It's one owner move in termination every 24 months. And then if the landlord violates the provisions of the owner moving requirements, the rent for the new unit is restricted to that of the prior tenant before the owner move in, termination was exercised. We have clarified in the ordinance buyout agreements. Buyout agreements have been allowed over the life of the ordinance. However, while staff thinks it's important to continue to allow that option of a buyout agreement, we think that there are some administrative things that we should require of those buyout agreements, and those include the buyout offer needs to inform the tenant of their rights under the ordinance that the tenant has the right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing and that the landlord must file the buyout agreement with the rent program. A new concept that's been introduced in this ordinance is a requirement that we're calling relocation payment for constructive evictions, and that constructive eviction is being defined as a rent increase, regardless of whether it's a cost to Harkins exempt or a cost to Harkins nonexempt unit. If there is a rent increase in excess of 10% and a tenant elects to vacate the unit within 90 days of receiving the notice, essentially determining that the tenant cannot afford to pay the rent at that increased level, the tenant would be entitled to relocation benefits. This this item, the program fee passthrough is also something that was previously approved by the council as part of 3180, and it allows the landlord to pass up to 50% of the annual rent program to each tenant, and that with the caveat that any pass through must be in 12 equal installments the current year , the current year's fee is $106. If you did the math, that would be $4.41 a month to 50% of the one I was six over 12 monthly installments. We will be doing a fee study and we will be coming to the Council with a recommendation about a new fee for the new fiscal year. That will start July 1st of 2020 and we hope to have that fee study to the council in next spring. Another substantive change that is being recommended in the ordinance is the provision of relocation payments. The ordinance had a lot of discussion about relocation payments in the body of the ordinance 3148. We are essentially taking out kind of the guts of the relocation payments and suggesting that the council adopt the actual relocation amount by resolution. So you have a resolution before you this evening that would set the new relocation benefits. We have moved to a different formula, and part of this was informed by the work that management partners did for the city, looking at our relocation benefits, where they recommended that the city move to a formula that was based on the fair market rents. So the new relocation payments for permanent relocation and the resolution before you this evening deals with both relocation, permanent relocation benefits and temporary relocation benefits. So tackling permanent relocation first, the permanent relocation benefits are based on two months of first and last fair market rent. And fair market rent is based on the bedroom size of your unit, actual moving expenses and other factors such as taxes, relocation payments, our income. So the idea is to make a tenant whole and the moving expenses. Um, we did a survey and took a look at what it cost and we had an existing relocation, a moving expense that was set by the Council and adjusted by CPI. So that's the rolled up. Those are all the factors that roll up to the relocation amount. The this ordinance would eliminate the option to trade more time for less relocation benefits. And then we also introduced the concept of qualified tenant households, which are households that with seniors with seniors 62 and older minor children under the age of 18 and disabled tenants would be eligible for enhanced relocation payments, the assumption being that there may be more challenges to a qualified tenant household to finding a new place to live . So this slide shows what the proposed relocation benefits would be for the for the current year. And they're listed in they're included in a resolution. And I would just point out that the average relocation benefit over the life of the program since its inception was is between eight and $9,000 is the average relocation payment. The ordinance has always provided for temporary relocation payments, but we never came up to date with a temporary relocation amount. So once again, the resolution includes a temporary relocation amount, and temporary relocation would be provided when a unit is vacated due to a government order where there was a health or safety conditions other than those resulting from a natural disaster. And it's based on the per diem cost to be temporarily relocated in the city of Alameda. So you can see what the temporary relocation costs are. And I would point out that if a tenant is temporarily relocated, they are obligated to continue to pay rent while they are temporarily relocated. So the landlord will be getting rent but will be paying out temporary relocation benefits. Last meeting, the council adopted the the rent registry, and there was some discussion and concerns expressed about what would be the kinds of questions that would be asked in a rent registration form and what would be the privacy issues surrounding the information that was collected. And the Council requested that the rent registration form come back to it for its consideration and approval. This is a screenshot of the rent registration form. It's an exhibit to the staff report. Pretty much all the information that we are asking is public information. If there is a public records request, there is very little information that can be redacted. And most of the information that can be redacted is that requesting contact information for both landlords and tenants. Name, phone number, address, email. All of that is information that could be redacted, but information about rental housing, services provided that kind of thing. If there is a public records request, it is highly likely that the attorney's office would determine that the information for the public outweighs the privacy of the individual. I would like to say that as staff is proposing the rent registry, the only people who would have access to the rent registry is landlords who would have access to this information for their specific units. So landlords could access the information for their units, and that would be the only universe of the public accessing the rent registry . It is possible in the kind of 2.0 iteration of the rent registry, there would be an ability for tenants to access the information on their unit. And the idea is when the rent registration program, which is effective now, today, officially the annual maximum rent is that we will be notified or the rent program will be notifying both the landlord and the tenants of the maximum allowable rent increase and the maximum allowable new rent, and that the tenant would have that ability to check that information against the programs database by calling the rent program. So this is the rent registration form that staff is proposing. And we're asking the council's approval of it this evening. So in summary, the recommendation is to introduce two ordinances, urgency and honored, and see the amendments highlighted in the presentation to adopt the resolution establishing the temporary and permanent relocation benefits and to approve the rent registration statement that's in the staff report. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And Ms.. Potter. And thank you for for your report. Do you want to just let the audience know about these upcoming workshops that are going to be presented for people who would like more information about these new changes? So the rent program staff is running a series of workshops that start next week, but not. And I'm going to I'll ask Greg Katz to come up the rent program director and give the times and the topics for the workshops. But they will be scheduling workshops throughout the fall so that folks can get more information about the changes that are in place. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll have Mr. Katz come up at some point wherever he is. Okay. And I bet we have public speakers on this item. 1616. So far. But while we're waiting for the city clerk's office to get the the speaker's steps organized, does anyone have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Yes. Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We're following Councilmember. I mean, Miss Potter's advice. Everybody speak right into your microphones and kind of loud. We don't want to sound gravelly. But thanks, Miss Potter, for all your work on that. So just a few brief questions. So this constructive eviction, 10% increase. Can you remind us because there was a 90 day opt out provision. What is the notice requirement for a 10% increase? Is it 60 days or is it longer? A rent increase in excess of 10% is a 60 day notice. Okay. So it looks like there would have to be one month where the tenant would pay the increased rent. Or maybe more. Well, they they can move out any time in that 90 day period if they are unable to pay the rent increase and are interested in the relocation benefits of the max. The outside date is 90 days after the notice. Okay. Thank you. Then on on the Costa Hawkins units, we had a process that required going to the rack but didn't have a binding decision so that that process is now taken away, just to be clear. That's correct. We are eliminating any regulation of rent increases for the Costa Hawkins exempt units. Okay. But there is there still going to be a voluntary program that people call the progress log? Sorry, the rent program staff, they are all trained mediators and they are big believers in mediation and they are happy to mediate when there are two consenting parties to mediate rent increases, that is a service they will continue to provide. Okay. And the the relocation average, I think you mentioned the numbers 28. And I mean, do we have an estimate of, you know, what relocation average would have been under the new proposal? Because it seems to me it's probably going to be pretty much the same. Yeah, I we could probably figure that out because this new rent relocation is tied to bed unit, the bedroom, the number of bedrooms. That's not how the prior calculation was, the number of years you lived in your unit. We probably could figure that out, but maybe not at this meeting. Okay. I think there were some concerns raised in the staff report about the impact on landlords on making Section eight units available. I mean, do we have any data on whether or not I know it just recently, but since we put our just cause ordinance in, if there's, you know, an uptick or a downtick. So I believe you're referring to the housing choice voucher program, which is the program that makes Section eight vouchers available in the private sector where landlords rent to Section eight tenants. It's completely voluntary, and it is sometimes challenging to find tenants in a hot rental market who are willing to take a Section eight tenant. Landlords to find. Landlords. Thank you. When when the max rent is set by the payment standard. So we do currently have over 75 tenants with vouchers looking for housing in the city of Alameda. And the the thought is if the council were to extend just cause eviction protections to housing choice voucher holders, that that could depress the interest on the part of landlords to take Section eight tenants. We don't know whether that will happen because the ordinance is not yet in effect, but it is certainly something that the housing authority will be able to track because they'll know how quickly the vouchers can get absorbed in the market. And then the long term effect of that is if the housing authority is unable to place voucher holders with private sector landlords, they will lose the funding potential for vouchers in the future. So it is something that is of concern and will need to be tracked. Okay. Well, that was my next question. Can you track that and report to us if we're seeing that? Because, you know, I would think if if that fear is true, then the opposite would have been true, that when just cause was put in and Section eight was exempted, that we would have seen an uptick in Section eight given that people could be evicted. If you attribute bad motive to landlords, you know, regarding. Just correlation and you know, yeah, that's a hard thing. And I would say the item after this item tonight would prohibit discrimination based on source of income and that may provide offsetting protections to Section eight voucher holders. It remains to be seen. So then I think there's also an exemption if we have contracts for housing services that provide some type of of just cause protection. Right. Right. We the ordinance since 2016 has exempted units with regulatory agreements, governmental regulatory agreements in place. And do we know if those are stronger or weaker than our protections or. Um, and they where, for example, if you have a regulatory agreement because you are a tax credit project, you have to have just cause to evict a tenant. And then two more. So housing authority properties are still excluded from this, right? Most housing authority projects are subject to regulatory agreements. Okay. And last question. I have. We talked about the registry. Is there going to be some report back to to the council on what type of reports you're going to start generating and providing to us, you know, with the data in the registry? And when can we expect that if the answer is yes? Okay. So the ordinance continues to require an annual report updating the council about the rent program. So I would imagine that council would see all of that in the next annual report, not the annual report. It would be the annual report for this current fiscal year for the 1920 fiscal year. So would be back before the council in the fall of 2020. Okay. Actually, one more. I'm sorry. So we talked about natural disasters and fire. And I recall it was maybe two years ago there was a fire on central on the other side of park. And last I recall, those units were not finished being repaired. I mean, would we consider that particular instance? And if you have to come back with the facts, that's fine. You know something where it would be a natural disaster, where nobody's entitled to relocation or an instance where there would be a temporary relocation and kind of what I would say, an incentive to get repairs done quickly. Right. So the issue that would govern whether or not the tenant was entitled to relocation would be the cause of the fire if the fire was caused by some sort of negligence of the landlord versus, you know, the house next door caught on fire. And then it traveled to that that house. I do know that it's often the case that the insurance company is why it takes a really long time before stuff starts to get fixed. But if the fire is the result of no fault of the landlord or no fault of the tenant, relocation payments would not be paid. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Any other council clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Potter. Okay, let's move on to public speakers. And how many do we have now? Now we're up to 17. 17, so 18 and probably counting. Okay, counsel, we we don't do three minute speaking times when we're over that, you know, even a smaller number. So we agreed to 2 minutes per speaker. That's the default. That is the default. I mean, we could change it, but 2 minutes sounds good to everyone. Okay. So we suggested the audience knows. Again, we want to hear from all of you, but then we also need time for the counsel to deliberate. So my ask is simply listen for your name. The clerk will probably call three names, be ready to slip out and start down the aisle when you hear your name called. And please audience as much as you like something, don't applaud. And also no boos. No jeers, no doing the wave. You've heard me. Many of you say this before. We want everyone to find that it's a comfortable place to come and speak to the Alameda City Council. I don't want anyone intimidated. You are all entitled to your opinion. We don't have to agree with each other, but I think we do need to listen to each other and communicate with civility, hopefully. So. Anyway, with that, let's get started with our first speakers. Alan Teague, Harry McCurdy and Tristan Schmidt. Good evening. You all know who I am by now. I'm surprised at the position of the housing authority of the city limit on this change has not been presented prior to public testimony. This change affects them as well as housing choice landlords and tenants. I've been an active participant in the Housing Choice Voucher system for more than a decade. My guideline has been to follow the payment standard and to keep the tenants share stable. I voluntarily lowered the rent at times. Currently, I've been willing to give marginal tenants a chance, as there are defined processes for how to deal with those when it does not work out. While I believe the situation with a Holocaust survivor is abhorrent, you could make a very targeted change and only remove the termination where a landlord wants to obtain a higher rent. All of the rest of the ordinance could continue not to apply. At the very least, you need to clarify that the HUD payment does not count as accepting partial payment of rent and the failure to pay rent section of the eviction and terminations. And you also need to waive the program fee as the tenants cannot absorb even half of the rent fee when their share is in the double digits. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Harry McCurdy. And we're taking a mic to him. Okay. And I'm going to ask the clerk's office, the clerks, would you please list like three speakers in advance so people can be. Ready next month? Tristan Schmidt Maybe you can line up over on this wall here, Connie, Shazia and then Austin Tam. All right. Hello, Mayor. City council members. Yes, hello. My name is Harry McCurdy. My name is Harry McCurdy. I'm a 25 year resident of your beautiful city here in Alameda and a 25 year resident of the Dunes Apartments, a two, four, four, five shoreline drive. I have been treated well by the by the management of the apartment and the owners. On the other hand, I look at it as a tenant and say that I have a great deal of empathy, especially for somebody who has gone through what has been involved in the Holocaust, that they should be treated fairly and that someone should not gouge them with excessive rent increases. I think that Section eight is certainly appropriate use of. Money and for payment of a rent. I don't I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. I simply am telling you what my experience is and what I hope for. Is for as. The future. What you've already done as far as negotiations between the different parties and the different interest groups. Thank you for the work that you do. And please remain just. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. Okay. Our next speaker, Dean Smith and Connie Schultz, then Austin ten. Okay. Is Tristin Smit here? Okay. Okay. All right. So maybe not here. Okay. Okay. I sent him, then, Connie. Oh, I'm sorry. Connie. Connie. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Good evening to the Council of Alameda, California. I live in Alameda for 28 years, and I am very concerned about Section eight, Section eight, voucher holder. Where I live, they don't accept a voucher anymore. They haven't for years. They have different owners quite often and now seems like they're going to be selling the property again. So I am concerned myself and some of my neighbors if they're going to get rid of us. So I will ask the Council if they can consider expanding the protection for the Section eight tenants. Um. Definitely be okay. Thank you. Next is Austin Tam, then Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher. Good evening. Mayor and city council. My name is often Tam and I want to say I am not related to Margaret Tam, who has who has been treating these tenants like trash. I want to I want to tell you how shameful and immoral, unacceptable and inhumane this has been. This is a disgrace that that's been happening to Barbara Jordan and the rest of the tenants, that it is ridiculous. If you are especially if you guys are for decent people with disabilities, you guys need to do something. A blood is on our hands because we cannot treat them, treat the most vulnerable. Mayor When we talk about treating the vulnerable, they are the ones who are invisible. They are the Barbara joiners, the mouses, the everyone else, the invisible. It's like we have to, like, literally go on the media and go on The Guardian or New York Times to get our issue across. I just ask you, you know, to to support these people and to not allow them to be to be left homeless on the streets like this is disgraceful. I mean, our grandmothers, our mothers are like people. We are we know people who are disabled. And this is ridiculous that you're going to treat them like crap and trash and treat them like like there's no one else's business. I mean, it is it's ridiculous. And there's 2019 right now. I mean, back then, I mean, this there's people with disabilities used to be in facilities, mental institutions, and and they just have no ramps and no other things. And this is discrimination. I mean I mean, this should be open for lawsuit. I mean, I'm surprised that people are so, so not disturbed by what's happening. And it's interesting that I, as a person who has a disability and disability advocates have to advocate been because people who have disabilities have to advocate for themself half the time . But I'm asking you to to do something, because we are not going to win. We are we will be will do whatever it means necessary to make sure that they are not left homeless because we are going to be guilty. Guilty, just as guilty. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Tam. And our next speakers are. Donna Fisher, then Michael Fisher, then Edward Rybak. Okay. Ms.. Fisher. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, I'm Donna Fisher. My husband and I own four apartments in Alameda that are covered by the new rent control ordinance. Our tenants. Like us. We like our tenants. We take pride in keeping our units the way we would want to live in them. It is getting harder and harder with these new ordinances. A few things I want to point out that must be considered relocation. Payments for no fault. Evictions. While we agree, there is logic to tying them to what HUD says are the rents for our area. They really need to be tied to what the rents are for. Alameda. None of our units earn any of that amount of money and they just don't. And we would never increase them that high. Also, on these relocation payments for no fault evictions, interestingly, that goes up every year based on the CPI increase. Why not seven 70% like rent increases? We shouldn't have it both ways. I also want to talk about relocation fees for temporary relocations. I think City Council needs to rereview the rates that were stated. I know they gave $335 a night for temporary hotel. Not including all the other items I checked today for hotels for Thursday night at three local hotel. I found them ranging from $50 to a high of 229. For a best western way. Side on Embarcadero. There is nothing that high. I don't know where the number comes from. Also, interestingly, if we use the nightly fee suggested for somebody with studio apartment one dog, if we did it for a month, it would cost us ten months rent. Also, final thing I want you to know, on the back, on the 70% of the CPI, nothing of ours has increased by less than the CPI. Even our real estate taxes year over year and I look. 17 to 18 have gone up four and a half. Percent. Also are utilities 50% year over year, increased usage more higher occupancy in the units. And then we had an unfortunate uninsurable situation that cost us thousands. At this rate, we won't be able to keep doing it and no one else will come in. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Rochester. Now, you did well. And now is it Mr. Fisher? Yes, Mr. Fisher. We don't see time, but on. Medication, he just had surgery. But whatever. Who. Who put in the speaker's slip? Is. Is is. Mr. Fisher came here, took the elevator up. Okay, Mike. To him. Okay. Would you like us to bring the mic to you, sir? Or. Or if I miss Fisher, if you would like to speak. Do you have his statement? Okay. I guess we're told we both are the landlords there. Okay, but don't be 2 minutes for him. Okay. Come on back. We will make an exception that okay with everybody. Is fresh out of surgery. Yes. No. I'm Donna Fisher speaking for Michael Fisher, my husband. Oh, stop. Okay. So we have to hear from the city attorney, Mr. Chen. Madam Mayor, unfortunately, your rules do not allow donation of time. Okay. It's changed than it used to. Well, they did. And then we made a change. Okay. And can the council not? We can't vote to overrule that. The council could vote to suspend any. You know. I don't think. So. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion and a second to suspend the rule for this. I'm going to be clear for this. When Speaker in this instance do as we have a motion the second all in favor. I. I believe that's unanimous. Okay. You may have 2 minutes. Okay. So I'm speaking for Michael, although I agree with him. Michael is the manager. This has been what he does. And to him, the most important thing is the landlord tenant relationship. And it hurts him to know we may not be able to maintain to the same standards because he gets calls in the middle of the night like , Oh, something's not working there in Alameda. He goes right over. He gets calls from someone saying, I'm already on the freeway on my way to work. I think I left the iron on. He goes right over. He actually, two days after surgery, snuck out on me and drove over and somehow managed to get up steps. I'm just saying, the things you go through, you give your heart and soul. Our tenants know it and this is very much going to hurt the relationship when we're not able to continue to invest to the standard that all of us would like. I invite you to really consider what you would do if you were either a tenant or if you owned these units. Thank you. That's from Michael. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. All right. Now we're back in our regular rules. Our next speakers are Edward Ryback. Lucy Russian and Lorna, Russian. Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward. You know, I'm going to actually get real close to that microphone because they're a little they're not as strong as we'd like them to be. And we want to hear you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Edward Ryback. I've been a resident of Alameda for about 40 years. I was reading the resolution this morning and I think there are some textual issues which are incorrect, and I think there are some items which are flawed in the resolution that should go back to staff for correction or for reconsideration . The first item is you talk about relocation expenses being taxable to the tenant if they receive them. There's no information here to get the tenant, the Social Security number, to issue a 1099. There's also some time requirements to fund the relocation expenses. If you don't have the information for the 1099, I'm pretty sure that the landlord may not get it. Another possible solution is to have the rent board. Are you set in a general term to issue the 1099 because they can have the program, the software and the ability to collect the information to do it. Also, I was told by staff that there's a markup for the income taxes of 22%. If that is correct, that means a family with income, married family with income up to $165,000 is getting benefit of a tax markup. I think if this resolution is to help people who are needy or who need additional care are giving tax benefits to someone who earns up to $165,000, is should not be the the goal of the resolution. Also, there are some we've heard some comments about the relocation costs. My basic calculation for an average family, you're talking between 15 and $20,000 a month. Between the daily amount, the food amount, the pet amount. This amount is just not feasible to be paid. And again, we talk about $335 a day for the hotel, $64 a day per person. Those for people, that's about $250. If you've allowed a pet, $85 a day for a pet. Also, many people, when they move, have friends and neighbors they can stay with. Thank you. And our next speaker is. Mucci. Mr. Vision. Thank you. And then Lorna. And then Sarah. McCracken. McCracken. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Recent, will you be sure to speak right into the microphone? And, you know, we can bring a microphone to him and he could sit if he would like. Hmm. You don't. Man City council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is more serious and I am an Alameda resident. I live at the in this apartment. I was in the new reason because my landlord is trying to evict me or not. Well, any of. It is cruel and wrong. I am good tenant. I always pay. Rent. On time. I am quite respectable. I don't drink, don't smoke. Don't break the law. They say in America your home is secured. Home is where your where your heart is. I have lived in my home for seven, ten years with my late wife and my son. They are both gone now. My home is all I left. It is all I need. I am an old man. I am in poor health. I have been forced to leave my home before. Before the course of war and political conflicts. I can be forced to move again. I want to make. It. Please help me stay in my home. The trial to my election course is for October 15. Please. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll let Mr. Putin get back to his seat. Our next speaker is Lana. Richard. Morrison. Regina. And you bring the microphone up to you so we can hear you. Yeah. You're a mayor. Vice mayor. City Council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lorna. Regina. I am the daughter of musician. I'm an Alameda resident. And there is an ancient Roman saying justice delayed is justice denied. And unfortunately, the justice might be denied to my father and to many other residents who are relying on Section eight voucher, who are facing an imminent eviction by their landlord due to no fault of their own. They've done nothing wrong. They're paying their rent. They're good residents. Some of them are elderly, disabled or people with small children. They're facing eviction. They've done nothing wrong. This should not be happening. And as to the argument that this may preclude other people from getting Section eight housing, when I started my career, people told me that women shouldn't push for women's rights because if they ask for breastfeeding rights or a right to take care of their children, that nobody would hire them. That's pretty much the same kind of argument that and look at us today. If we ever bought this argument, we wouldn't be here in this room anymore. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Is Sarah McCracken, then Jan Santos and Doyle Saylor. Are. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah McCracken. I am a staff attorney at Central Legal de la Raza. My office represents tenants in unlawful detainer proceedings, eviction proceedings throughout Alameda County, including Mr. Risen, whose case brought to light what I would describe as a loophole in the ordinance that you're reviewing this evening. When we advise tenants, we look for two basic things protection against massive rent increases, whether that be a subsidy or some sort of rent stabilization ordinance and just cause for eviction. That's a basic protection against losing your home for no reason whatsoever. It's a protection that everyone deserves. And as Mr. Case highlights, a lack of regulation actually leads to discrimination because without the just cause for eviction protections, someone can simply evict someone because they no longer wish to participate in the Section eight program. So I urge you to extend just cause for eviction protections to Section eight voucher holders. And I would also like to note that Mr. Risen's trial is currently scheduled for October 14th. So if you do not do so on an emergency basis, it will be too late for him. Thank you. Thank you. And we have. Jan Santos, Ben Doyle, sailor than Madeline Howard. All right. I'm Jan Santos with the Seniors and Disabled Renters Renters Committee, which is part of Alameda Renters Coalition. I want I can't say strongly enough how important I think it is for you to pass the ordinance, the urgency ordinance, including Section eight. You've been hearing already this evening how important it is for some people that it gets done immediately. Everybody deserves a home, housing and food and shelter. And you have the chance to help make sure by passing this ordinance that there are some people who will not have the chance to keep their housing if it's a month from now, dictate to have the chance to help them. And this ordinance should have been passed yesterday. So please do pass the urgency. Think about it from your heart. Think about what it's like not to have a house, a home, a shelter. And think about if you're a senior disabled person. There's a lot more complications to it, and it's even much harder to survive. So please think and feel with your heart. Thank you, Miss Santos. And now, Doyle, sailor. Hi there. Mayor City Council. I'm royal sailor. I'm a person with disabilities. I'm a depressed person. And through some of the advocacy I've done over the years, it's became clear to me that the federal regulations say that 17% of the population is disabled. And if you take a look at Alameda, that's about 9000 people. My disability is invisible. And that's often the case with the with how disability is addressed in our society. And I think it's very important that the city council is is advocating here for including Section eight, because the majority of people in Section eight are generally people with disabilities. I strongly urge you to pass it tonight. I also strongly urge you to pass the urgent part of it, because there are people are going to be directly affected by this if you don't do the urgent part. So I want to thank you for bringing this up. I think this is the right thing to do. And I'm proud of you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. And our next speaker is. Madeline Howard, then Catherine Pauling, then Tony Green. Good evening. My name is Madeline Howard. I'm a resident here in Alameda. I'm also an attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty, where I enforce anti-discrimination laws and housing. And I also do work with tenants who are facing displacement. So I'd like to really thank the City Council for all of the work you've done and all of that hardworking staff to put forward this just cause and rent control ordinance. I applaud that work and I would encourage you to keep doing this work and keep making the ordinance stronger. I can't say it better than all the tenants that you've heard from tonight, but we hear a lot about the financial hardships that landlords experience when they cannot keep raising the rent. But the hardship that a tenant experiences is homelessness. We see this when we're driving. We see the camps, people living in tents, and many of the people that I've represented when they came to me too late and I was not able to save their housing, they were forced to move to Texas and other remote communities where they couldn't keep their children in the same school. They couldn't be with their friends, they couldn't keep the same jobs. So this is a tremendous hardship, and I would really encourage their counsel to keep going with this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. And Tony Grimm, then Richard Medlin. Mayor Council. First of all, I want to thank you. I've been coming to you for years to please have gather state citywide statistics on rental housing. I'm very excited to see that coming to fruition. I will say that one of the main reasons we wanted this to happen was. So that there would. Be public access to the statistics. Over the last five years, we have been kind of the canaries in the coal mine telling you the level of problems that existed and that we needed protections. And if what I'm hearing is that a public portal is only a possibility and it's going to be so restricted that people have to call on the phone individually for their individual unit to check. That was one of the things that was mentioned. Also the city does reports, but they tend to be aggregates. And just. As we kind of went back to the census. And did a more detailed. Look at those aggregate. Amounts to get a truer picture of what renters were going through. If you do not allow public. Access, where. We can actually. See a building at a. Time, how do we know when from one year to the next, suddenly all the low income or the lower rents of the longer term residents have disappeared. How do we find. Out when something's. Going on? The realtors have all of this information and the large ones already have the report. The city has not had it, and I guess this will give it to the city. But as far as. Those of us who are. Advocates who are looking for the beginning of those trends and bring it to your attention, not having that public portal prevents. Us from being able to do the work that we. Have taken on to help the city and to. Protect our communities. So I strongly recommend that when it. Comes to getting this first stage and space. In place, that more stakeholder meetings happen. For years. For decades, Berkeley has allowed it without spoiling. And I believe ice cream is our next speaker. Tony Grimm, then Richard Netherland and William Smith. Okay. And Mr. Nevin will bring the microphone to you. You don't have to get back up, if that's okay. I mean, you're welcome to. Well, you've got a minute to decide. 2 minutes. Okay. Miss Graham. Hi. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I'm urging the council to approve expanding just cos provisions to section eight tenants. I'm basing my appeal on the Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination among many groups. But specifically what we're discussing tonight is age and disability. The notable thing about that act is that it pertains to public housing and households that receive federal funding. I think that applies here. For the city to do this is just going to be in compliance with that law. And I want you to do it, please, as soon as you can make it, do the emergency provision, because this is a dire need that we can't wait for the next few weeks to go by, because I'm afraid that in that time there might be a lot of discrimination done by landlords who don't want to comply with this law. And you will see a lot more cases other than the ones we're hearing tonight. So let's please approve this, an emergency ordinance effective as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Come on up. Mayor Mish Fiddle Council, Richard Neville, a resident of Alameda, a long time and on social security a long time surprises even me. At 78. One of the things that's happened the last four years is no Social Security increase for three years and then a $7 increase on $1,000 a month, which is way less than usual, five or 3% increases. My rent went up 5%. Each year, the last two years, which is roughly seven times the increase. In my Social Security income monthly. Some mitigation needs to be put into the formula. You work out things for renters, since there are so many seniors renting in Alameda and so many senior housing attached to the housing authority . Some way of fitting in the lack of increase. From Social Security offices and other agencies into the mix where everybody wants a little more money. It's tough job to fix it in when you have less, but somehow that needs to be worked in. Thank you. Thank you. William Smith and Nancy Gordon, then Rose, Linda Fortune as the last speaker. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the council again. I'm William Smith and I'm a landlord in Alameda, have been for almost three decades and also in a long time associate with Alameda Renters Coalition. And I wanted to echo Katherine Pauling's point about the importance of making data available. I crunched some of the numbers based on the census reports, and I was just shocked, shocked at seeing the number of low income people that have been forced out of this town in the last ten, 15 years. And I just saw in the headlines that we had the lowest number of new homes permitted in the last year in the Bay Area for decades. And so it's not going to get better anytime soon. So if we're going to stabilize our renter population, yes, it's going to be difficult on cash flow for the landlords. I know that from my own experience and it's especially difficult if you're buying a new home and you're trying to swing the payments and make those. But once you're established, you can weather cash flow because you've got you've got appreciation of your asset and that's where you really get the money. So you may have trouble with being fluid, but you've got the money and the wealth and maybe you can tap into that to tide you over. And the renters are the people that make that possible. They buy your home for you. So I certainly urge you to recommend two to pass the rent. Just cause evictions. And certainly that emergency ordinance is very, very much called for. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Gordon. Here she is. Thank you, mayor and council members. As a former high school teacher. And then I became a realtor and worked about 17. Nowadays, raising kids and selling property and all that in one pocket out of the other, borrowing. Because I had a vision. You know, we had a vision of where we wanted to be. Well, in my seventies. I'm still working, and I am very grateful for the wonderful tenants I've had, with rare exception, and the ones who have not. Been amenable and they've been bothering other tenants. If it. Weren't for my ability. To get rid of them. I would have lost good tenants out of those buildings. So we need to be able to get people out who. Are creating problem for everybody else or we're going to lose. Our good people. I just want to say also that most of you know that I initiated and the realtors sponsored what turned out to be seven years of benefit concerts. And we raised a lot of money when the homeless shelter was brand new, we helped them start and then we. Raised money for the Meals on Wheels and the food bank. So I'm somewhat of a bleeding heart. I also think it's. It's totally unconscionable what happened to this fellow at the Dunes. That's not right. I think there's there are situations that are extreme on both ends. And I. I actually resent having to pay literally and. Figuratively as a community. Of landlords for. The extremes, for the few. I have wonderful. Tenants. Like I say, with rare exception. We get along fine and I concur with what Mr. Fisher said about their relationship. It's important I manage my own places. I want to know what's happening. I give them names of people to contact. If anything goes wrong, they can contact. Me wherever I am. And without. And they know the people I hire can be there. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Our next speaker. Rosalinda, for this opportunity. And it's our last speaker. If anyone wants to speak who hasn't had a speaker slip, do so quickly. Mayor, City Council. I am one of those small one mom and pop landlords and I am very angry at what the City Council is proposing. If you know how hard landlords work, you'd probably say, I would never do that. And if you put yourself in our shoes, you would say, they can have it. You're driving. You're going to drive all the small property owners out of business and you're going to end up with large corporations owning most of Alameda. If you don't slow down and consider the problems that you're causing property owners financially because like Ms.. Fisher stated, most of the expenses that we're incurring will increase over the 2.8%. I feel like this is like a big brother looking over us, and this is not the way it should be in the United States. I feel for the tenants because I have good tenants and I protected my tenants and we have a good relationship. But there are some landlords that need to have a process where they can be taken to court. And that's what the court system is. And you're not the court. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, you know. No, cause that's the rule. Okay. And no outbursts, no outburst. Please. I'm asking for no outbursts. Thank you. So now we. Thank you. My bad. We have completed public speaking and thank you to all the public speakers. You did a great job. And by the way, I do appreciate all of you coming out and sharing your views and for the landlords. I that was a gutsy thing to do. I've heard from a number of landlords over the last couple of weeks that they were afraid to come out to what they thought was an anti landlord crowd. But I would say that with few exceptions, everyone did a great job. Thank you. What I'm going to do now, just because it's it's after 9:00 is I'm going to call for a break and then we will come back for council deliberation. So it's almost 915. Let's be back and we're going to get started at 930. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you at 930. But sharp. I'm going to start at 930, be in your seats by 928. Now, whatever I do, thank you. Earning. Okay, everyone. Great job. It's 929. And by the way, I understand that it feels like a sauna in parts of the chamber. I see you fatty yourself. We're sorry. We have open windows. I guess we could open more so we could recruit Andrew Thomas. Oh, Teague, planning board member to the rescue. Thank you, Mr. Teague. Yeah. He's doing. Yeah. We delegate round here. Oh. And we delegate to experts. What can I say? All right, so we have we are now close public speaking, and we are going to have the council discussion now. So this is a meaty topic and I know there's lots to discuss. So who would like to start? I see. Mr. Modi, Sandip, Jim and Mr. Modi. Sorry. No worries. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, everyone, for coming out tonight. And again, to Debbie and her team. Thank you for your amazing work on this. It seems like it's it's Whac-A-Mole, but, you know, that's just the nature of this this type of of policy making. You know, I always say this whenever we have a discussion on rents, you know, it all comes down to me. Housing is a basic human right. Period. End of sentence. Stop. I'm going to keep saying it until everyone gets it. And I also think you judge society will judge you as an elected official or as a society and how you treat the most vulnerable. And we have a sign up there. Everyone belongs here. And to me that means everybody it doesn't matter your race, it doesn't matter your gender, your sexual orientation, your income status, whether you have Section eight or not, Section eight, whether you're disabled or or fully abled or partially disabled, anything. And if I let anyone out, I'm sorry. So. And. I usually say this too, but I think Mr. Richard said it best when he described his home. And for every tenant that's their home. That's the place they come home to. That's the place their family is. That's the place the children grow up. That's the place they go to sleep in every night. And they eat and sleep and, you know, enjoy life. So that's their home. And when it's disrupted, it's it's it's stressful. It's one of the life's most stressful things. And I was struck by the comment in open communications earlier about the disruption of moving on commercial tenants. You know, there was a comment made about that. And, you know, it's compounded even more when, you know, it's an individual who's their home. So I plan on supporting all of these. I think it's important that we have a thriving, diverse community of residents from all backgrounds, all stripes, all colors, all everything. And that's why we have that here. And I think sometimes, you know, I always look at it to be reminded that that's the value which we're guiding by. Just a couple of things. You know, briefly, I've heard concerns. I think Mr. Nolan brought them up and I've heard others bring up concerns about, you know, issues with the housing authority and treatment of tenants. And this is not something I want to talk about today, but I am going to bring something back because it concerns me. And what concerns me is what I feel is a lack of accountability because, you know, that's not an agency that reports to the city manager. That's not an agency that has our city attorney as their counsel. And that's not an agency that's accountable to basically to the city council. So I've come to terms about that and the relocation, a situation like that, that unit on Central, I'd like to make sure that the tenants there are protected because I've heard that's still a problem and people haven't been able to get back in, you know. Section eight. There are things we can do, and I'd like to consider some type of incentives. Again, that's not on the agenda today, so I'm going to bring that back. But if we find it's a problem, I'd like to see if we can do some incentives to make sure that we can get those 75 voucher holders housed here in Alameda. You know, one thing we didn't talk about, I know Debbie is probably next on your list is the capital improvement plan. You know, I think we need to make sure that we keep our housing stock, you know, in good shape. You know, there's a warranty of habitability. But, you know, right now, the scope, if I'm correct, nobody's used it or we had one application that got rejected. So I think we need to look at that because I think landlords really want to keep their their places in great shape. And I think tenants deserve a habitable place. You know, I got to tell you, I just moved into 113, 16 year old home and my second home this past week is is Pagano. So I understand that's something that we need to we need to help with and make sure that we can keep our housing stock, you know , in tip top shape. I'm concerned about the discrimination. I don't think we should have you know, I was worried when we first did relocation that we would have discrimination if we added extra categories. But hopefully the next agenda item will take care of that, you know, moving expenses. And I got to also say, you know, if you can find a mover that can move a place in 15 or 6000 dollars, I mean, good luck. I would have liked to have known you a week ago. As far as the database. I'd like to I know that we're going to bring reports back in the spring. I'm not sure if if that's too long. I would like to see some type of interim reporting based on the registry so we could start seeing if there's trends or maybe see what data is available that we can mix and match and kind of get reporting on. But, you know, bottom line, you know, no one should have to go through what this man is going through. And he's not the only one. I mean, there are other people that I've heard are having issues with Section eight and they're getting evicted without cause. So we made a statement. This council made a strong statement about protecting tenants rights and about, you know, not letting anyone get kicked out of their unit without cause. And I'm sorry there was a loophole, but I'm prepared to support fixing it. I do do want to say one thing, though. I mean, I've heard almost uniformly from Alameda landlords that what's happening over at the Dunes is despicable. So I just want to give a quick shout out to Alameda landlords. A lot of the mom and pops, they know a lot of you take it on the chin with a lot of criticism. But, you know, I appreciate those of you that have taken the time to to share that that feeling with me. And, you know, we're all one community, so I appreciate that. So that's what I'm going to do. Thank you. Thank you. You wouldn't just go down the line. COUNCILMEMBER So we are right to. Feel for the plight of a Resene family. And right in our anger at large apartment complex owners like that of the dunes. But as we make policy for all of the city, we should be both moved by our hearts, but also our heads in making policy for all sides, both the renters , as well as smaller mom and pop landlords. I believe that it is not City Hall's place to make unilateral dictates, especially when reasonable alternatives exist that can protect both renters and the smaller landlords. That's why I believe the original 3148 reflected a workable solution for both renters and smaller landlords. And as I've said over these past months, rather than gut that entirely, as we're continuing to do tonight, we should and should have modified it where fixes were needed. For example, we all agreed that there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148 ordinance. In other words, the original 3148 allowed for 5% increase, one year 5% increase in another year, 5% increase in another year without triggering the rent review process, which would have included binding rent control. So there was a cumulative rent increase problem to the original 3148. But what we should have done was kept 3148 and fix that cumulative problem, to quote or paraphrase Bill Clinton. We should have amended 3148 as opposed to it as opposed to ending it completely. Now, all of this, though, is not academic in the sense that there are real repercussions to the decisions that we're going in making, the drastic changes that we are. I think when you have the smaller mom and pop land laws come not just tonight but in previous meetings, that's a telltale sign that the burdensome policy changes that we're pursuing fall differently on different sized landlord categories. And and I know this matter is settled, but that's why I believe that that we should have also take into account the special circumstances of a smaller land, smaller mom and pop landlords. And the special circumstances comes down to this, the type of penalties that they are being asked to absorb, which are similar to ones that middle or large landlords are being asked to absorb. They cannot pass that on because they are only limited. So many units that they control may be no more than four. Whereas the matter that brought us tonight, you know, the larger Dune's complex or the matter that brought us to, you know, 20 years ago when we had to deal with the when of his department situation. You know, this will or even the matter of the the apartment on next to Payton school for 70 central. I mean these are units that are are larger and that and that a distinction that we should have taken into account. But I have difficulty supporting tonight staff recommendations for the reasons that I've always said. I believe that we should have striven harder to make accommodations in both protecting renters and also protecting the smaller landlords. And we could have done that in a way that also stifled the excessive rent increases that we saw. Because the fact of the matter is, is that 31, 48, as originally perceived, actually did stifle the the excessive rent increases. So we're going much too far. And so let me give you an example of why I believe we're going much too far. You know, Sacramento is about to adopt statewide rent control. I mean, they are going to, you know, basically cap rents in an effort to fight excessive rent increases. And their standard of capping rent control is capping rent control, disallowing rents that are no more than 7% increases, plus the cost of cost of living adjustment, so long as it also doesn't surpass 10%. So their standard at a minimum is 7%. So what we've adopted and it will strengthen even tonight, is one where basically the smaller mom and pop landlords are being asked to absorb cost increases that are below. Inflation that are below the cost of living. And, you know, it's very difficult for the smaller mom and pop landlords to continue operating in these circumstances. The repercussions of that, though, is that for many of the smaller mom and pop landlords, whether people who are in single family rentals and they're selling it or duplexes and triplexes, the repercussions of all of this is that many more than likely are going to get out of the rental business, thus reducing the rental stock. When I was in grad school and we analyzed the impacts of the Berkeley style rent control and also the Santa monica rent control, and those were the impacts that we saw. And week in, week out, through these type of meetings, you know, we've had populations come up to us and say, you know, we need to preserve diversity. But when you look at the research, actually, it was the very diverse populations who Berkeley and South in the in the south part of Berkeley. It's a very diverse population that was lost as a result of the rent control there that was put in place in 1980, as well as Santa monica. And frankly, you know, one can argue that even in the city of San Francisco, you've seen a loss of the African-American population as a result of the rent control put in place there. So we really need to think not just with our hearts and that we are right to respond to the plight of the Rasheen family. We are right to respond to the plight of the families at 470 Central as well as 20 years ago or so when it came to the Buena Vista. But we also need to fashion policy with our heads that look at all sides, both tenants protecting them, and also the smaller mom and pop landlords. And for that reason, I feel that that what's before us tonight just doesn't do that. So I will continue to do not support this. Thank you. Let's move this way. Thank you. I. Well, I'm going to say that I think it's possible for people to have different ideologies and be thoughtful and consider all sides and look for the best way forward and come to different conclusions. For me. I'm sorry. I have a really. Hard hitting microphone. Yeah, I bet it microphones. And then this one really doesn't seem to like me. So I will speak up. I'll eat it so I can. I mean, I guess I could speak for myself. I am a small mom and pop landlord, and I will tell you that I support what we're talking about doing tonight. And there are some places where, you know, certain outcomes are going to be more difficult than they were today. And if we pass the urgency and it becomes law today, things will be more difficult for me tomorrow in my family than they were yesterday. But that's a part of the bargain that I that we make going into this. You know, when we are both providing housing for somebody else, we have to really kind of start from a place where the people who matter in this are the people whose homes and lives we are. We are we as the council are trying to address. So I can't sit here and say that it's easy. There are no simple solutions. If there were simple solutions, everybody would do it. But the solutions that we have been putting into place have not been working. And and for that, I am I am fairly supportive of everything that is that is moving forward here. I would like to see a couple of places that that if there was interest, I would look at making some small tweaks. I think that we did have some public comment that came in referring to the temporary relocation payments and the idea that there should possibly be some sort of requirement for for yeah. In order to get the temporary relocation payment that once a unit is re available for moving back in, that there should be some timeline for that move in. I do think that there are some reasonable concerns about how much these the temporary relocation schedule here, which I think we can address and, you know, kind of readdress it at a future time seems very, very high to me. I know where the schedule came from, but that schedule does definitely come from the federal guidelines for visiting San Francisco, etc.. At the very least, I'd like to see something that says that the relocation payments for the housing especially would be based on some sort of receipts or direct payments. So it's not just a $335 a day payment. I think if somebody is is dislocated from their home, a temporary relocation needs to happen. But the idea that it could be a $10,000 a month relocation for 30 days before you even get into the food and everything else where nobody is making that kind of rent that can cause some problems, especially since a lot of the hotels in town even have weekly rates, etc.. So if we could clarify, I don't want to I don't want to to set up a dynamic where tenants and landlords are fighting over, you know, does everybody just share one bed and therefore, you know, like, right there need to be some reasonable assumptions as to is as to as to how this is worked out. But if somebody can find a room at that on Harbor Bay for $200 a night, then, you know, at the end of the day, that relocation payment for the housing should be for $200 a night and not just a flat 335. Here you go. So if we could look at that, even if it's bringing it back in a future, because this is the resolution, that would be good. I would like to see I have heard over the last couple of months strong concerns about the use of the data from the database. I also heard some interest in making sure that we are using the data there, both from Councilmember Ody, but also from the from Ms.. Pauline using the data to inform decisions. I would like to you know, we know that public it will be a public records request. You can ask for information about apartment X, apartment Y, and we will give you the information for that. I think we need to be a little careful, just like the county is with property value information, you can get information on one or two or three. You can go individually and get the information. But if you are going to ask for the entire database for property, it's actually about a $2,000 cost. I don't think we need to treat the database itself as as a public records, but I want to make sure that if we're going to take that tact, that we have some input with the landlords and tenants interests to make sure that we're providing the reports that are necessary so that when we aggregate the information, the information is aggregated appropriately, so that so that people are getting the information they need from that. Let's see. I did like the planning board member Teague, speaking on behalf of himself, did ask. That clarifying comment about partial payment when you are dealing with HCV and making it clear that the person that that the the the HUD voucher or whatnot doesn't count towards that partial payment triggering triggering protection and whatever else. I do think that that that there's something for that. And I'd like to hear hear my council members thoughts on that. I'd say lastly, because just in case I want to talk a little bit more, I'm not going to run out of time. But I do want to say this is really important. I am so sorry that that Mr. Ryan has has gone through what he's gone through, that we have to be here for this. Like Councilmember O'Day, I've heard from every single landlord I have talked to or heard from, people have reached out. Everyone is is just absolutely offended and, you know, upset about this. This is a community wide concern. And we're here tonight. I will be supporting emergency ordinance and I hope we can get there tonight. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vela. So a. Few things and I think it'll echo some of my colleagues statements. Um. I'd be fine coming back on the temporary relocation amounts. Fine with passing it as written tonight. I would be interested in, you know, hearing more about this timeline. I do think one of the things that would need to be included in it is some sort of additional notice because you have to make. You know, arrangements for your accommodation. So there needs to be advance notice and then the unit does in fact need to be available on the date listed. And if we're going to say. And if I have to say. That there is a timeline for move in, then there needs to be a process for if the unit is not in fact available on the date that the tenant was advised. I'd also be fine with looking at, you know, direct pay. I think the receipts thing becomes very difficult because people then can squabble about what was actually charged, who actually stayed where. And you're asking the tenant to kind of put out money ahead of time. I think direct pay would be fine, but again, that we would need to actually look at that and how that would actually work in terms of making sure that suitable accommodations are found and that it's not just, okay, your kid goes to school over here and now I found this deal and you're going to be off island and driving through traffic in order to get there. I think that also goes against our Climate Action Plan goals. In addition, so I think we need to be thoughtful about how direct pay would actually work if we're looking at that. I do think that weekly and monthly amounts are are reasonable relative to the temporary housing. It'd be a little different for the meal allowance and things like that. But again, it you know, I think we could we could look at all of those things and I'd be interested to hearing back from staff, but passing it as is today. In terms of the the partial payment would not include the money from HUD. I think that that is the intent of what we have there. So I'd be interested to hear from the city attorney of what the clarifying language would need to be or if it would be a substantive change. If we could make that change tonight and still pass both the urgency and the the regular or if we would need to come back. I do have some concerns about the database with regards to kind of wholesale access to all of the information. And I'd like I think if we could kind of get a follow up presentation once we actually start collecting the information about how it's all working and the types of requests we're getting, I think that would be informative to counsel and I would just remind staff that we do. We did pass a resolution a few years ago regarding the Federal Government's request for information and to make sure that if there are any federal government requests for that information, that the Council be notified ahead of any information being released to the federal government or any of their agencies. Regarding the housing authority. While we don't have direct over oversight, we do approve the board. And I do think there are some things that we should think about, and there have been cases that have come up where we might want to think about the compounding issues for some of our most vulnerable population and how we can work together to make sure that there is a process in place. Back when I was in law school, I worked for the Mental Health Advocacy Project and legal Advocates for Children and Youth in Santa Clara County. And oftentimes it was a group of us that would get together, including an advocate for the individual who was there to represent the individual's perspective and what the individual desired. And I think that there's this desire sometimes by different organizations or groups to do what they deem best for the person. And that is not always what the person believes is best for them. And there needs to be a process to kind of talk that through before, you know, we move in to an eviction or the loss of of a housing voucher or something like that. And I think it behooves us to kind of create some sort of process that would allow for that conversation to happen ahead of a bigger issue occurring. I think, you know, with regards to and by the way, I'm I'm fully in support of passing the urgency measure tonight. I do think that there we would face a problem. Clearly, discrimination is already happening. I want to start with that. Discrimination is already happening. And I don't want to create a kind of period of time where people can continue to discriminate and there will be other cases that come forward. I think there is a very good example, but it's an example and I think that we risk having other cases similar to that coming forward. And that is why I think we absolutely need to pass the urgency matter, the urgency resolution, an ordinance in addition to the other one. And I think this is about protecting our most vulnerable. We need to do that. It's it's part of why we have these ordinances in place. I've heard some comments about, you know, we're all being held to the same standard or you know you're that were legislate over legislating we have to legislate for everybody we don't get to just make we are not a court we are not judges we don't get to just make decisions one off to specifically legislate for an individual. And so that's why we have to think about the consequences, both intended and unintended. And I think that the staff recommendations address that. I think that there's some room on some of these to discuss further, but I think that those can come back at a later date . Thank you. And I'll go last. I want to thank Debbie Potter, our economic development director, and also the staff at the Housing Authority who helped put this very comprehensive, thoughtful presentation together. I also attended a workshop at the library last week that Ms.. Potter and Mr. Katz from the Housing Authority presented. Just bringing people up to speed on these proposed changes. So I also want to say, I think all of us are horrified by the experience that Mr. Robinson had. And at the same time, I want to hasten to say that that one landlord or it's a pair of landlord in this case do not typify, do not exemplify the majority of landlords in this city. And I think that I would say our commenters made that distinction. We are we are not out to vilify landlords. We need our landlords. We don't need landlords to treat tenants like that. But it is certainly not. We are going to make blanket assumptions based on the very deplorable experiences that Mr. Risen and his family have had. I generally support this proposed ordinance and I support it as an emergency measure, but I want to ask the Council to consider with me avoiding some unintended consequences that I am concerned about. The first one has to do with the augmented relocation payments for certain categories of renters, and that would be people, tenants who are 62 years and older, tenants with disabilities, tenants with minor children in the household. And there is Exhibit A on the the resolution on page two has that chart at the top. So you can see that there is designated amounts. And those are based on, as I understand, the head numbers for the fair market rents in this area. It's specific to this area for a studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, two bedroom, four bedroom. But the augmented rent augmented relocation fee raises the amounts, the first in the two month's rent plus three, the moving fees by almost $2,000. And this is the unintended consequence I worry about in a tight rental market that we have in Alameda, a 2% vacancy rate. Any landlord is likely to get more than one application for a tenant for a unit that comes available. The landlord is going to know the applicable law. If they see that, oh, if I rent to this 62 year old or this household with a child, I and I have to move my mother or my child into that unit, no fault of the tenant, but they'll be relocated and they'll be entitled to relocation fees. That's going to cost me more money versus this 28 year old tech worker making a good salary, great credit score. I'm going to choose that one. That would still I know we can't discriminate based on source of income, but in this came out in the workshop, it's certainly valid to look at credit scores, to look at income . And is it a certain number of times the amount of rent? What I don't want to do is make it that much more difficult for these more vulnerable classes to find available units. But the rationale for having the augmented relocation payment is that these are folks who tend to have a harder time finding relocation. So I met with Miss Potter last week and we talked about this and I said, I want to help these folks, too, but what can we do short of throwing more money at them that might just dissuade some landlords to rent to them? And the idea that we we batted around and I think it's reasonable is that we could add a relocation consultant service and there are those consultants in the cities use them before that. When a renter in this category gets that eviction, that no fault eviction notice, that would trigger the use of this relocation consultant on an encore basis to help them get get relocated. Because I'm just concerned and the housing authority has talked about this, too, in a city like Alameda, we're not Santa monica. We do. Mr. Teague brought out in earlier comments we've had in place in our charter until and unless it's changed Measure A, which is a density limit. A new ordinance that prevents us from building housing of greater density than a duplex, with certain exceptions and certain hurdles that you you jump over. But it does mean that our multi-family housing stock is limited and it's getting older. So I would like council to consider that. And I spoke with the city attorney about this this morning, and he said it is easy. We could still move forward with this ordinance and on an urgency basis tonight, but simply decide to eliminate that particular column in this particular table. I also share the vice mayor's concern about the per diem rates for the hotel and motel rates. I, i, i understand the $64 a day meal expenses based on the per diem for a city employee if they were traveling. I don't have a problem with that. $335 seems awfully steep in Alameda. And as I think Councilmember Vella noted, there are weekly rates, there are weekend rates and it it averages out. I'm sure it is something less than that. So I and I also talked to the city attorney about this. We could make that modification tonight and still have this ordinance go through. But that's something we can discuss a little more and. It's not a big deal the that $85 a day for a cat boarding again could an unintended consequence be that landlords are less likely to rent to people with pets? And so maybe we'd want to take another look at that one. Um, I also want to just say that we, we do need, I think it was Councilmember Ody that said we need housing stock that's habitable and we do. Renters need good, safe places to live. But we do need to consider the financial burden we're imposing on landlords, especially smaller ones, by doing some of the things we're doing, like the augmented relocation fees. I will hasten to add that I'm not arguing for a distinction between larger landlords and small so-called mom and pop landlords, because the problem there is it's the tenant that then suffers. If there's a landlord who can do, who doesn't have limits, who can do anything because they only have so many units. But I think that we do need to think about what financial burdens we're imposing on landlords. It's one thing to say, well, they can recoup their expenses because they have appreciation in their property. And it's true property in Alameda has been appreciating that requires you to sell. And I don't want to see a lot of corporate owners come in and scoop up property and it is happening. So I think we're right to make these changes. The two that that give me cause though are the, the augmented um, relocation payments and the, the podiums on housing. So with that, do I hear any further discussion from Council Councilmember Odie? Just real briefly, I do agree with the comments made on that side about the per diem. I mean, I'd be happy to look at that again. I mean, my preference is to pass it as is and then come back and look at it because I think it needs a little more thought. I was concerned, too, about whether somebody would discriminate based on age or disability or child. I mean, I know it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So I don't know. I mean, on one hand, I'm running out of time. But on that, actually, I think we might vote to waive our time. I think this is I mean, just speaking for myself, but I think this is an important topic that is I'll. Make that motion. For consideration. Okay. Before Mr. Councilman Brody runs out of time, I do have a second to suspend the councilman. Okay, we've got a motion. A second. All in favor. I, i, i advise. I do. Okay. I mean, continue. I mean, on one hand, I mean, I don't want to attribute bad motives to any landlord that, you know, they're going to say, well, $2,000, five, six, eight years from now, you know, I'm going to pick person over person B, but on the other hand, I don't want to encourage discrimination. So I mean, I'm willing to have this. Is that since that's in a resolution, I think again, I'm willing to pass it as is, but then maybe have a further discussion on that, because I would like to know, you know, what other cities have experience that have these augmented augmented relocation. But, you know, it's I don't know if a landlord is going to discriminate over $2,000 that they may or may never have to pay. Mm. I don't know. So if I can, if I could just reply to your, your comments that again I don't want to ascribe. I didn't say you did that. No, I'm speaking for myself. I don't want to ascribe bad motives to someone's decision. But I do think that one could look at this table and know what their expenses are and that taxes are going up. I mean, you're now a property owner. You will get that tax bill. And trust me, it goes yeah, it goes up every year. And again, I think we've made a fair change. I like the fact I've been advocating for this for a long time, that rather than base relocation payments on what tenants were paying because some tenants were paying way under market and some had way too many people in, say, a one bedroom unit. But then that didn't help them when they had to go rent in today's market. So I really like that. We're looking at the fair market rate for rentals and it is pegged to the size of the unit and the unit, you know, can accommodate so many people . But I think that's very fair. We have moving expenses and I'm not saying leave these categories high and dry. I'm saying we can come in and do this relocation consultancy and and give people the help that they need. Because oftentimes and I know this from talking to tenants, you are thrown into a tailspin when you get that eviction notice, you have to, you know, figure out schooling for the kids and lots of things. And getting out and finding replacement housing is something that is, you know, one more challenge. So I see a Councilmember Vélez hand that tells me. Bill So I guess I'll start with the temporary relocation. You know, regarding the boarding for pets, there are also weekly and monthly rates for that. And I think that's something we also need to look at are the weekly and monthly rates for pet boarding. They do exist and I also think that it shouldn't be limited just to cats and dogs because there are other types of pets that require boarding. So just to throw that out there regarding the relocation, I kind of want to frame it a different way. It's not really I don't see this as necessarily basis for one to discriminate about who to rent to. Mayor, as you noted, we have about a 2% vacancy rate, so there's not that many units that are open. I see this differentiation protecting those who are already housed because it's so hard for these individuals to find housing. We want to protect them so that a decision based on discriminatory basis is not made to evict them, to say, look, you're senior, therefore you're paying less, I'm going to evict you or you have a family and therefore there's more people in this unit and I can now evict you and then rent it to, you know, and then I can move in and then stay here for a couple of years and then put it back on the market. So I really see this differentiation as a way to keep those housed that are having the most trouble finding new housing, in effect, trying to prevent more folks who are over 60 to more folks who have minor children from actually being out there trying to compete for the 2% vacancy by keeping them in their units by and by basically disincentivizing. Choosing them to be the one to move. I also I know that and I had looked into relocation consultants and spoke with some folks down in L.A. I believe L.A. tried it and it did not work out so great there. There were a number of different issues, and I would also worry about the cost to the city. Who's going to bear the cost of the relocation consultant? What happens if there's some issue that comes up with the new place that the consultant finds? Are we now liable because that that housing fell through? There were a number of issues, I believe, that came up in L.A. and I think if that's something that we're considering, we really do need to talk to the folks who work through that issue down there. And personally, based off of what I found through the conversations that I had, I am not necessarily inclined to support that unless there's information to the contrary. I also think that we should be looking. I know that you're evidence based and data driven, and I think that we need to look for evidence that there has been this kind of impact where for because people get more in relocation, there is this kind of discrimination that happens. I know that Santa monica, Berkeley, L.A. all have this. And so perhaps if they have any evidence that it is actually happening, then that would be something that would would convince me that that maybe we shouldn't do this. But but right now, I guess my my sense is to lean towards trying to keep the folks housed by disincentivizing and creating that tier because it is harder for them and more costly in the end. And just to respond to that. Your next vice mayor that I am also concerned with rehousing people. I mean, you know how much I'm working in the area of homelessness prevention. But my point is simply that I think there is more than one way to do something. And throwing money at a situation is not necessarily the solution. And I didn't consult with anyone in L.A., but I did consult with Mrs. Ms.. Potter, who has experience with those consultants here and that we've used them before. And as far as cost to the city, I you know, I think we could find funding in our rent program to pay for something like that when that happened, because I think it is important to keep people housed. Let's hear from the vice mayor. So I'd like to ask a quick question. We have to exhibit a resolution for relocation because of the other changes that are being made. We need to also pass that tonight. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. In fact, the resolution is probably the last thing on the council's list. The council would have to adopt the ordinances first before getting to the resolution, but it would have to it once we passed the ordinances, not passing the relocation would leave us with actually no fee schedule. That's right. If the council chooses not to adopt the resolution at all, it would simply cause no relocation amounts to be adopted . You're not required to do it. It would just mean that there wouldn't be any relocation being apportioned to the extent that it existed. It occurred. Okay. So for me, I think, you know, I think this is an important conversation. I can I'm at the point where I can I can hear both arguments and think they're very valid. And I'm a little worried that, first off, we have a very long meeting. And second, that that this is something that we should be perhaps more thoughtful about in terms of determining both how we're dealing with the temporary relocation payments and the permanent relocation. And so I'd like to make a motion that that we approve the and we can do this in order. But that that that we approve the the urgency ordinance. We approve the the ordinance is written and then we approve the relocation payment schedule as as provided with direction to come back when the nonemergency comes back for the second reading with a with a a discussion on the relocation around both, you know, so we can get some more information about kind of councilmember and and you have both pointed to different and Councilmember Vela have all pointed to different points of information that we could talk about. Perhaps Miss Potter will shed some light on. Our timing that staff staff can do that. The problem is probably not when you come back on second read because the start we would have to complete all our research in two days and our staff report we. Can do it. So if anyone can. Go back soon as possible. You're not Wonder Woman for another. Day. Because I think staff concurs that it would be important to have a fee schedule for relocation in place. And I would just say that we have not yet had a temporary relocation situation in the three plus years that the ordinance has been in place. So if we came back, for example, on October 1st, we would probably be okay and we would come back and we could come back. Then it sounds like we re revisiting the temporary relocation and we could do a little more on the augmented permanent relocation. Sounds like the issues at the council's. Discussion on both yes. Both sides with some conversation of cities that have the augmented as proposed as well as perhaps some cities. With your indulgence, October one versus October 16th. Okay. I think you can do that. Okay. That was Councilmember Vela. And also the cost of the alternative. Yeah. Yes. Right. And did you get the also the the cost if if we were talking about using a relocation consultant, the cost and where those funds would come from. As. You made. Yeah. So Michael was just reminded me that we are scheduled the rent program staff is scheduled to come back the second meeting in October with the annual report. So another option for us is to come back with a revised RESO for Council's consideration at the second meeting in October. That's fine. And then. We do. It as a percentage. By the by that meeting and that that can come back or something you. Want. That would be perfect. Okay. You're talking about all things housing. We could add that to it. Okay, good suggestion. I heard a motion. Did I hear? I hear a second. So all in favor of the. Yes. Madam Mayor. Chair, I'd recommend that given that you have two different ordinances and a reso that you take three separate votes, you vote on the emergency ordinance, the introduction for the first reading and the rest. Okay. Can you hold that? Well, we. Can move to split the question. Well, I mean, I think we can do what the city attorney we like to follow the city attorney's advice when every possible civil emergency. Yeah. So that's okay. Okay. This is on the emergency rezone ordinance. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I opposed the motion carries 4 to 1. Okay, next motion. Who's going to make that? Councilmember Vela. I'll go ahead and move approval of the ordinance. The regular non-emergency. Ordinance. Um, the non-emergency. Urgency? Yeah. Okay. I have a motion, Duncan. Second. I have a second from the vice mayor. All in favor. I opposed. Oppose. Says that motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. Vice Mayor Knox. Wait. You had a motion to move. Move? Approval of the relocation payment schedule as written with direction to staff to come back by the second meeting in October, with options for considering how to deal with the qualified tenant household column. Whether or not that's continuing as a as approved or some sort of relocation consultant or other options if you come up with them, as well as a revised language for the temporary relocation payment that allows for the well and I would say if possible Alameda based housing. I think if we can kind of specify that just because that way people aren't getting pushed to Concord for their temporary housing because it's cheaper but allowing a way for for direct payment, etc., is as discussed. And just for clarification, I heard you say the move approval of the relocation payment schedule. It's actually a resolution we're voting on. So you mean to include the resolution? And with regard to that payment, the exhibit, a relocation payment schedule, what you said. Okay. So, yes. Okay. So, I mean, you were seconded, right? Well, I will. If you. As you want. To do. I have now. I was running the show. Yes. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. That when carries. 4 to 1, and we will look forward to having that item come back to us on the second meeting in October 17th of October, whatever. The 15th, maybe. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. Well done. And we move on. Excuse me to item six, the. Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding. You have acquainted your. All right. Sorry, sorry. Oh, OC. Councilmember. Can we just. There's a there's a break. Are you going on? Oh. Okay. What shall we do? To the. Three. So do you want. To write registration for a2000. Rent registration form? A separate. Okay, so make that motion. Okay. Okay. So there you. Go. Okay. Sorry, everybody. It's speakers and the audience who are leaving. Could you do so quietly? We're still in session here. Thank you for coming. Okay. Sorry, Miss Potter. Where did we go? Wrong hands. Registration. We had also requested that the council approve the registration statement. Thank you. Which you said. Okay. I have a motion. Is that going all in favor? I oppose. Motion carries 4 to 1. Okay. And then we are just looking over. Okay. Before we go to item six D, do. Do you want us to take another item? Is it possible to. The change to the agenda. I would like to. Okay. So we go with infrared. Okay. So with I'm with your indulgence, we are actually going to hold item six D in abeyance. Councilmember Vela needs to go home and see a baby for just a little while. Bring him back with you. And and then we're going to take item six E and F and maybe keep going until she gets back. So we are then moving to item six E. Can I make a motion course? Cause and I'd like to move. I came here with our rules require, but given that we're moving up on 1030 and 11, I'd like to just move that we will hear all items. Including the referrals. Including the referrals tonight, since we have people here to hear, hear them. Um, I am willing to make a motion to go. I'm not past midnight, preferably to 1130, but I honestly think we can move through with some expediency. Others. Your thoughts? And of course, that's not been too long debating time because it passes. I'll second that motion, but I also would like to get out of here by midnight. My goal too. Okay. So the motion is we will continue, but not past midnight. Okay. Motion is second. It's going to take four votes to pass it. All in favor, I. All four. Okay. Good for you. Okay. But that doesn't mean we have to go to midnight, right? Okay. All right. So next item up is 60. Recommendation to provide direction to increase parking enforcement resources to support parking and transportation management goals. Good evening. Oh, yeah. Everybody speak into the microphone. We've been getting a good evening. Yeah, yeah. How's that? Better. Okay. No. Now, here we go. Talk loud. Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White, members of the council, Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department. And I'm here with Liz Acord from the Public Works Department. The two of us are two departments have been working on an initiative with your police department and your base reuse department to really look at the citywide parking management program and prepare for the future. This item, Liz and I are going to present this jointly. We're going to do this in 10 minutes or less. Really? Based after sitting through your last item, this one's much, much easier. We are just looking for a little direction here. This is it. We aren't looking for any final decisions tonight. This is, as I said, an effort that we have been undertaking for the last few months among the departments. And we've gotten to sort of a fork in the road. And we need you to point us which direction to head. Any any way you direct us is going to require us, hopefully not like this, to come back. This is not a conversation that ends tonight. We're just sort of checking in for a little direction finding. So this is about parking management and parking, specifically parking enforcement. Just real quickly, why do we why does this matter? The council knows this, but for the benefit of the public, who may just think this is about parking tickets, we need to manage our parking supply. It's so critically important citywide, it's imperative for our business community to manage the parking supply. So we keep that our keep our economic engine going. Park Street, Webster Street, Alameda Point. All these areas need us to manage parking. The council has actually adopted policies around the 85% parking parking occupancy goal as a way of managing that parking pricing it so that there's always a few spaces available. We need to do it to manage our traffic. Number one issue in Alameda, traffic congestion.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2022, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Finance and Administrative Services, Department of Neighborhoods, Human Services Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle Public Library, Seattle Public Utilities, and the Seattle Police Department to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07262022_CB 120365

The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item for Council No. 120365 and the authorizing and 2022 acceptance of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends the City Council pass the Council bill. Thank you. Councilmember Ruiz, on behalf of Councilmember Mosquito, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Yes. Thank you so much. President Pro Tem strauss i so council member Mesquita indicated that you wanted to hold these bills. So I think at this time I'm going to move to hold them. And I could explain after I make the motion and it's seconded or before. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, I understand that there are two of four bills to be held. Did you want to hold all of them or were just two of them just the two budget bills? President pro tem. Yes. So which requires seven it requires seven members to pass without appropriate quorum today. But otherwise, as you indicated, the committee report does include the gift. Well, I think that that's one of the ones that we need to hold for the quorum. So maybe we could have interim clerk Adkinson jump in on this. It's my understanding that the gift of public gift. And unless I heard something from earlier that I am for does not need the three quarter vote and could be moved forward today. It's agenda item five that takes the seven council votes. And the supplemental budget bill, the supplemental and the and the CHP, those are the two that require seven votes. The other. I was only aware of item five. Okay. Just when we lose hope, we can hold everything if you want. No, no, no. I think that we can go ahead and proceed with Council Bill 120365. Council bill per the clear representations if we can go forward with countable 120366. And. So we are currently on three, six, five. It has been read into the records at this time and acceptance of funding from non city sources. Yes and pass or a motion to postpone. Sebelius is. Concerned. Nelson. Do you know if council bill 120365 could be voted on today? Is that what are the words? Yes. Could be voted on today. Was that the question? Is that what are the words it needs to be? I just remember in committee we handled those three, six, five and three, six, six together. So as I understand it, they don't have to be voted together as long as agenda item four is passed before agenda item five. So if we were to pass agenda item four today and agenda item five on next city council meeting next week, we should be fine. That's my understanding as well. Yeah. Thanks for that clarification. And no need for words when we've got Deputy Clerk Schwinn at the helm. Yes. So with that, Mr. President pro tem, I would move that we pass council bill 120365. Thank you. Second set has been moved and seconded customer reviews. Would you like to provide the committee report? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So we had a discussion on this legislation in committee last week. It ultimately passed with four council members voting in favor and recommending full passage. This legislation allows these departments to accept grants of funds from non city sources and the committee recommends that we pass legislation. Wonderful colleagues. Any questions? Comments. Concerns. Seeing none of the cultural. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. All right. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Council President Pro-Tem Strauss. Yes. Six in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The bill passes with the clerk. And the terrible sign over the cliff. Please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. I remember fiber click please read the short title written five into the record. Agenda Item five Council Bill 120366 An ordinance amending ordinance 126490 which adopted the 2022 budget, including the 2022 to 2027 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Construction Services Contract between the City and County of Denver and ECI Site Construction Management, Inc. for Site Development, Landscape and Irrigation Installation Services. Approves a contract with ECI Site Construction Management, Inc. for $15 million and for three years for on-call site development, landscape and irrigation installation services in City parks and other City property (PARKS-202055325). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-5-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-28-20.

DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0729

Thank you. Council member. It has been moved. Can I get a second? Okay. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on these contracts. Council Member Hines. Thank you, Madam President. So these are a is a bunch of stuff all at the same time. And I thank you for being willing to consider them in a blog. The reason I believe that they're in a bloc is that all of these are on call contracts and they total close to half a billion dollars. And so I called out these contracts because of outreach from District ten residents. They I'm concerned, but they're concerned. So I share their concern that that we're earmarking nearly half a billion dollars in contracts less than 24 hours before the executive branch releases the proposed budget for Denver. Council doesn't have any advance notice about the mayor's proposed budget, as we mentioned in the last discussion. But we all know that the 2021 budget will be smaller than the 2020 budget. And considering the smaller budget, this could be seen as a public by the public as guaranteeing this money to to certain vendors. So I wanted to I wanted to bring up. How about the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure? Maybe Mr. Gallardo, if he's available. And one. Yup. There he is. Yes, I'm here. Thank you for having me. So, Mr. Gallardo, can you help explain the connection or lack thereof between these contracts and the budget? And I recognize that some of these I guess some of these are not dodgy contracts. Some of these are parts contract. So feel free to speak specifically to the daddy contracts if you like. Yeah. And I think, you know, on call contracts all together is fine, too. The way they work are very similar. The uncle contract is is putting aside a set of money that we we hold the contractors in this amount, but. We are not obligated to. Spend that amount. So you're not approving $25 million here right now. This is your budget. Conversations will still take place next week. You're still able to if you. God forbid, cut our budget in half. We are not. Obligated to this $25 million per contract. So so it's it's not a scenario where we're coming before your budget talks. Our budget will still be impacted if we only have, you know, if we had $250 million to spend on these contracts and we only have 100 million in the works scope would change to around $100 million among these contracts. So it wouldn't change your conversations on budgets next week, would not and would impact on what work we're allowed to do. But we don't impact your compensation. So the thank you. The all of these contracts are just to make sure that that I understand and people watching understand all of these contracts. They're not guaranteeing the maximum amount for each vendor. So we could theoretically authorize a vendor $25 billion and give them zero. Is that right? That's correct. That's correct. And that's one of the things that Councilman Ortega has done such a great job working with us on is making sure that we're looking at the utilization of contracts and making sure that utilization is spread among them. So we have a report that we've been working on, and I think Councilman Ortega may have a question that's related to that. But we have a report that we're working on that will be an annual report and then also a quarterly report that will show you the utilization of the contracts. And most contracts are on calls. We're not able to match them out anyways just because of the amount of work that comes through during the time of the contract doesn't always meet requirements. So but we. We, we. We do have a reporting mechanism that we plan on putting in place to be able to update council more frequently. And and and thank you. I see that councilmember take his hand is raised so I will skip that part of the maybe we've and certainly I, I have questions but I believe Councilmember Ortega could probably ask them better with quite a bit more wisdom than I do. She's been on council a little bit longer than I have that the next contract or question I have is is allocating on call amounts to certain contracts. Well, I guess this maybe might come out kind of loaded. Does it disenfranchize small businesses? I mean, after all, not many small businesses can support a contract where they might get 20 million, $25 million, some might get $0 million, and yet they must be ready to go to work on Denver's call. Yes. And we recognize that. And again, I give kudos to Councilwoman Ortega for pointing this out, is breaking these contracts up. We hope to have a set of local contracts that are going through at the same time that are SB contract. These are small business enterprise contracts are on calls and they're meant to actually go towards small business enterprises. Maybe we need to be the prime on the contract is just the first time that we advertised that we didn't get much traction on it. We have advertised it now this month and so far we have, I believe it's six or nine that have inquired to it. So hopefully we're able to bring these to council late October, early November, and these are directly towards skis on the same type of contracts as these where they're smaller, so they're able to take up the capacity on their own. So that, I guess, begs one more question. I think some of these contracts and maybe they were the past contracts, but some of them of the $432 million total had been ready to come before us for a month. And and so we're willing to wait for a few weeks for these contracts. Why not wait until we have the small know SB contracts as well and just send in all you know, we already had close to half a billion, you know, why not a little bit more. You may be referring to parts of contracts here. I can't speak to that, but I will say 4 hours when they were ready to go, we moved them forward. Knowing that the SDS will be following. We placed a fact sheet with these contracts when we posted them in the two four weeks ago. That gives that explanation about the contracts coming to follow, and we hope to have those here by November. But again, you may be speaking to Clark, so I can't speak to there. That's totally fair. Okay. That's I guess those are the questions that I have for now. I know Councilmember Ortega is still in the queue and I. So Councilmember, can you just so. Thank you, Madam President. Sure. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Jason, thanks for being on to address a couple of things and thanks for the opportunity to chat briefly this afternoon. So I appreciate the commitment and being able to say that here publicly that Daddy is committing to provide these quarterly reports to us on utilization. And for me, utilization isn't just about the firms that are being used. It's about looking at the data on which which contractors have a really cozy relationship with which city agencies, where we tend to utilize the same ones over and over and over. And a lot of people go through this process. You know, they get excited. The council finally approves their contract and some of them never get utilized and we never get to see that data. So we've been asking for the ability to look at that and the fact that you're committing to that. And I see you nodding your head. Yes, I will say it again. We are committed to a quarterly report. We will also do an annual report that is more inclusive with everything. So you have the big picture at the end of the year. And you also asked me earlier today about bond projects and funding and reports on that. We are committed to report on that as well. I don't know if it's going to be quarterly or twice a year, but I have gotten a commitment from the agency executive director saying we will report. It's just we have to figure out how they quantify their information to be able to give it to you. In a way. Well, we need to be able to look at that data so that we know which of these bond projects are actually being kept on budget. And then we're not expecting beyond the amount of money that was earmarked for the projects because we have other projects down the line that are waiting for their share. And if we spend it all on these projects, there's not enough money to do all the other ones. So that's. Exactly. For this body to be able to look at that information and make sure the agencies are staying within the budget of what the taxpayer approved. So I would advocate and hope my colleagues would support that. We want to see that data at a minimum on a quarterly basis. So if you could pass that back onto your. Absolutely, I'm happy to take that. But I think that's critical. That really covers all of it. I just want to thank you, Councilman. Thanks for calling these out and being able to continue to have this conversation. Councilman Flynn and I will be looking at bringing the ordinance before you guys shortly. We've got some draft language that we're just looking back and forth that before we bring it to you on some of the contracts that will come to City Council. So stay tuned and look for that soon. So thank you so much. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. I wanted to check back in. Councilwoman Canete, we saw your hand raised. Are you okay? Okay. All right. Wonderful. Councilman Hines, your backup. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to make a comment. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher, for your for your comments. We have you on the record as as committing to these to these contracts. I, I like the idea of quarterly reports. I, I think that we do these every six months or so when we come and we get all these on call contracts, and they all are thrown at us all at the same time. I hope that six months is plenty of time for you to go back to the people, whoever you know, whoever you need to talk to and get these these reports in place. I know about six months ago we had a similar conversation here about about these uncle contracts. I, I hope that we are in a better place six months from now, and we don't have to talk about these again and agreement. I just want to reiterate that I mean that again, we don't think the executive branch will release the 21 2021 proposed budget in the morning. And we have no idea what will be in that budget, given the budget for the legislative branch of government is in the proposal and we'll learn whether our request was incorporated into the plan at the same time as the general public. So I get a little skittish when I see half a billion dollars or $422 million in and and it just happens to be right before the budget drop. So thank you, Daddy. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call. Friends. I. Cashman. I. Each and. Ortega. I guess. Sandoval. I swear. Now. Torres, I. Black. I. CDEBACA Well, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One need to eyes. 12 Eyes Resolution 728 729 737 3132, 3330 435 741, 42, 43 838 839 853 864 865 866 867, eight, 68, 69, eight, 78, 71, 72 and 873 have been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 849. Council Member State of Akure. Please go ahead with your question. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted a quick clarification on what they mean in this bill by the HMO contributions moving to 2021. Is it just that we're waiting or what exactly does it mean? Before I dove too deep into this one for a second reading. All right. We've got, I believe, Chris O'Brien. He's joining us to answer questions on this one. Or also had Heather Britten. Hi there. Hi, Heather. Go ahead, please. This is Heather Britton, director of benefits and wellness for the Office of Human Resources. The only change that the Health Insurance Committee made this year for employee benefits was to remove a health plan that was offered by the Denver Health Medical Plan called the deductible HMO, and they replaced it with a HMO. And really what that means is that employees now will have lower cost at point of service for the new plan because they'll have just co-pays, no more deductibles. And the city is asking to continue with the same contribution we had for the HMO in 2020 into 2021 for the HMO. And it's good news or all around. It results in lower costs for the employee and out of their paycheck and when they go get service through Denver Health. Got it. Thank you very much for that. Sure. All right. Thank you, Heather. The next item up is Council Bill 285. Councilmember Flynn, we need a motion to take us out of order. Please.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125561 to rename the plat of “Madrona Glen” to “Madrona Glen Estates”.

SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_CB 119268

The Agenda. The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item two Council Bill 119268 An Ordinance amending ordinance 125561 to rename the plot of Madrona Glen to Madrona Glen Estates, introduced on June 4th, 2018. Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien. Johnson Johnson. Small change to an ordinance where we got the name wrong. I would encourage your vote in the affirmative. Okay. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Herbold i. Johnson, i. Whereas, I don't know, I guess. I. O'Brien Are so, aren't I? Bagshaw Gonzales I. President Herrell Hi nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair was signing. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee on. The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 119010 An ordinance relating to city owned property under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation, located at 800 Mercer Street, and in addition to the City of Seattle and a portion of Eighth Avenue North vacated pursuant to ordinance 89653 and laying off, opening, widening

Recommendation to receive and discuss an overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2020 budgets for the following Departments: Technology and Innovation and Civil Service; and

LongBeachCC_09032019_19-0827

We'll hear that after. And so we're going to start with the with the hearing, which is hearing item number one, which is the budget. So, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, we have two presentations for you today. The first will be technology and innovation, and the second will be civil service. So with that, I will turn it to Leah Ericsson, our director of technology and Innovation. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to present the technology and innovation departmental budget for fiscal year 20. First, the Technology and Innovation Department takes pride in its mission of providing a customer focused environment that integrates people, process and technology to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of city services. Our dedicated to IT employees deliver our core services that you can see here on this slide. As for accomplishments, the Technology and Innovation Department had a big year. My team worked really hard planning and implementing a new all the new technology for the Civic Center, which was a monumental undertaking that involved countless hours of tied staff, time and effort. These efforts are still ongoing as we stabilize the technology in the new building. In addition to the Civic Center, we are also completing a two year project to replace our aging public safety dispatch systems and public safety radios. The Department is also focusing on expanding the technology, infrastructure and communication networks to help support key projects such as Abbey Coast. Our Enterprise Document Management System and a new customer relationship management system, as well as body worn cameras. And we're also continuing to expand our fiber optic network to improve connectivity to additional city facility facilities. And the department has upgraded our phone infrastructure, including the establishment of a new E911 one locator system with city within city facilities. As part of the Council's priority to improve transparency and open government, we worked with financial management and public works to develop an interactive measure, a mapping portico that shows residents the infrastructure improvement projects funded by Measure A. We also improve access to information by migrating additional city websites, including those of development services and library to our new platform, which involves streamlined design and improved usability. We initiated the co-creation of a digital inclusion roadmap by working with community stakeholders, along with the city's Technology and Innovation Commission, who did an extensive survey and analysis with recommendations to advance digital inclusion in Long Beach. Our work on the Digital Inclusion Initiative led to the city's designation as a digital inclusion trailblazer. In addition, the department was ranked a top ten digital city by the Center for Digital Government for the eighth consecutive year. This is a tremendous accomplishment for the department and the city. We are also we also completed our coast phase one with the go live of Munis Financials in April. And we're still in the stabilization phase for that portion of the project. We are also continuingly continuing to develop and implement the planning of Elbe Coast phase two, which is h.r. And payroll and three budget. This is an ongoing multiyear effort that is required to operationalize our new modern ERP system and migrate off of our old mainframe based systems. We began the EDI project with local vendor laser fish to enhance operational efficiencies by automating business processes and reducing paper files and storage. And in partnership with development services, we created a series of code enforcement rhetoric reports. We also launched a citywide data committee to facilitate a data informed culture that focuses on using analytical tools and decision making in partnership with the Office of Civic Innovation. Now moving on to our FY 20 budget, the Technology and Innovation Department proposed budget is $57 million and includes and supports 173 full time equivalent employees. 99% of our services are funded through the General Services Fund Group, which is supported by all city departments. RFI 20. Some of the notable changes to the department's budget includes the transfer of both, both budget and positions and the Financial Management Department to the new Enterprise Information Services Bureau in our department, which also includes an increase in budget positions all to support our new munis system. In addition, there's a new systems technician position to support mobile devices for the new body worn camera program and assist with AB 953 compliance. The addition of two business system specialist positions to support the increasing technology needs in the Fleet Services Bureau and the Public Works Environmental Services Bureau. The addition of the communications specialist position and funding for the production and coordination of artistic, cultural and educational video programing with a focus in the new civic center. And finally, one time funding to expand the data storage capacity in City Hall and to improve obsolete technology, infrastructure and existing city facilities. Now to discuss some challenges and opportunities due to the intense focus on the new civic center and all B Coast Phase one implementation. Over the last couple of years, TIDE has accumulated a significant backlog of other critical technology projects that we will be addressing in the future. And we are not done with lbe coast. These two and three continues to require a tremendous involvement and focus of staff from both technology and innovation, financial management and h.r. Along with all operating departments. This has to remain the city's top technology project priority. It continues to be a challenge to balance the significant demands from city departments for technology systems and projects, along with the current staffing levels and other critical technology infrastructure priorities. In Fy20. We will also be working extensively to perform ongoing cybersecurity assessments, as well as creating a roadmap to better monitor and respond to the increasing number of cybersecurity threats and to address data security. Legislative mandates. Fortunately, there are also tremendous opportunities to continue to implement new technology that enables the city to work more efficiently and for residents to engage more easily with their city. So for example, we are implementing the one number project to make it easier for residents and business owners to access city services via the phone. In addition, we are also implementing the CRM system as a modern way for residents and businesses to get their issues identified, tracked and addressed. It's a focus of our department to pursue innovative approaches and partnerships to enhance digital inclusion. That's always a priority for the department to continue implementing technology solutions to increase efficiency and keep city costs low. Thank you for your ongoing support of the Technology and Innovation Department's projects. We look forward to continuing to work together to find innovative solutions. I'll end with some beauty shots of technology in our new civic center and library. This concludes our presentation, and we're ready to answer any questions you may have. At the end after civil service gives their presentation. We're going to go into the Civil Service presentation, and I know we have first an introduction before we begin the actual budget. So I'm going to have the President of our Civil Service Commission, Suzanna Gonzales. Edmund, make an introduction. So can you guys hear me? Yes. Now, do you mind also just shifting the podium. Because I have a belly. There we go. Sorry. Good evening, everyone. Beautiful baby. Coming? Yes, my little girl. Good evening, everyone. Like the mayor said, my name is Susana Gonzalez, Edmond. I'm the new. President of the Civil Service Commission. And with me is a new vice president, Heather Morrison, where thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation. We wanted to formally introduced to everyone our new executive director. She's not new to Long Beach, but we wanted to. Give a formal introduction to Christina Pichardo, 20. We are very excited to have her on board. We are very excited to be able to. Initiate my. Term as president. To be more engaged and be able to bring more awareness. About what the Civil Service Commission does. And therefore, she's going to. Give a brief overview and then go into our budget presentation. Thank you so much and have a great evening. Thank you. So it's definitely my pleasure to be here tonight. And Susannah said to return to Long Beach. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. What I would like to do is take the honor of presenting our budget for the Civil Service Department for fiscal year 20. I would like to highlight our past, present and our future. And so with the first slide, you will see that there is a little bit of history that I thought would be important to share with the council. The Long Beach Civil Service Commission was established in its first city charter in 1907, so it's been around for a long time. We maintain the rules and regulations to carry out the merit system. We also have a board of five civil service commissioners appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. Their job is to support the merit system of maintaining a fair and impartial treatment at all times. Civil Service Commission also has a responsibility to enforce and remedy violations of these rules and regulations. So they have their their meetings every other week to do so. They also appoint an executive director that helps carry out the policies through staff that through a professional management staff and finally the can. The Commission endeavors to remain flexible and innovative while ensuring the citizens of Long Beach that the principles of Personnel Administration are followed. So how do we do this? We have our course services. As I mentioned, we uphold merit system through civil service rules and regulations. We identify and attract qualified and diverse applicants. We develop and administer job related employment examinations. We manage eligible lists and certification of qualified candidates. We manage and provide training for city wide applicant tracking system. We adjudicate disciplinary appeals. We manage classified performance evaluation processes. And we implement special projects that promote that promote the innovation of core services. So it's a little bit of all of our divisions. So. On this next slide, you'll see that the numbers tell the story. This is year to date information. We're not even done with our fiscal year. But the numbers, I'm sure we'll we'll reach 20,000. The first number that you see, 19,659. Those are the number of applicants that have come through our system that staff is processing. So fortunately, we have an electronic online system that we're processing these applications, but it's still staff looking at every single application that comes through. The next thing we do is from that from those 19,000, which will probably be 20,000 at the end of this fiscal year, we have 90 we had 99 recruitments that took place in in 2019. From there, we created 202 eligible lists for departments to review and select candidates. Of those 202 lists, the departments had 8915 candidates from which to select. And then finally we have 198 users out in the department that use our electronic applicant tracking system. That makes it easier for them to review candidates and bring people on board. The other ways that we do this as well are we are continuing we continue to expand the use of our social media and our event calendar to promote promote events and employment opportunities. We coordinated attendance at 46 community outreach events and job fairs for public safety personnel, and we provided weekly communication to 847. Constant comment subscribers of current and upcoming job opportunities. So the goal is trying to get the word out so that people then know what jobs are available here in the city of Long Beach. The next slide you'll see, how do we. So what do we do? How do we what do we do with all of these applicants? We have increased the use of technology in the examination and transfer processes and in 2019. And so that made it. We tried new examination processes to manage the volume of applicants. We partnered with the Office of Civic Innovation to analyze the recruit police recruit process. And we're still working to see how we can continue to streamline. We also partnered with the fire department to increase partition participation in the fire engineer exam and came up with what I was able to see on my second day of work as a very innovated, innovative process to encourage more participation. And then finally, all of that takes into consideration that we had to process over 4000 personnel transaction forms and 1700 requisitions to meet departments needs of moving staff through the city lifecycle. So in the graphic on the right, you can see that civil service is kind of at the center. Applicants are coming through to us. We're pushing them out to police and fire as well as other general operating departments. So in our budget, you'll see that we have our proposed budget. 3 million. We have 18. Point seven fte ees. But with our five commissioners we have 23. So notable changes. We? Participated in the fund reduction and it led to the elimination of one of our a vacant personnel assistant position as well as reduction in materials. But the good news is that we also there a proposal for two personnel analyst positions to be added to our budget to strengthen the city's hiring process, which are very, very appreciative of that. So what are the opportunities and challenges? Certainly, again, very, very grateful for the two positions that will allow us to benefit the entire city by creating more recruitments and going out and attracting more people. We also see this as an opportunity to resurrect our proactive recruitment and outreach efforts. Due to some budget cuts. That has been those are some activities that haven't been allowed or haven't been. We haven't had the resources to do and so we really have heard the need for that and we would like to take that on in the coming year. The challenge will be will be a challenge will be our success, because we will have those two added additional positions, because we will be generating more eligible lists. We will also it will also be impact our support staff. So we with the elimination of the one staff person, it's going to be a strain, but we're going to figure out how to how to do it in the coming year. The other challenges that Long Beach Coast activities are also very significant. And so we will be participating in phase two and seeing how we can find the resources to fully support this endeavor because we want it to be successful and support the entire city system with the implementation of Long Beach Coast. So that concludes my presentation and certainly I'm open to any questions if anybody has any questions. Well, thank you and and welcome. I know we had a chance to speak, but I just want to again welcome you. We're very excited for you to be a part of our city team. Thank you. And you've all you've been here in Long Beach already, so we thank you for that. We're going to go ahead and do for the budget hearing is I don't see anyone cued up yet, but I'm going to hear from the public. And so we have members of the public that want to speak. And so I do want to go ahead and begin cuing, cuing, cuing them up. Give me 1/2 and then we'll start the cue. Our first five speakers will be and Cantrell and Christiansen carelessly. Helena Sigel, Horst and Ramon the sixth. So the first five can please come forward. Good evening. Before I begin, I have a question. Is this am I to speak on all items on number one of the budget? This is this is open public hearing on the budget. And so you can speak on anything to do with the budget. Before you have any discussion on it. Is that correct? That is correct. I find this quite. Different. There hasn't been a motion made, so I don't know how the public can make a comment. I don't have any members queued up. And so, please, we're going to do public comment right now on the budget. So please go ahead. All right. I would like to address item number ten on the budget. The recommendation to declare the ordinance for the reach and charges for water and sewer, and especially I'm concerned about. The third section of this resolution. It states. If any section of the ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or void. Such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. You can you can continue because I took up some of that time. So please continue this control. Thank you. And it also states that the Council hereby declares. That if this ordinance. Is passed and is found unconstitutional, irresponsible, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections are unconstitutional, that you would have voted for this anyway. I do not understand how you can vote for something which you know may be unconstitutional. This rate change. Is against Proposition 218, which says you shall not raise the rates for the water. Thank you. As you have done here. And I urge you to uphold the Constitution as you have sworn to do. Thank you so much, Miss Cantrell. Thank you. Anna Kristensen Oh, yeah. There's a lot of flaws here in the system. Still kinks. I noticed that one of the previous speakers commented on how some of their funding was coming from Measure M of. It seems to me we have a close circle when it comes to the water department at the state level, which says that when you charge people to provide water, that's all you can do with the money is provide water. You can put in more pipes. You can put it in more storage tanks, which apparently we need. I was at the water board meeting and they're in dire need and that's. Why they're raising our rates. Right. So it's all about the water and providing water. Which we know is life. Right. It's not a luxury. So the idea that there would be a measure M that could allow for extra money made from charging people for the water that could be spent on no matter what kind of a benefit and budget it in. It's in the budget. Now we're using measure in money to do this. We're using measure and money to do that. It doesn't seem. Possible. I mean, I think it is illegal and I think you were told it was illegal before and then measure em came along and now you're trying to think that you can make it illegal . I would suggest that if you want to make it legal. To charge people for water, but provide other services with that money that you amend the state constitution. Thank you very much. You live here? It's your constitution. Thank you. But the city does not control the state of Washington. Next speaker is Ms.. Lee, and then Helena's single horse. And then remind. Hi. I'm here to speak on item ten as well. On the water rate increase in just 45 days time, 1443 water account holders submitted protest letters to the water board opposing this rate increase. Now, that did not meet the impossible number of 45,000 half the account holders to defeat the rate increase. But you all have the ability to do something about that here today. You can see that the public doesn't want this. Last year the rates were raised 7.2%. Today. Today we're talking about adding another 12% just in rough numbers. That's 19.2. And in fact, it's actually over 20% because you're compounding the 7.2% against the base. The city charter allows for 12% of the water revenue gross that is, surplus to department needs to be transferred to the general fund. It is impossible and illogical to have surplus and at the same time have the need for a rate increase because there isn't enough budget to run the utility. I went and looked at the budgets and in 2019 it's listed as 12,318,000, which is 9% of the water budget. And in 2020 it's shown as 12 654,000, and that's 10%. You can actually fix this problem of this big rate increase by giving back the money. Thank you. Very much. That is coming to the general fund. Good afternoon, Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you. Very therapeutic to lend my support to may your advocacy of this request to include the $100,000 for a phase two park lamp post project in the city. You pride fiscal year 2020 budget. As a 55 year resident of Long Beach and a member of the Heritage Preservation Movement for many year, many of those year, I have seen their great value to the well-being of the city that has been aided by the formation of the many historic districts. Part of their well being is the ambiance, the streetscape, Enterprise Park, Historic District, Neighbors Form Day Committee as part of their neighborhood station to do a pilot project to duplicate the antique style of lamp posts. They I our certain there aren't first street though first street lamp post mustering moved in 1968 by this city, but was stopped by intense opposition from residents, those necessary to a project just kind of on the side street. And the hope is that it's a success, a phase one pilot project and the inclusion of 100,000 apartments, and there's a new one, he said. It will also encourage more residents to contribute towards the removal of an appropriate for you. Gray Goose Gooseneck Street lights to the border starter star yellow lampposts throughout the park the starter districts. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. All right. Hi. I noticed that one of the line items on the on the budget was artificial turf for Eldorado Park. So I wanted to briefly talk about that. This is stuff that the Parks already knows. So I'm just going to make sure that we're clear. I don't know if Stacy Mongeau knows, but the Ayuso 177 has been subletting the middle soccer field to a group called The Air. So Los Alamitos, this is not allowed and. Not. Continuing to do this. Will They've been doing it for three years. So I don't know what what. What the justification could be to to do this to the. The air show has lost about 400 members, 2 to 400 members of its own people. And so they're using this to make it look like they have bigger numbers. Um. The residents were. We're wanting to were told that they would be able to get some equity and that they would be able to to speak and on on the anyth anything change they were given. The the grass and then somehow it changed. So all we're asking for is just to get a fair shake and to be to be inclusive. This is kind of what I've been part of this organization for, to have a fair shake. And not have one, one. One special interest organization run the show. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you so much. Our next speakers are Marco Pizzo, Rebecca Burningham, Regina Taylor, Tamisha Shay, Angela and Angela Kimball. If you can, please come forward in that order. Marco Pizzo. Rebecca Birmingham. Regina Taylor. Timothy O'Shay and Angela Kimball. Honorable Mayor and city council members. My name is Marco Pizzo and I live in the Bluff Park Historic. District located inside the Third District. I am one of the project. Co-Chairs for the Bluff Park Historic Lamppost Project, and I'm currently the VP of Events and fundraising for the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association since 2017. Five years ago, co-chair Jeff Mallett and I were approached by various historic district leaders, former CHC commission members. And Long Beach Heritage. Preservationists of the Year to spearhead bringing back historic lampposts to the Bluff Park Historic District. Our common goal was to remove out of character. Freeway style, concrete cobra poles and replace them with appropriate vintage lampposts that have only remained on East First Street. We were seeking to make our historic district feel whole and fully connected while honoring the lamppost icon on our. Neighborhood district logo. Supported and encouraged by the previous. Board, our subcommittee spent hours of. Research closely working with public works and collaborating with the planning department. Public Works unearthed the original. 1927 drawing of the actual first street lamp post in the City archives. We reached out to the original manufacturer listed on the drawing and with much coordination and. Even a trip from the Bluff. Park from Canton. Ohio. Union metal industries fabricated the new beautiful lampposts using the same design specs as the original. During the five years, scores of volunteers worked tirelessly to fundraise, and we have raised $80,000 with support from the community. And the neighborhood. Bluff Park is poised and ready for the second phase, and we are thrilled. To have city funds being allocated to make this happen. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. We urge you to support. The project, and together we are bringing lamppost history back. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Rebecca Birmingham, sometimes known as Reba. You know, can you put the mic a little bit closer to you? I can. Last time I was here, I was in court in this building. This is new. I'm a 20 year resident of First Street. I live in Bluff Park. I'm part of Bluff Park Neighborhood Association. I'm here to speak for continued funding for the Historic Lamppost Project. As you can see from the beautiful city council, chambers atmosphere is important. It can make you rise to new levels and make soaring arguments, or it can bring you down. We live in a historic neighborhood. These are antique style lampposts, just like we had in 1927, in the fifties. 57, I think, is when Cobra came about. People were tearing down historic buildings right and left, and they were putting up these freeway type modern things. I truly support it. I've seen phase one. We all got together as a neighborhood. I want to thank Councilmember Price for all her support. The other members, there are a lot of neighbors who would be here today if they could. So I believe $100,000 is what we're talking about. And I strongly urge the council to go forward and allocate that so we can have a phase two. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Reba. Next speaker, please. Regina Taylor If this relates to our topic of the day, a Section 1407 charter use of water department funds and the surplus that you want to transfer over to the general fund. I have problems with the charter and that particular item number eight and it says the commission is authorized to fix and the City Council is authorized to approve water and sewer rates in an amount sufficient to recover cost of certain obligations which are spelled out in the charter. And also a new obligation, which is the transfer of funds to the excess funds limited to a 12% amount of the surplus that is not needed to the general fund. Now, the problem I have with that is, do you get to say. You the city, get to say how much surplus you want and then we fix the rates so that that is generated. I have I have a half a minute but I do mean that sincerely that that the wording in that. Chartists says that to me that you're aiming at a certain amount now. You have a 12.3 million that you want for 20. 2019 and a similar amount for 2020. So we had to ensure that you get those amounts once the budgeted. So that might mean raising the rates. If you can't make that proper surplus, in other words, you're generating the surplus that you want. That's the point. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Shane. Council mayor. Esteemed Council members. I'm here to speak in support of the $100,000 budget line issue for the Love Park Lamppost Project. I'd just like to say that as a past president of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association, this is one of the projects where a partnership between city and the community is just an example to our surrounding cities. Long Beach is a city with a forward view and is very strong in historic preservation. It brings a great deal of interest from around the country and around the world. We see fantastic tourism in this neighborhood and how this particular neighborhood is one of the most walks and walkable neighborhoods and the removal of the modern lampposts and replacing them with the historic style lampposts only goes to improve that. This is a win win as it beautifies the neighborhood and it bolsters the city's reputation. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Angela Campbell. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Angela Kimball. And for the record, for the public, I am a plaintiff with Diana Jeans in a lawsuit against the city with respect to measure M, which we've. We find is in violation of Proposition 218 of the state constitution. You cannot pass a measure that violates the state constitution. Um, the con is measure em. It started with a lawsuit to begin with. And Measure M comes about, and you introduce another way to try and take the same money you were taking before that you were found in violation of the state constitution. So here we are again. I am a county unincorporated residents. I am not represented by this this council, by this mayor. We did not have an opportunity to vote on Measure M. The 545 homeowners that live in my community are not represented by this board, but we pay the 12%, the 7.2, the 12% you're now looking for because water and gas is provided in our neighborhood by the city of Long Beach. Measure M was not on our ballot. We were not given an opportunity to even hear about it. You have no jurisdiction to talk outside of your boundaries. So for the record, just so everybody knows, Diana, La Jeans and myself will not see one dime from this lawsuit. We are not here to get money. We are here to get justice and follow the Constitution. Thank you. Ma'am. Our next speakers are Megan Berry, Jeff, Melanie, Angelica, Mario, Magnolia Rodriguez and Veronica. Via Kenya, Megan Berry, Jeff Mallin, Angelica Maria, Magnolia Rodrigues and Veronica via country. Hi, my name is Megan Barrie. I am also a resident of Bluff Park and I just kind of wanted to lend my voice to the chorus of my, my neighbors who all are in support of the allocation of $100,000 for the. Can you hear me? Phase two of the Bluff Park Lamppost Project. Unlike Kaleena, I've only been in the neighborhood for about 5 minutes compared to her. I moved in three years ago, in large part because I was really drawn to the historic district. We were originally looking at other neighborhoods and then we just happened to go through Bluff Park and we just loved it and in large part because of its charm and its character. So, so I just strongly urge you guys to all vote on the allocation of those funds. We love our lampposts and they add so much charm and character to our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you so much next week with this. Hey, Honorable Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Andrews and City Council members. My name is Jeff Mallon and I am also a resident of the Third Council District and live in the Bluff Park Historic District. And I'm here to support the mayor's recommendation as well to fund the second phase of the North Park Historic Lamppost Project. You heard from a number of residents already from our Bluff Park Historic District. And it really warms my heart to see how such a project has brought together such a large number of people throughout the city and even beyond this city for a common cause and a common effort. I wish I could say it was my idea, but it wasn't. The leaders of the neighborhood association back a couple of decades ago had the idea to remove the modern coprolites and replace them with ornamental lampposts, bringing cohesion to the neighborhood. The project didn't go far back then, but there is evidence in the association's files of their efforts. Then we put together a group of people, a group of neighbors and people outside of the neighborhood. We met with many people within public works. I can count about eight or ten of those people looking on the ninth floor, doing research, working with the planning department to identify some early grant opportunities and also uncovered the original drawing from 1927. We got to work with Long Beach Heritage, the Historical Society of Long Beach to do some of our research. But one of the key things we needed to do was reach out to the neighborhood and raise funds, and we did that. So we look forward to further supporting the project with the mayor's proposal. Thank you so much for that. Thank you so much. Thanks. Speaker placing. Angelica. Maria, please come forward. Jack is not here. Okay. Okay. Let me let me just. I'll come back to Angelica then. How about Magnolia? I'll come back. Oh, here we go. So let's let's go back and begin with Angelica muriel. This is Magnolia. Oak Magnolia. As you. Can. See when. I started this Sunday. Mr. Mayor. And everybody. Is dead. We know Magnolia Rodriguez represents the oldest retail city in the other or you get opposite but Occupy interpreters by reporter facilitated travel. Good afternoon. My name is Magnolia Rodriguez and I represent my community in the seventh District. Today I'd like to ask you to help the interpreters so that they can facilitate the work. Separate from their own up that so that they delay interpretation. Yep. I am on monitoring at E. They came for my support, our project, but I said my interpretation. If you could have a person that's in charge of the interpretation and that person could monitor and see what way they could help to make sure that the interpretation is more comfortable. They'll be over into the Agosto estate. Well, no interpreters. No interpreter. Yes, they are not. We must de la Junta, since everybody else goes to the location below. And in the meeting on the 20th of August, one of the interpreters wasn't able to interpret everything that was being said, and we left without knowing some things that had been said. You know, I meant the people who are caring for Michael Caine portrayal in the Iowa oil gas, gas earning medium and really the almighty consumidor. And again, I'd like to also ask for any information that comes to me in the mail and my bills, whether it be on water, anything that it be in my language, in the consumers language. But it's always very most doses mean. But I said we show the interpretation. And so we're asking for $200,000 for interpretation services. No songs sufficiently lost in simulcasting over. The 15,000 that is being offered isn't enough. But on that common design, can we be better? It's a very diverse community. Thank you very much. Yes. Yes, it is. Is Angelica maria? No. Oh, yes, she is. Let me have as Angelica is coming back. Is Veronica here? Come on. Come forward. Right. Feel my body. I'm bringing. Them. No. Sorry. We're getting a little feedback. Okay. Okay. I'll tell you, when I started this, I mean, I'm gonna be one of these three third keeper available and see that the travel tourism players policy that this bonnievale completo cuando Jamal Departamento de la Ciudad Para Servicios must guarantee you Madeleine was through the Obama Instagram if you could that in etc. Servicios Vesicles was studying for miles a local gobierno local espacio. But as the critical and critical issue that occupied travel, tourism, players policy or there is still going to essay what area and playoff scope within that I will see it is then disperse disponibles when those important instead familiar recitals contrary information, but the mentors in particular Occupy scholars without employer travel tourist particulars travel tourist plans that necessitate as a lot resident. This common included travel thought industries mission assistance contest econo said about swarm as this process necessity almost all thought are less ideas and encompasses reasoning budget a humanist your study mental effort that is lacking but a handful of entry are also lateral to on this account that for whatever embodies because on this body system must be the local issue that authorities although let us barrel interpretation neutral to on the calida Cinquanta will not let us but organization as a confidence. I could put them from EAP in some scholars can say meanwhile are discussed herein but internal mentors no set insufficient this grasp. Yes good evening my name is Veronica being via can you and I live in the eighth district. I'm here to talk about the need for translators employed by the city who are available on a full time basis. When I've called city departments for services. It's not guaranteed that someone will answer in our language. This creates difficulty in being offered basic services or staying informed of all the local government is doing. This is why I think the city needs to employ its own translators. This would help ensure that the city employees who can translate are available when they're needed and are knowledgeable about rules, laws and other information needed for particular city departments. We need the city to employ translators so that the translators can serve the needs of us as residents. This includes having translation, including transmissions of these meetings and knowing different ways of expressing a particular idea. We need translators who can express ideas as they would be expressed in multiple regions. I've experienced the last I've experienced that the last of this here on August 20th, a translator at the meeting. The translation at the meeting was cut off at certain points. This is why we're asking the city to allocate $200,000 for the interpretation and quality translation, as well as $50,000 for a trusted organization that can promote this policy. We believe that the $15,000 that have been proposed for trainings are not enough. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to get this done. But I think in our lives. Okay. Okay. I like the standard name. All I want is that it is in Cumbria. We want to at owner. Good evening. My name is Angelica Maria. I live in the first district. You are a keeper of the land as I see that. Get your madre E just by that as the name was. But I didn't see this. And I'm here today to speak about the need that I have as a mother and many parents have that documents be translated. And later of the work on the scene also will e and also focus yes look at the make up of that or see Abby up on another. Yeah am able to see your body are you there. And the other day I'm going to give you a small example. My neighbor got a bill. She didn't know if she had already paid that or if it had to be paid. And she called me so that I could explain it to her. Just as these classes are here, the English battle noise of and then they don't not oxygen correct that they look at your boiler they say hello are you that unless business. And I've taken some classes in school in English but it's not enough to be able to know everything or to help people. If those I is doing well as lost good momentum. You know those Ratana that traders it is meant to get into soon as I see that is a problem you start being control as I look at the anarchist that again as you there. And so the two of us for like 20 minutes were trying to figure out trying to translate this document to know if that she needed to pay it so that she could be okay with all of the rules in the city. E labor that you're not super inland and the dump worker. Yeah okay. I took a paragraph literally Sierra see locate and we'll get in yet Iraq or Iraq it just area parallel or north area internally that get a look at them person. And so I didn't know or understand any more than she did and in the end she had to pay somebody to translate it for to find out if this bill was something she had to pay or it had been paid and she didn't know what to do. Joe Crockett, is this alone? Simply implore the look. Nosotros necesitamos forget early work, Amy Amiga mutual systems are in some is more there's some is more money to the problem as General Sabemos Garcia. And I think that's just a simple example of what we all need, that there are many of us, just like my friend, that have these large types. Of problems. As it get you up. Some of them I get that you learn contradictory qualifications for the Puerto Rican Documentos get lost. Get Amazonas through the old map. What? Because if I was a I, I'll go see thumbs are workers look almost by them. And so I'm appealing to your character to please bring us translators, of course, that are qualified and documents in our own language so that we know if we have to pay something, we know what we need to do. Gracias. Thank you. Thank you. I'm next because. We have Christina. Lilian. Linda, there's actually speakers. Come, please. You can have Mrs. Clements here. She can come up also. Oh. So you really covet this place? Yeah. Walla Walla winners notice me. Nobody's Kristina I'd boring at least ritorno. Good evening. My name is Christina and I live in the first district. Just as the Alamo Consiglio elevated Agosto e to La Experiencia, the la tradition aviators through the Torah's Una the Yazoo tradition erects a lengthy beard, also wound the persona nasally than the estava coming under your nose, pony up your little microphone. And I was at the council meeting on August 20th and I had the experience that there were two. TRANSLATOR One was excellent and the other wasn't understandable because she was walking and couldn't talk into the mic. So here we don't see Bratislava ID microphone no eto eso eso una mala tradition that may come from the EU, but. There was noise and the microphone was moved away and that all made it a bad translation. So the truth is, I was very confused and that's why I'm here today. But I read you say incluyen in the press. The those cientos mil. Doesn't smell mean but is thought to be the case in Guatemala. San Diego's L'organisation community idea for a new system for the Brazos. But Monica Effectivement along with events in format information press. And so that's why I'm asking to be included in the budget, $200,000 for the translation and $50,000 to be given to the community organization because they're prepared to effectively communicate with the residents. But as he says, over in la la la la la la la la liga, gratis agencies play a in a mobile study again with structure in look at it is. But they are able to give information about the language access policy. And I would like our people to be included. It's interesting that this was in that your e-mails you that. In the neighborhood and the city. Theater there goes to assist the La Junta the Supuesto the Distrito no Grupo the personnel with the most beer. And this is a necessity that this central early dilemma. And on August 28th I went to a meeting that was for the budget in District one. There was a group of four group with a collection of personnel that we were able to see the need of the language access. Okay. And but is little more than that. And but in the apartment, those stereotypes there really say, well, neighbor, listen and well, this is the commenters. Lina's the Lina that they live on. And in several departments, we would like there to be a yearly evaluation of the documents, telephone lines. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Peter. Thank you. Linda. I mean, I don't I don't think. I love when it starts limber, but then it's written off. Good evening. My name is Linda and I belong to District. One. And I was trying to be conciliatory buble as princess and the element of one leader, but no longer. But we are committed here and need your eye on datacom contract. And August 28th I came to the council and I had the experience of feeling confused because I couldn't find the place. There were no signs or anything showing me in my language where it is that I had to go or how to get in that room. But to me, Leslie's persona there and the set of Incapacitate US, he did it all Mugabe who we were not going to on. And the translation for me, the two people must be well-trained and they should have a fixed place and have a good connection. No, there's you know where they call you there for the physical and then they look at you. The translation was not a good quality. It was difficult to understand what. Was being said. And make a living theater. There goes to City Hall, opera connoisseur David Ibaka said, When I went to the corridor, we must not know this apart on the line trader that's gone. Booth owners witnessed this an atrocity almost the same moment here. And on Wednesday, August 28th, we came to City Hall to get to know it, to see it and to see what can be done better. And while we moved around, we saw that it doesn't say where the entrances, the computers need to have access in other languages. The bathrooms don't feel safe, at least to me as a woman. So. Yes. Is the electoral history to you? That must've been either. Either where? Me. The Obama circle. Go on. The rebel though, Elizabeth, as well as with other members at sea. And on the same day I went to a meeting in District one about the budget of the city and I felt welcomed. It was in my language, it was close to where I live in all of the city. Events should be like that. MM Look is a better genesis with Damascus and Austin for me that it's not as important just to be able to have an assessment of the Confianza game in town with that same bullock dioramas. Is there an approach to that? And what I could see is that we need to be informed as the community about these meetings that are very important. I was there because of trusted organizations that invited me and I'd like our community to be involved more, and I'd also like them to know how to take advantage of city services. Not as they can for other parts of Western, including para la policia, doma especificamente the Washington mill. But that relationship with the interpreters, you and the Khalida, if I may, I think what that means is you skip megalopolis, I guess almost like it. Massacre the confianza. And please don't leave us outside of the budget. Include money in it for the language access policy, specifically 200,000 for translation and quality interpretation, and also 50,000 for organizations that can promote the policy that are messengers, that are trusted messengers. Thank you. Your next speaker, please, Mr. Clemente. Whatever. Clemency, clemency, this case. Yeah, I don't. Well, I mean, clemency, Crespo. But Venezuela is on our way. That's why I keep talking so eloquently that, I mean, first of all, I think we poking fun at all of NSC. Thomas Hi. My name is Clemency. Crespo and I belong to District nine. I'm here to say I'm here as part of the community. And the $15,000 that Mr. Saez offers offering is very little for everything that we need. There's a run of the mill parallel line operators, young men, girls, young and old, sit in qualifications, perform a la la la la petition de la comunidad. And we need $200,000 for interpretation, for translation. Please don't put aside what the community is asking for. The commissioner says he cannot all on us. I'm afraid the position and the system of personnel and the language he is paying extra high as that person is. And we need to have we as a community need to have all of the resources available to us. We need people that are bilingual. And that are paid. Extra so that we can have. Someone to help. He needs. His time. So he allows us in the time being with our rooster, as you can see on the horror level, to really access all work. And we need to have good translation here at the meetings and all through the city. I also am happy to hear that you intend to better the culture thats language access. He will Star Como Opera Company. Morose Passos. They don't know that I'm in a parallel organization. And I see this as a first step or four steps, but it's not enough. We also need $50,000 for the community organizations. So I had the confidence because I'm not the confianza de la comunidad para la luna. There trusted people in the community. Experiencia do not put into action the policy while promoting on yellow capaci. I was told that. I had an experience at the meeting, just like my companions have already said at the meeting on August 20th. Kennesaw También. It was a little horror as it was young and well. Oportunidad written over. He met with some mutual attention as to only being with Laura. Years were continuing. And I'd like it to get better. I had the opportunity to go to the meeting in the ninth district. It was good. I like the translation. It was clear and I hope that that is how it is. Can be an amazing thing. We are all talk one of him only Uncle Stacy work direct. I'm into Mary Hawk. I see your stuff. I keep working with bhagavAn. Yona, you're sorry I keep working for you. The lack of money, the government and this is the Tamil. And I didn't feel comfortable when I went to the meeting with Miss Stacey because she said I was here because I was being paid. But really I'm here because I'm part of the community and we need that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very. Much. And the last three speakers is Mr. Berry, Mr. Coleman and Mr. X. Hmm. Mr. X, you're. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Barry. Dave Barry. Yes. Okay. First, Mr.. I just want to quickly show support for the Bluff Park Lamppost Project. I appreciate the Council's support and recognition that historic districts like this increase the city's culture and diversity that our city is well known for. Thank you. Thank you. Next, bigger. Thank you, General, Vice Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Mark Coleman and I'm a resident of the third district and I work in the second. I'm here to support the mayor's budget item on the census. Ten years ago, those of you who are familiar with what the process was, the city did not have a process. It was left to the CBOs to go out and community, do what we could to try to educate people about the importance of the census. This year, there are massive challenges to those in the Cambodian community, Latino community and African-American community. Those challenges include the use of technology with devices that are very difficult for people who are not familiar with the technology to use. A lot of the enumerators are not going to be fluent, bilingual. We tried to get a handle, for example, and the Cambodian Complete Count Committee on how many bilingual Cambodian community members there were. We couldn't find out. So you can imagine the enumerators coming to the doors and saying, We're from the government. Please tell us how many more family members you here you have here who so we can count them for the government's purposes. And that's similar to what the Khmer Rouge said when they use that information to tear families apart and commit terrible atrocities in Cambodia. So we very much support the need for this money. But I want to ask for a friendly amendment that you dedicate a significant portion of this money to the community based organizations. It's $600,000, please. At least 500,000 should be dedicated to the CBO so we can do our job. Thank you very much. I think that concludes public comment that I have signed up on speaker cards. I gave my. Speech before speaker carter-smith. No, go ahead. Did you call speaker further? Yes. Okay. But you go ahead, Ms.. Smith. Thank you. I am a resident of Bluff Park, and I am here to talk about the fact that the Bluff Park Street Lamppost Project has not gone through the proper channels and should be removed through. The. The budget. I request that City Council amend the proposed budget to remove these items because they are not consistent with the city charter. The general plan element, which is the historical element and the scenic element and the Bluff Park Historic District Ordinance. The proposed budget items are inconsistent and should be excluded, and I sent a document to you earlier today that establish that the city projects. That are not consistent, should not be adopted because they go against other elements in the general plan. It's a little embarrassing to I live in Bluff Park and it's embarrassing that the city is giving us funds for Lamp Post where we have a perfectly good lamp post in our district. So you're spending about 200,000 or more dollars taking away lamp posts that are. Modern. For ones that look antique. These can be funded outside the city, especially want to hear about needed funding for language access and the people's budget. It's embarrassing. As a person and resident of Love Park where we know we. Could have these items. We have enough and we're able to access it. But funding for lamp posts when there's many other needed items is embarrassing. And it's also illegal if you're going to continue to adopt budgets that have projects that go against the general plan and city charter. Thank you so much. And then I think this is actually something we signed up as ex. No, we signed up. Who set up his ex. Okay. So Mr. Evi is next. Mr. Rivera. Your next. Good evening. I'm here to speak about the water issue. The utility fees. What are utility fees are supposed to be. Used to support the production. Distribution and purchase of water. The city has no justification to skim any of the utility fees for the general fund. If it does so, it becomes a tax. If it is a tax. Then the burden of proof for the tax must lie with the city to prove to us the reasons for the tax and to submit it to a vote just like any other tax increase. The water utility fees disguised as utility rate increase is a gross violation of the Constitution and and of our trust in you, the public officials, because it is basically a given that the tax will happen unless 50% of the users who happen to be aware show up to protest . Thank you. And our last speaker, please. Guard. Please come forward. Okay. Is this is this one presentation? There's two. Okay. I don't have a speaker card for. We turn it in. Okay. I don't have it. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening. My name is Jamilah and I am a community. Organizer with the Long Beach Immigrants Rights Coalition and a representative of the budget advocacy work group. I'm here because Latinxs, Filipino and Cambodian families are part of the Long Beach community, and we deserve to. Be included in this year's. Budget. As I mentioned before, last year's budget included six 160,000 foreign language access. And that money was all used in attempts to make services provided by the city more accessible to communities that speak other languages than English. This year, the proposed amount is half. Of that, only 80,015 thousand for training. Is being offered. That is not what the community needs are. We have community members. Here who are committed to advocating to access spaces that don't represent their native language. It is the job of the city now to do their part and ensure a welcoming environment to everyone that lives in the city. Clearly, maintaining a language as a barrier will deny literal access. Well, what the city need. To do is allocate 200,000 for interpretation and translation. These very basic needs will ensure that our community is engaged in city affairs that impact their lives. Additionally, as a community. Organizer who works with. Under underserved communities. Of color. I know that the first from first. Hand of the importance of trust when working with community member. Some members here only know about the language. Access policy because of the organization like ours. We know how to do the outreach within these communities. That is the very. Reason why. Community is asking for 50,000 for community based. Thank you. Thank you. And I had your card, so I apologize for that. Thank you. And next, people place Peskin for. Mayor council members. My name is Lily Ocampo and I have been living in First District for 34 years and I'm also very active in the community with various community organizations such as CPC, LeBoeuf, Liver, Lombard for and also serve my children's school as a base president, vice president and member of the English Learning Advisory Committee. Also the school to console and represent my children's school at our district level level and the District English Learning Advisory Committee, of which I serve as a vice president. And in my experience and the access to language is very important for parents, especially at schools and in the community, to receive the services we deserve. So I'm just here to say, don't leave us out. Include the people's budget. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. That concludes public comment. Uh, and so with that, I'm going to go and continue the, the hearing and I'm going to begin by going back to any questions also that the counsel might have. So I have folks that are cued up now. I'm going to begin with Councilmember Ringo. Thank you. Mr. E.A. Continue asking me, Sir Thaddeus, or to let the parliamentary nuclear services civilians. You know, I without risk, as he said, no matter what happens, I must intervene. Those are accessible language. But those who stay is not what I meant in the Spanish embassy. No, I mean in Los Angeles. Come or come? I eat at Vietnam. This is the desert. Yet that almost is a society that they think is important. The communication. The communication is going letter as he enters you says being in a long beach. But I believe Ethan Allen had a scare. You know, I silverado's gearstick second see that automaton in Wendell in their windows looking says listen the easternmost switch handle what I said in Spanish was basically I want to assure the residents of Long Beach that we are addressing a language accident, that it is important to us that we are hearing you were listening and that we do have that utmost priority for for us to communicate with you, because we understand and know that communication is of the utmost importance for us to reach out to you. So with that, I want to continue with my comments and my questions to technology services and civil service, because we went from the hearing into the comments or we didn't have that opportunity. In terms of technology services, I don't really have much. I think you're obviously you're being challenged with the new city hall and the new technology that is being presented out there. But last year we had a an issue, not an issue, but an item that came up that I signed on with Councilmember Lena Gonzalez at the time, talking about the digital divide between City Hall and the West Long Beach area. Is there any progress made on that? Is there a plan or a timeline that we can look at in terms of when that might be fully operational? We're fully integrated into the city for solving that digital divide. So in terms of the City Digital Inclusion Initiative, we have already been convening stakeholders, including community members and most recently, in words all a direct correlation to your specific item which related to the YMCA. We invited participants from that initiative to join the City Wide Greater Digital Inclusion Initiative. We just, in fact had our first kickoff meeting last Thursday and we had a robust participation. And the goal is, by the end of this year, to have a digital inclusion roadmap that had is co-created with the stakeholders and the community members in terms of the specific initiative with the YMCA and the partnership with the schools. I'm actually not in the lead on that meeting. The city manager's office, I believe, is is responding to any needs related to that specific initiative. So I can't speak to that, but I can answer any questions about the Greater Digital Inclusion Initiative. Well, hopefully that sometime in the near future we can get a full, more extensive orientation and update as to what's taking place with that. I know that's very important when it comes to our students in the West Palm Beach area, when they have homework assignments or they need to do research and they need to have that access to the Internet. And I will add that the Long Beach Unified School District is also at the table with our with our greater digital inclusion initiative. Wonderful. That's. Thank you. And in regards to civil service, Christina, welcome back to Long Beach. It's been quite a while since we worked together. Thank you. As we go, we both joined the city at the same time. We did back. To back a few years ago. A few years ago. And I know that with your experience, having worked in civil service and having had that experience and also where else you bring. Even a greater wealth of experience to Long Beach that you will be able to to use as we move along with our with our our needs . Oh, you use several terminology, some terminology here that I think would be important to for clarification purposes, for those who aren't all that in line with what some of that terminology means, you may be able to describe what it is. And I'm speaking specifically like what we're talking about when we have an eligible what is an eligible list? What when establish what does civil service do with it and what do departments do with that, with an eligible list? Sure. So the. The first thing we're doing is we're we're doing outreach. Applicants are coming to us. It is a job as a civil service department, civil service staff to assess the skills, knowledge and abilities of individuals as they pertain to the the positions that we have vacant. And so our job is to test these skills in the various manners that we conduct tests. And then we say we create a list of candidates that meet those qualifications. So on the job bulletins, it has minimum qualifications and then it has duties. And we, we create tests that align to the duties. How are we going to how we're going to be how are we going to be able to assess if someone can do this job? And that's why we create tests that that match those skills, knowledge and abilities. We create the eligible list. Based on the testing, someone has either been able to pass the test based on the skills, knowledge, ability, or they're not quite ready for a particular position. So those eligible lists that go out to the departments, we're saying to the department, we have vetted this group of people, they meet the needs for the job description. And so you should be able to find a qualified person within this group. So once a list has established, it is certified to a department. Is there a rule of how many candidates a parent will receive based on vacancies? It depends on if there's a if it's a promotional list or if it's an open list to the public. With the promotional list. We have a rule of three. We have a rule. Mixing my cities. We have a rule of four here. So for every one vacancy they will get four names in the open competitive list. That depends on that. We are giving people names of qualified. There are also potential for bands of people. And when you talk about you run the tests, you identify and attract qualified and diverse applicants. You want to explain some of that. How do you go about identifying that diverse applicant pool for these or these tests? So certainly we we work with the subject matter experts in the departments to say, where do you think we could find the best candidates for your positions in the past? And I think currently still, when I identified some community events that staff has participated in. But there is that collaboration in the community that is imperative to make sure that we're reaching out to specific organizations, the faith based community, the various. Communities representing underrepresented groups. And so there is there is a a targeted plan that can be put together based on the needs for each department. And some of those some of those departments, for example, of fire and police. Mm hmm. I take it that you. Get their assistance and. We do so. So it's been I had the good fortune when I was here before to be the actual recruitment officer for the city. So as the recruitment officer, we put together the actual plan and then determining and typically it was a multi-media plan where we were providing access to for the department to go out and talk to students at community college, talk to students at churches in the community, talk to individuals in just community organizations. We also did radio and and television at the time, but it's an opportunity for civil service to plan the targeted recruitment, but then get the actual people doing the job out in front of the candidates. They don't want to talk to the civil service staff. Unfortunately, they want to talk to people doing the job and they want to understand why should I come to work for this department? Why should I? Why should I come to Long Beach instead of any other city in Southern California or in California, for that matter? And so it's really connecting, creating the infrastructure to infrastructure to connect people working in our departments with potential candidates so they can learn about the department. One of the big challenges that we have in the city of Long Beach, and we've had it before, we've had several discussions about this is salaries and wages there sometimes, and we lose a good staff to other jurisdictions because our salaries are not competitive with the surrounding cities. Do you find that as a as an impediment to recruiting? It can be an impediment. But I think. What. What needs to be developed then is what is what are the other benefits to working in this community? And I think there are many benefits. I'm a returning person, so I understand the benefits of being able to work in this great community where everybody is is valued for what they bring to the table. And so I think it's it's just certainly competitive salaries are are a plus, if you can get that. But we're also being fiscally responsible. And so the other thing would be to highlight some of those other benefits that someone would receive working here in the city of Long Beach. And finally you load it in your notable changes for this coming year your the addition of a to new personnel analyst positions. Yes. Is there going to be some specialization on those, Alice? You didn't put them into. So so. Areas. We are we're going to get together. My management team and I are going to get together and we're going to talk about what is the best way to use utilize these resources so that we can see if we can bring back some of the targeted recruitment activities that I think would benefit all city departments across across the organization. In regards to, I get a little bit more into the minutia, but I wanted to get into it very deeply because I think that there's some other stuff that we could address what's going on with recruitment in our employment processes. You know, many, many times I would hear departments complain about the process taking too long. That civil service testing is lengthy, the process is too strenuous, or the process just just takes long. Have you done an analysis of. I know you're new. I'm sorry. Not yet late. Perhaps later on down a few months or maybe at the half year mark in March. We'll get an update as to the numbers of certifications that you've you've done, the exams that you've done, the sort of occasions you've done, and how many vacancies have been filled. It's very important to know that while departments have vacancies, we want to make sure that those vacancies are filled and that nobody on an eligible is stays on the eligible this without having an opportunity to get selected. So I mean, it's one of those situations where I want to see that if a budget has 2020 employees and they have two vacancies, I want to see that at the end of the year that department has 20 employees and the vacancies and they had it and they ran a test. So I mean, that's something that I think we need to pay more more attention to, that we should that we ensure that when we go through this budget process and we're we're approving a budget for X number of employees, for a department, that those positions are filled. Absolutely. And that's something that we will be looking at, because it it does impact our metrics as well by if the vacancies still are there. But we have created eligible list in hopes of people being able to find the qualified candidates. It also puts a significant chilling effect on our recruitment. If we've gone out, recruited people for a particular position and no selections are made, candidates lose faith in in the fact that we've we've attracted them. But there has been no action with the eligibility so it's. Everybody can help us. Everybody is a recruiter in my mind. Every. Every. Employees, a recruiter. And once we are utilizing all of our resources, we are going to have more than adequate number of eligible and qualified candidates that want to come and work here. They're there now, but they're going to be more vocal. And so it will be really important for us to make selection so that we can get them on board as quickly as possible. I want to ensure that our departments have the most qualified individuals ready for them to work for them. And I know there's some been some occasions where candidates on an eligible list might accept a job somewhere else because we simply just took too long. Absolutely. So to conclude. Thank you very much, Christina. Welcome back to the city of family. Thank you. Looking forward to working further with you. I appreciate I look forward to coming back and giving you all a report. Councilmember Mungo. Thank you. I just wanted to give some recognition for the great work that you're doing in technology and innovation. One of the things that I had talked about with our language access community is how there's a lot of work that we can still do to. Fix some of the issues at City Hall. But really. City Hall. I don't have my phone on me, but is in your hand 24 hours a day now and you should be able to use the Golden Beach app in Spanish as well as English to make city city services work for you. So I'm just going to make a quick recommendation on a project I was at with the County of Los Angeles. If you go to their website, there was always a person in the city who was on a bilingual bonus available via Instant Messenger, to communicate with the community on their issues. And so if I was looking for something on the website or I needed a challenge with my bill, I could click on, talk to a representative and that talk to a representative linked through the Skype accounts that most people have on their desk where you could. Trouble, solve or troubleshoot and problem solve on behalf of a resident that doesn't have to take off from work to go to city hall to wait in a line. And so while I appreciate. That. Our water department has 52 people that are bilingual. Our public works department has 20 people that are bilingual. Our Parks and Rec department has 17 people that are bilingual. A big congratulations to Health and Human Services. They have 90 people that are bilingual. If those people are not accessible to them, then they come to city hall. And so if there's a way to. Communicate via app or better publicize the language line through the app or through our community groups. I know that Mr. Supernormal does an excellent job. He has a very diverse district. When people get on the line with his office, Barbara quickly links them up with an interpreter and solves their problems . But that's only during business hours. And so during those non-business hours, what other opportunities we have, I'm not sure, but I'm open to suggestions in the future that might help solve this problem for our community, especially because City Hall is more than 9 to 5. It's really 24 hours a day through our apps. So that and then I will also mention what I've mentioned to you in the past, which is the opportunity for a citywide calendar. And I know that's currently being considered through the PIOs office, through a agenda item that I think I speak in 120 days. And I think it's been. 13 months. But when it does come back, we're looking at a citywide calendar and the opportunity for our communities to link up to and receive notices that they're interested in in their own language. So specifically Spanish. Other than that, great work. Welcome on board civil service and look forward to the hiring process improvements that are ahead of us. Thank you, sir. Thank you. So I'll start with the I.T. report and just the great job our our. City has been recognized and designated as a digital inclusion trailblazer, ranked as the top ten digital city. But we still obviously have a lot of work to do. I think Councilmember Mangold touched on a couple of good points and I think of my colleague, Councilmember Turanga speaking the language access. We've heard a lot about that here this evening. We can we can and should improve our communications and how we communicate. To weigh with with our constituents. I'm completely on board with that. I'd like to be a lot more innovative and use technology services to help us with that as well. I'm I'm really interested because I've been around long enough to know about when Long Beach Coast or LBE Coast project was kind of conceptual and we've been planning and ramping up to deal with phase one. And, and I know we're moving into another phase now, but in terms of the staffing for for be because. I know that there was a lot of extra staff brought on to bring that that system up or to get us to a point where we could be where we are today. Where do you foresee staffing in your department moving forward? Are these project positions or are they career positions to manage this process moving forward? Councilmember Austin Yeah, you are correct with all because we did have a extensive project team. We still have them working on phase two, which is the H.R. Payroll system and then the budget system. So in the in the budget, you will see that we do have an addition of ten full time equivalent to the Technology and Innovation Department budget to help do the ongoing operations for what we're calling munis. So munis is the system and that is offset by five FTE that were moved from the the financial management department. So it's a net out of five FTE that's being added new to the city's budget. We're also reallocating a few positions within our internal technology innovation to make sure that we try to have this be less costly as possible. And so that is built into the FY20 budget and our FY 21 budgets. And and so if with your approval, that would be staffed and that would be the staffing. So I guess I'm trying to understand project versus. The ongoing operations right. Program. Right. Yeah. So I'll be Khost is the project and then munis is what we're calling the ongoing operations and that is the ongoing team is, is built into our budget and we do need to fill those positions with permanent employees. So that is that is in process is is looking to fill those positions. Because, as I mentioned, we are live with phase one operations of munis. Got it. And you know this budget as well as anyone, I would imagine. Thank you very much. Keep up the great work we will be looking for big things from from my team moving forward. I want to welcome our new civil service. Executive director and my constituent as well. Welcome. I only had a couple of questions. Obviously, I think your department is has a huge challenge in front of it, maintaining, you know, the merit system in a large city is is a huge undertaking. You've got a great commission and good staff. And I know you're coming into a good situation because this council, I believe, will will provide you with the resources you need to be successful moving forward. But on the line of some of the public comment we heard here today, just a question kind of came up regarding our minimum qualifications for for various positions that are advertised. All right. Is is bilingual a prerequisite for any of the positions that we have currently in the city? Is that a legal prerequisite? I would say it's it's probably not a it is not a. An actual requirement. A lot of times it says desirable and so and that's that's a standard practice to to say if there is a position that really would benefit from bilingual, we would say that it's it's desirable. And so that then somebody that has those qualifications oftentimes gets gets screened into a pool because of a desirable, um, requirement that we may list. Understood. And my, my colleague, our budget chair is really good with numbers. I don't know where she gets them sometimes, but she, she, she listed a number of departments who have, I believe, bilingual. Correct. Pay incentives for for employees. So those employees have they may not actually be they may not actually be have it as a requirement, but they have that skill. So then we will ask employees, do you have that skill? Do you have a language skill? We can then do a selective certification, which means we can certify those people with a specific skill if we like, and which is why we asked, you know, do you have that? Then we we take track of that. And then we can selectively certify to a position where they say may need a community worker, Spanish speaking community worker. So that's how we we push that information out to them. And ah, we, I guess this might be a hybrid kind of conversation with civil service in h.r. But are we strategic in terms of how we, we place people with those skill pays so that we have good conversation or communication with, with our constituents? So, so absolutely. When we are working with the department and what we call the subject matter experts, we say we know a lot about, we know a little bit about a lot of things. We rely on our subject matter experts to to be the experts in their particular areas. And if they tell us that there's a language need, then we're definitely going to look for that for them. Okay. Well, thank you for that. That concludes my questions. Like to open it up and pass it on to councilmember pearce. Thank you. I'm. No problem. Yeah. That might be a good way to work from now on, huh? Just pass. It on. It's easier that way. So thank you guys very much for your presentations. I know I was in and out in them. I looked over the PowerPoints, I looked through the budget book. I have a couple of questions. First, welcome to the team. It's nice to have you here. Thank you. I had a couple of constituents that wanted me to inquire, and so I will. First of all, hiring and bringing on good staff is something that I obviously, as all of us in council care deeply about, we've got, you know, nearly 6000 employees that interface with our residents every day bringing them on. And what that experience is like is is critical for us. I know that there's some tests that happen whenever we bring on or when we're looking to hire somebody. There's a personality and motivation test. I wanted to understand how was that weighted with other tests and other processes that they go on before they are hired? Can you speak to that? So that particular test has that. I'm. Newly learning about. We've actually created a subcommittee from the personnel from our civil service commission. And so the commission is is looking at that test right now and how that is working into our future testing. Great. That's wonderful to hear. I know that we've talked in the city about trauma and making sure that we aren't leaving people out that maybe have experienced trauma. I know our health department hires a variety of different people with different lived experiences, so wanting to make sure that we're not putting tests in place that then leave out the very people that we want their experience and their life experience on our team. And so I look forward to hearing that report from you and really understanding all of those matrix in there. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for that. Okay. So I t thank you so very much. I obviously love your guys presentations. I thank my council colleagues for their comments. Obviously, closing the digital divide is really important. Two things that I want to talk about today is I want to echo that I love our Go Long Beach app. I know that we had some previous conversations earlier today around having our city employees use that app. I'm wondering if we have any numbers on how many of our city employees actually have the Long Beach app? So go Long Beach is we can get that for you on city owned phones. It's definitely on an authorized app on his phone so I can get back to you. On how many have that actually downloaded. I would love to put out that challenge as I think we already have to have every city employee have that on their app and that on their phone and that all of us are being that ambassador while we're out in the community, whether we're driving to work or whether we're out of park servicing. But I think the app is great. But I, my app has crashed several times in the last couple of months. So I think it means either I'm using it too much or other people are using it too much is a good thing. So I'm wondering when when are we going to have an update on that? I know every budget cycle we talk about it. Yes. And one thing, too, I do have the app downloaded on my phone, so. Yes. And we are going to be looking at replacing the Go a Long Beach app with our CRM system that I had talked about earlier. And we were actually coming to City Council for an award of the contract on October 1st, and then the goal would be to finish the project by the end of 2020. That's great. Sorry if I missed that earlier when I was in and out. Great. That's great to hear. My other big topic is cameras. So I know that I brought this up with Assistant City Manager Modica and we have several cameras in our harbor area. Many of them are not working. And so I wanted to understand, is this something that needs to remain in your department? Is it something that should be with another department? Just talk to me about what that process is going to be. Certainly so in October 2017, my department did launch a two year camera modernization program focused on the the Genetec based cameras that are mostly throughout in the right away. At the time, we had 544, 544 genetic based cameras and hundred and 60 of them were non operational. So that's about 29%, I'm pleased to say that right now we have 888 genetic based cameras, so that's an increase of over 60% and only 38 are not operational. So 4.3%. However, we also noted back when we were talking about this in 2017 that there are over 30 plus closed circuit camera systems that are in addition to the GENETEC based citywide system, network system. And those includes the ones that are in parking lots, you know, in in the airport, for instance, and inside the jail, for instance. And so those those systems we need to take on a case by case basis as funding allows. And and our goal is, is to work with those departments to modernize those and incorporate them into our citywide system so they can be reviewed centrally and be connected. And so, for instance, the cameras that you were mentioning that is planned in the FY 20 budget from some funding with public works to to fix those cameras in those those parking garages. Okay. And it's not just the parking garages. It's like Marina Green where we had that. Horrific incident about two weeks ago. So these cameras, it's it's an absolute priority for my district, for my constituents, for the boat owners, for the businesses that if we have cameras and we've spent money on those cameras, that we have the funding to make sure that they work. And I know that we'll be talking about budget priorities later on. And so that is one that I continue to work with staff on. It's it's not acceptable to to have cameras in areas like that that that aren't working and that our police officers don't have access to. And so I appreciate all the work that you've done in bringing those on. But I just want to make it clear that that's something that we need to to figure out. Thank you, both of you, for your time, for your presentations and for staff, for your work on these areas. Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Rice. Thank you. So, first of all, welcome to our new civil service team. So I appreciate the presentation tonight. I'm going to start with just a couple of questions from technology services and then I'll move over to civil service. I only have one question there, but Ms.. ERICKSEN, I have a follow up on the security cameras as well. I know this has been a very heated area of discussion in the business corridor that runs in my district, one of the business quarters that runs in my district, Second Street. And I came when I came onto council, there was a lot of discussion about the cameras and what was happening with the cameras. Shortly after I got onto council, I believe, is when your department started to take over that project in earnest. Did you do you believe that your department is adequately funded to support the operations? For the cameras, since we're relying on them so much more as a public safety tool. Counts. Councilwoman Price We do have funding to, you know, to get to the progress that we've done so far. And we have funding to to replace the cameras as they go down. So that that's all built into critical needs in terms of tackling all those other closed circuit systems. We do not have all the funding in place. So we would be working with the departments and, and with the budget budget process to to to actually address all those as those are as we identify those as priorities. Okay. So just to give you a heads up, nothing to discuss tonight, but I do expect that we'll ask this item to come to the Public Safety Committee with an overview of how many cameras we have. Which ones are not working? What challenges and opportunities we have things of that nature. Yeah. And I would like to say that the, the, the, the ones that are out there on your second street quarter, as you mentioned, those are part of the 888 GENETEC based system cameras. And that is what we have the funding to do and tackled. And we're only at a 4% failure rate at this point, which is really great. That's just normal cycle replacement. That's great. That's good. Yeah. I think at some point we should have maybe a bigger education on what our camera system looks like, what areas of the city we have them in, how we're utilizing them. It's been something that I've been thinking about bringing to public safety for a while anyway. So just giving you a heads up, maybe in three months, three or four months or so. So with that, I mean, that's just a topic of discussion, especially now we're going to get body worn cameras. There's all sorts of other public safety tools that are available to us now that weren't years ago. So to the extent that we can maximize those and make sure that you're adequately staffed and you have what you need to function and to do the work that's expected of you, that's really what we want to make sure we drill down on. So thank you. Thank you for the presentation tonight. And by the way, I just want to give a huge kudos to your AV team who goes out and supports us at our council meetings and our events. They're really a fantastic group of people to work with, really accommodating, just always a very passive but strong presence. And we really rely on them. So. So extend our thanks to them, please. The other, the one question that I had for our civil service team is we've been talking a little bit about recruitment officers in different departments. Do you recruit for police and fire? So we will coordinate the efforts. In the past, we had there has been there have been three dedicated recruitment officers in the in the history of the department. I was the last recruitment officer. So the position was not dedicated. But my understanding is staff has continued to help with police and fire to coordinate events. Correct. And so. The. The opportunity to provide more support to the departments is something that we want to look at to return to resurrect that full support that we can provide not just to police and fire, but to the all departments that should be able to have that that expertize that I think our staff has. Do any of our departments currently have their own recruitment officer? No, not to. Not to my knowledge. Crystal can speak to that. Good evening. The police department actually has a dedicated recruitment officer right now, and the fire department is also looking at a new person that a fire captain that is also looking at recruitment primarily. Okay. And so do you. So I'm assuming that means you have a model in place in terms of how your department would work with their recruitment officer so that we're getting the most efficiency out of those budget dollars in terms of the two departments working together. Yes. We're currently looking. At. Like I said, the fire department recently, just within the last couple of weeks, identified the person and the police department identified someone probably within the last last year, and they've been working with us closely. Again, like Christina mentioned, coordinating outreach events. Our team is out there when we can attend events, but primarily the folks that are at police and fire at the events. Okay. And you said police added a recruitment officer within the last year. If I recall correctly, it was an within the last budget year. Oh. They've had it. They've had it for a while. My apologies. Okay. I'll have to defer it. No problem. And it's just a discussion. So no, like, I get it that we're doing our best to answer the questions. But so basically the gist of it is that you've had a model in place where you've been working with a recruitment officer from a particular department to try to enhance our recruitment efforts. Correct. With the police department? Definitely over the last two, 3 to 4 years. And like I said recently, within the fire department, just within the last. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you to all three of you. Thank you. Next speaker, Congressman Silvano. We were just talking. Someone else. All right, so can we move? Thank you for that. Let me move on to consumer super now. Okay. And everybody hear me. Okay. I don't have any questions for civil service. Welcome aboard. Don't take it personally if you haven't watched the council meetings. I specialize in brevity. So for technology, I just wanted to follow up on what Councilman Price was talking about, the camera systems. And we had our own issues on the East Bay or the Anaheim Corridor now notices Aphria Business Improvement District. And what struck me so much when I inherited that was that we had these one off systems all over the city, and I think the goal would be to standardize everything. I also sit on the Public Safety Committee that is chaired by Councilwoman Pryce, so I'll get the information there. But I just think we need to get this out citywide, that what the plan is for, for the cameras moving forward. And also, since you mentioned a second, our next generation of the Go Long Beach app, I realize that will be coming to council soon, as you indicated. But if you could just give us a sneak preview, is there going to be a migration to the new system or does it stand alone that you have to then sign up for the new system? So Councilmember Supernormal, they're there. They'll look over on the beach app when I go away until the new system is ready. And it would be a stand alone system. In fact, you probably won't even be an app in the general sense of the word. Oh. Okay. And what was the projected date? That the new system would come. Online by the end of 2020? Okay. Great. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Next week, Councilman, would you simply. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a few things. So, first of all, civil service. I don't have very many questions for you. You do a good job, your office, and we'll let you know. It's one of those we shouldn't hear from. You shouldn't hear from us unless there's a problem. Hopefully you see us out in the community that that's what you. Hear from us. And we look forward to partnering to expand some of that. Right. Just a few comments and questions for technology and innovation. And so thank you for kicking off your community process and honored to give a welcome was just a couple days ago. Right? Michelle Obama library. And so you know, we've had this conversation about this digital inclusion roadmap and all that before it had a hashtag, right? Right. When we were just going project by project trying to figure out how to make things more accessible. And you know, and my first experience was dealing with the uplink project, everything that went into simply tying into fiber, adding security cameras and Wi-Fi on a corridor. There's a lot that went into it. And, you know, I guess it would. You know, if coming out of this process, we had a more clear understanding of what's realistic and feasible for cities to take on. And what should go to the private sector to figure out, I think would be incredibly helpful. So just a few things I would lift up. I hope through the process we've identified where we can strategically deploy security cameras, a plan to do that. I know security cameras in the parks and around facilities are popular, and I know that they're not it's not necessarily consistent. We have cameras in many works. I mean, not work. That's something I'm interested in, making sure that we address that road map process. I think publicly available Wi-Fi has been something that's popular, particularly if you don't have a lot of, say, coffee shops and cafes that do that. When we just offering free Wi-Fi to libraries mean incredible hit. I'd love to see the Wi-Fi in the parks become stronger, tie into our fiber and have plans for that and corridor. Wi-Fi is great as well. It's actually an economic development tool. If we already provide Wi-Fi and have guidelines to add patio dining and bulb outs and things like that, we can sort of place make our economic development through deploying strategically deploying technology. I think I'll underscore again, you know, I've learned just in the last few months how cities that do have these plans are heavily looking at public private partnerships, for example. When we do dig once, a lot of times are doing once will notify the utilities and our own departments. But we should think about when do they once? Is there a way that we can save costs on our project by saying, Hey, who else wants to lay down? Can't do it while we're here? Right. And maybe it helps save a little bit of money, but also figure out how to, you know, monetize it and expand our network. Another thing. So that's something I want to look into how we do the dig once we've talked about it. But how do we maybe open it up broader? Another thing is so, you know, we've been talking about this this kiosk situation. I've said, you know, we have five city halls close to the ninth District on our own. And a lot of times, you know, going over to Highland Park or going over to the library, people like to check multiple boxes when they go to the city facility. Highland Park has a health facility, a community center, potentially other things like workforce. So if we could figure out how to like deploy the things that are available, you can walk up and pay a bill, walk up to do something that sort of takes these spaces and make them into like a mini mini city hall access, basic information and city services, not specific, just the parks. I think that should be a part of, you know, a part kind of part of the plan you're embarking on. And then the last thing I would I would say it's a more of a question. So, you know, it'll be cost completely supportive. It's still very difficult to fully understand all the capabilities it offers. But does it with this help us with this what capacity or what additional us? How could this new CRM system help advance language access in the city? So Councilmember Richardson, like the Syrian system, would need to comply with language access. And so like our knowledge based questions and other interactions could be in the three other languages. So that would be. That would be. I would definitely bring the 24 seven accessible CRM system in the four languages. Okay. So, so this does give us more ability to sort of serve our serve our residents needs in multiple languages. It does. Now, what I need to check on is, is how much of this would be Google Translate versus the actual real language translation. So I do need to get back to you on that. Great. Curious to know. But you know, all in all, I think you have a very exciting year ahead of you. Look forward to supporting your budget. Thank you. Councilmember Gringa. Thank you. When a customer Pierce was talking, she mentioned issues such as a trauma. I'll take a test. And it's my understanding that the Civil Service has moved on to more technologically, I guess, enhanced testing methods. The concern that I would have with that obviously is the issues regarding test preparation, a person's ability to take a test , a built in biases as an example in these types of tests, the inability of of an applicant to fully understand. The capabilities of the tests or what it or how to take it. Is there a methodology, if you will, for civil service to provide? Information as to how to take these tests or how to access a practice test or anything such as that that would make the testing experience a lot smoother and be able to ensure that the people taking the tests are in fact fully capable of sort of being tested to the best of their abilities with we're seeing with this testing process. Absolutely. I mean, I think that returning to the city of Long Beach, it's it's been very enlightening to see of that, the type of the use of technology and testing that is going on. But I absolutely think that we could provide services to our our candidates, where we're providing workshops and on what to expect, how to how to access it, how to have access to even online application. So all of those things where we're involving technology, I think it's an opportunity to do that. We also have been doing some very innovative things with online videos. So I think that that would be another option to to create some online videos that would help individuals that are interested in in how to prepare for a particular exam. So yeah, definitely there's more that we can do in that area. Yeah. So I understand that. And you mentioned earlier about a task force or a. Subcommittee of the an ad hoc committee of the Civil Service Commission. So we have two members that are looking at the particular test. Would it be possible to expand that committee to include stakeholders such as some departments or police or fire other departments who have a vested interest in the results of these types of testing? There's what, 22 departments in the city? I think all 22 departments use an administrative analyst or administrative assistant maybe for that kind of test that you could have their input as to what this test can do for them. Well, absolutely. Whether or not I think one's absolutely I think one of the things we're just trying to learn about is what is available through that test, what we've used it for. Just in our brief, we had our first committee meeting this afternoon. And so I think there's a lot more that we can learn about the test that may be able to help us. So I know there are pros and cons to it. We're going to look at that and then certainly take those results out to the departments and talk to them about how we could utilize this for everybody . Well, in another life, I was I was a testing special, if you want to call that at at Cal State Long Beach, before joining the city. And I also, through my experience with Lamar City College, when I was there, we created a holistic methodology of determining how a future student or employee can perform under their job by looking at the individual and not only in terms of their test results, but their resume, their education, training, experience, all of those qualifications that we're always looking at for people. And I think that if there's anything that we can do ourselves a favor is to use that type of approach, a holistic approach to testing, and to put a knowledgeable list together that incorporates all of an applicant's experience. And get on that list based on that, and not just on one instrument testing instrument that would determine an individual's fate. Because we're talking about people's lives. We're talking about their their future and their ability to get a job. And a test in and of itself should not be an impediment to a person wanting to get a job. So I would really want to promote a holistic approach, if you will, to testing so that maybe you could get into when you let a department that well, rephrase it, when you establish a list, a certified list, that it includes and entails everything on that individual in terms of skills, knowledge and abilities as well as the performance on the test. Because we know and it's happened to me that if the test on Friday morning and I have testing ZT, that I'm not going to perform as well on that test on that Friday morning or if I have something coming up on Friday afternoon, a big party or whether that be party. Well. That sounds so bad. That sounds so bad. Well, it's sad. Let's say it has something important going on. Maybe I'm getting married on Saturday. I have a bachelor party that night. That's not good either. Anyway, you catch my drift. Drift? We're going to beat that. People are naturally affected. By what? What's going on in their lives when they take a test. And I think that the key is for us that we are as transparent as possible, that people understand why we are conducting particular tests. Some tests are better for some physicians and others, and that we we balance the need to manage volume. With the need to assess skill level. Thank you very much. Mm hmm. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews. Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank the technology and innovation team, because the fact that, you know, that you can tell by the city hall here that you guys have done a great, great an amazing job, you know, especially by keeping Channel three going and everything else you've done, you know, the good work you've done. So I just want to leave that out there to the technology division. But the biggest part about I'd like to move into the civil service part because the fact that especially when I talk about civil service in the hiring process and getting jobs because, you know, that's a primary concern in my district. And like I said, I understand exactly what Councilman Duran was speaking about, especially when it comes to testing. I'm not saying that you shouldn't test, but I think in the way we do a lot of our testing, we can really, you know, omit some of our best, you know, qualified individuals. And especially when I tell individuals, well, you want to get a job, you got to go online and go online. A lot of these individuals, they will go online and they substantially have been there for three or four weeks and nothing's happened. So I don't know how the expediency of trying to when you go back and say, well, what do you tell a person, well, I should keep going, going back. So what's the length of time that you would have a person once they go online and you find that the job is still open, but you can still they say, And what do I do? So what is the process that you've been waiting so long once you've already applied online to try to get that job? I know there's a lot of candidates out there, but I tell them to keep try and keep trying. So what is really I just what I'm really trying to say is what is kind of the waiting period once you have a person go online to apply for a job? So I wish I could tell you what that waiting period is. Every position is different. I am learning as I in my second week or beginning of my third week here that we have a lot of positions that are open continuously. And I think that may be what you're talking about, that where candidates are saying, hey, what is what is happening? And so we're we're evaluating all of those so that we can give more information to candidates because we don't want them to give up on us. And so we're going to we're going to be looking at these processes and evaluating some positions are very hard to fill. And so we do need to have them open continuously so people have access. Other positions are are we have plenty of candidates and it would behoove us to move forward with the process. So we're going to try to see how we can assess, be more transparent, share more information with candidates and communicate with candidates so that they understand. And they're not having to call their council person to get updates on what their what their status might be. Well, that's one of the because I know there's no way that they can get in touch with you guys and find that out. But I just want you to know that because I mean. I think you should they should be able to have some information from us if that's if if we are generating that information. So definitely that is something that we will be working on so that they do have they have ability to communicate. And thank you, guys. That's that's a very key area in my especially in my district. Like I said, the job does it mean so much because it resonate all over the district. Once she said, well, a guy that hasn't had a job for the last ten or 15 years and get a job from the city. I mean, that goes to show because you know what he had to do in order to get that job. And I just want to let you guys know that that's one thing I really applaud union budget for, but just help us out a little bit more on that, if that's possible. And thank you very much. Thank you. And. Yes. Thank you. I had one question that I forgot to ask, Leah. In your budget, under the SAP funds, there's a reference to educational programing video for Focus on the New Civic Center. The total looks like $300,088. So I wanted to understand more about this video you could just share with us. So Councilwoman Pearce, that includes funding for Councilmember Pearce, that includes funding for a position. So about 138,000 of that is for a position who's going to be helping work with Long Beach television as well as staff here in the Technology and Innovation Department on programing and and art and engagement. And the focus is on the Civic Center because that position and the funding will help with the media wall. And out there in the lobby, also with the the the messaging that's in the elevator and the elevators, all of the public service announcements and messaging in the elevators, as well as just general programing and features for language television. So it's not a program about the Civic Center. It's literally programing that wall. Yes, programing. What's in the elevator? Yeah. As well as content for language television. And so. So there's one time funding as well as the position. So the 250,000 for one time funding. Outside of the position. I mean, is that for the video team? Help me. Understand. A portion of that would be for some of the content for the the city hall media wall. And a portion of that would be for curation. So but for curation of original content, including working with local artists in the Long Beach Museum of Art, for instance, and the Arts Council. Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. To add one thing, and it's a comment for Miss Erickson. You know, I know we talk a lot about digital inclusion, and people heard me talk about this at the Bossie meeting. But one stopgap until we get to the place where every resident in the city of Long Beach has access to the Internet and access to the computer is our libraries. Every resident in the city of Long Beach has access to the Internet and to computers through our libraries. And when we extend our library hours, residents who work full time have the opportunity to go in and look for jobs and do their searches on the weekends and try to, you know, enhance their own lives by looking at what opportunities are out there and preparing themselves for job opportunities and job interviews. So I just wanted to throw that out there that the entire burden of digital inclusion, inclusion should not fall on our Technology Services Department because we do have other services available throughout the city that can help make that need a reality. Until such time as we're able to enhance the infrastructure citywide, which is a multimillion dollar project. Thank you very much, Councilwoman. With that, let me go ahead and that I know that concludes all the questions we had as far as it relates to technology and and civil service. So thank you. Let's give also and let's do another welcome for our new executive director of civil service. Very happy. So thank you and welcome again. And talk about being thrown right into the rain to the fire on your on your second week. So thank you. Thank you. We do have we a series of votes, of course, as it relates to the budget. And we can also, of course, get getting some more discussion as it relates to the budget. And so we're going to go out and go through those right now and want to take a few initial votes. And then we're going to pause because the finance staff has got to go back and do some work on some of the recommendations, and then we'll do the rest of the council meeting and then finish the budget at the end of the night. A Mayor Can we get a vote on. It to receive and file as part of the hearing? So I'm not sure that we do. We need a vote on that. But let's go ahead let's just go to the last was even file in those three departments cluster your votes. Catlin. So when you were younger. Thank you. When your younger. Motion carries. Thank you. We we we have a series of items. I'm going to also during when when the BSE committee's recommendations come up. I know there are some some comments and I have a couple as well. And we're going to we're going to work through those. And that's in a couple of items. We're going to go through the first three votes on the on the on the budget. We have taken all public comment. So, Madam Clerk, the first one is to adopt the mayor's proposed budget recommendations as amended and as have been submitted to the the council.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6914 for construction of the Beach Pedestrian Path project; award the contract to Powell Constructors, Inc., of Fontana, CA, in the amount of $5,519,700, and authorize a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $827,955, for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,347,655; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; accept Categorical Exemption No. 12-044; and Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund (TF 401) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $2,523,428. (Districts 2,3)

LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0798

Report from City Manager, Financial Management and Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to award the contract to PAL Constructors for construction of the Beach Pedestrian Path Project for a total contract amount not to exceed the $6 million and increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund by 2,523,428 districts. Two and three. Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve? There's been a motion. Any second. Any public comment? Yes, sir. Hello. Honorable City Council. My name is Bill Napier and Mayor. My name is Bill Napier. And. At the California Coastal Commission meeting about a second path on the sand of our beach. They also told you that if anything was to change about the beach here, that you will have to remove the new path. Well, I'm here to remind you that the Army Corps of Engineers of the federal government promised Long Beach, California, a study of the Long Beach breakwater, and I'm sure that they will keep their promise. And so the city must be ready to remove the new path at any time. And also, remember, when you have a beach. That's right. You will meet your surfer girl. Thank you very much. Hey. Thank you, sir. Mr. Goodhue. Very good. You click as the address. This is a very most instructive item in a number of ways. First of all, it is a classic example of one of the biggest problems this city faces, in my view, particularly with Thailand's area. The failure of people to understand this council and other councils and too much of the staff. The failure to understand human use patterns. And common sense. Only a close cousin of a buffoon would could conclude that putting in a second path would any way seriously in any right or reduce any problem. They will migrate back and forth. That's human nature. That's absolute human nature. And this is secondly, a classic example of what I say is one of our biggest problems, which is not a shortfall of money. It's a shortfall of common sense. This is no different than it's a self. City council together stood up on the. Bluff. Unzipped its collective fly and engaged in an activity you'd probably be arrested for. It makes absolutely no sense. But the final point I make, and I think it's I would hope you would take judicial and constructive notice of this is the format of this. The way this is formatted and presented to you today is excellent. Outstanding. It is not a black ops backroom type of presentation. This is the type of format. The issue that I discussed earlier should have been contained in whether it be dealing with a bike path removal, construction of a building. Period. And that should always be if you don't see something like that, you know, you've got some trucks running around. But again, stop and think about it. And it should start with this path. Human use patters, people, you people do what the crow does. They use common sense. And there is no way you're going to stop people from migrating back and forth. This is tantamount like saying, okay, I'm fine avenue, if you want to go north, you can only stay on the east side of the street. And the converse for the west side of the street are the same thing on Broadway. Most people generally are not stupid expecting people not to migrate back and forth. And the solution is, I bet you six months from now, a year from now, somebody's going to come up with an idea of spending a few million dollars putting up a fence, period. The areas, unplanned, uncontrollable, will always be like that. Rethink this. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Did you. Did you want to comment? Okay. I thought this was your call. Before we vote, Councilwoman Pryce, and they will go to a vote. You mean it? She made a motion early on. It's taken. I was listening to Mr. Goodhue and lost track of my thoughts. I wanted to, just for a moment, to thank our staff for the countless hours that they've put into this project. Eric Lopez, Tom Modica, I've talked with you. You've briefed me on this project, and I want to thank you and the other members of our staff who have worked on this. I know that there have been several revisions to this path, and at times I'm sure that must have been frustrating, but I think we have a better project for it now. It did have a couple of questions that I want to share with you or ask you. Now, we have received many, many emails in our office in support of the pedestrian path. Many people are looking forward to being able to use this path exclusively for walking and running and view it as a benefit to our city. My question for you is, what is the timeline? Can I just share all the questions with you now, or do you want to go one at a time? Okay. So what is the timeline? There are have been some concerns about since we're taking portions of the beach, whether or not we've given a fair thought to the size of the path, the with the length of the path to make sure that it's minimal intrusion into the beach. So if you could just elaborate for us briefly on what has happened in regards to that and how that conclusion was reached and and whether or not there will be an opportunity at some point down the road for any displays of art along that path. I know that's a discussion that had been brought up in the past. So. Thank you. With that. Mr. West. Tom Modica Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of City Council Councilmember Price. I'll try a brief description of those three questions and then Eric can help out with anything that I might miss in terms of timeline. If this is approved tonight, I will be looking to start construction very shortly before the end of the year with a goal of being complete before summer 2015 so that the path will be open and available during our highest use time, which is the summer. In terms of the size of the path. You're right, it has gone through a number of iterations. The path has actually moved. The original proposal was south and towards the water for the pedestrian path through the the Act of the Coastal Commission and what the Council approved in February. It's now been moved to north of the path. The buffer between the two paths has actually been shrunk. So that's down to six feet. Where previously I believe it was ten. Ten. Correct. And also one thing that we gain out of this project is by realigning the paths, we actually are getting a net gain of water or a beach space that is accessible. And so you actually increase your sandy beach area adjacent to the water by about 300,000 square feet. The pathway itself takes up about 154,000 square feet. And so the net gain is actually 146,000 square feet of actual beach area that can be better utilized. And then as to the question of art, in February, when the council passed this item, they asked us to take a look at the art separate from this item, not as a condition, but separate. One of the things we've done on art is on any major project. Now, moving forward, each one of those projects in the Tidelands is going to have an art component to it. And so as we look at the Belmont Pool, as we look at Cherry Beach, as we look at. Some of the concession stands, there will be art associated. With each one of those projects at the major nodes. And as part of those projects, we can potentially look at some other art up and down on the on the path as well, trying to achieve that balance of keeping a natural area while also providing some artistic elements in the appropriate places. I hope that answers your questions. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councilmember. Consumer price? No. Oh. Okay, great. Then we have a vote and we have a motion on the floor. Members. Joaquin Castro votes. Ocean carries eight zero. Thank you. Next item.

Recommendation to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2015 First Budget Performance Report. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0260

Item 15 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive and file the The Fiscal Year 2015 first budget performance report citywide. Mr. West and I that you probably have a short report on this. Sure. Our budget manager, Lee Erickson. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. This is the first performance report for fiscal year 15, which covers the first four months of the year. And this information is consistent with the data that we used when we presented the budget situation on March 3rd. General fund revenue and expenses are projected to end the year within budget and the further funds, there are no revenue concerns in the general fund. We have previously reported about the situation with Uplands, Oil and Highlands operation. Staff will continue to closely monitor revenues and expenditures and will report any material changes. This concludes the staff report and I'm ready for any questions. Thank you, Casey. No questions or public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero 16. Item 16 Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to award six contracts to provide financial advisory services on an as needed basis in an aggregate aggregate amount not to exceed 1,200,000 per year.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, any subcontracts, and any necessary amendments, including any amendments to the award amount, with the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $1,102,698, for the Long Beach Activating Safe Communities Program in the Washington Neighborhood, for the period of October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023, with the option to extend the agreement for one additional year, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $1,102,698, offset by grant revenue. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1090

Thank you. We're going to hear the two items from consent that were pulled. Starting with item 3031, please. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to execute all necessary documents with the Board of State and Community Corrections to accept and expend grant funding for the Long Beach Act. Activating Safe Communities Program in the Washington Neighborhood District one. Councilman's and Day House. You, Mayor. I know that we have a lot on the calendar tonight, and I would love to pull this off as a consent calendar and say it was incredibly important and worthy of being highlighted for the community members. Turning tuning in to today's meeting, something that has been incredibly important. If you're ever since I took office, has become even more critical over the last few months. And that has been our violence. Violent crimes in central and west Long Beach. That's been mostly impacting my Washington neighborhood. This is why this is one of my top priorities. And I think that it's critical for our residents to know that we are prioritizing their safety and well-being in our communities where it's most needed. I'm excited for the impact that these resources are going to have in addressing the issues that my residents bring to me each day. And I'm so grateful to the staff that have worked and secured this front on behalf of the Washington residents. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I get a second on the motion, please? Have a second backcountry ranger. I don't see any public comment on item 31. So called up. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. And in District seven. By District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE vacating the alley in Block 14, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Addition, bounded by Westlake Avenue, Virginia Street, 6th Avenue, Lenora Street, and 7th Avenue, on the petition of Acorn Development LLC (Clerk File 312260).

SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118872

The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item for accessible 118 872 vacated the alley block 14 areas of Sarah Abel's addition bounded by Westlake Avenue, Virginia Street, Six Avenue, Leonard Street and Seventh Avenue on the petition of ACORN Development LLC. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So this this item in the next item are both of the final acts we do on a street vacation, just to remind the public of how this process works. When a street or alley vacation is proposed by an adjacent property owner, they make a proposal. And part of that discussion with the Department of Transportation comes up with a package of benefits. What we do as a council then is we would approve in advance the concept of. That street vacation. And so they can proceed with the construction they would use as street or alley in this case. And then when the project is finally complete, we go back and confirm that everything was done according to plan and then make the actual transfer of property. But we can't do the transfer of property until the public benefits are in place. This first item came before the Council in November of 2012 and we did the heavy lifting back then and this is that final act to convey it. As mentioned in the bill title, it's between sixth and seventh Avenue and between Virginia and Leonora. I believe it's an Amazon project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Bryan, any questions on this particular bill? Please read the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas I. O'Brien Hi. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess, I Herbold Hi. Johnson. President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed a. Bill passed in show senate. Please read agenda item number. 550118 789 became the remaining north 40 feet of the alley and block 18 being the remaining portion of the alley and the block line between East Cherry Street on the North and east Jefferson Street on the south, the alley being located approximate 140 feet west of 12th Avenue.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a License Agreement with Crown Castle NG West, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the non-exclusive use of City-owned properties for wireless telecommunications facilities for a ten-year term. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_08152017_17-0693

Thank you. I think we're just going to keep going. Is there only public comment on this item saying no members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Romo. Number 24, please report. From Public Works recommendation to execute a license agreement with Crown Castle and G. West for the nonexclusive use of city owned properties, for wireless telecommunications facilities for a ten year term District one and two. Thank you. There is a brief staff report on this. Craig Beck. Good evening, Vice Member, Members of the City Council. Just real quickly. We're excited to bring this item before you this evening. The city staff has been working diligently with the telecommunications industry to bring forward small cell. And as you know, many people are using smartphones these days, mobile web browsing, video streaming, and that has led to the need for more data. The telecommunication companies are trying to address this by filling gaps in their cell sites with micro cell. And what that really means is they're they're asking the city to use our assets, primarily our street light poles, to place antennas and equipment that will allow them to have these facilities in place. We have worked we have a number of applications pending. The first application is before you this evening with a license agreement with Crown Castle. Crown Castle will install the equipment and essentially lease it to an operator like an AT&T or Verizon. One thing we would like to do to clarify the recommended action before you this evening is that this particular item is for 21 city owned sites. I want to make sure that we have that clarification in place, because it is likely that will we will we will be bringing additional Crown Castle applications to you in the future . And so this particular license agreement is for those 21 sites. The sites are primarily located. If you look at Exhibit A, they are down in our city's waterfront. So Shoreline, seaside, etc., primarily, they're down in the waterfront. I would add that your staff is working closely, both planning and building and public works, to bring forward a master license agreement that would help streamline the entire licensing process for the telecommunications company companies plural. We do have multiple companies that have filed applications that staff is working with. We anticipate that that master license agreement will come before council, hopefully before the end of this calendar year. That concludes the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Beck. If there's no objection, we'll just go to public comment. Any public comment on this item saying no members, please cast your vote. Councilwoman Price. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE related to the City’s response to the COVID-19 crisis; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); accepting funding from non-City sources; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2021 Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; imposing provisos; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120150

The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 120151 related to the city's response to the COVID 19 crisis. Amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 2026 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you. Councilor Mosquito, as chair of the committee, recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you, President. Pro tem. Colleagues. As you'll recall, we passed the first part of the Seattle rescue plan in council bills, 120093 and Council Bill 120094. We passed this first package of the Seattle rescue plan on June 21st, 2021. This was intended to be the first of three acts in 2021 to address the crisis that COVID is presenting and to deploy federal dollars that have been made available to the city to make sure that we're responding to the urgent needs that have only been made worse by COVID and have been created by this pandemic as well. The first package of bills authorizes spending of about $120 million in 2021 to support Seattle's recovery efforts from COVID 19 backfill revenue. And we also authorized $25 million to provide direct cash assistance to households, specifically households directly affected by the effects of COVID and who are largely our bipoc community. I'm really proud of the first proposal that we passed, and this is our second act of three acts this year that will be in response to the federal dollars that the city has received. The Seattle rescue plan number two here follows up with the first investments by authorizing spending of now over $52 million for targeted aid, for rental assistance programs, to support seniors and to help invest in transportation projects and services. We're going to follow up this legislation this fall with additional funding from ARPA. The American Rescue Plan Act with another $128 million. And that will be taken up during the fall budget process. I want to thank all of you for your work on the first iteration of our Seattle Rescue Plan Act one effort and make sure that you all know how important it is that these dollars are getting out. I've received a number numerous emails from folks talking about the assistance that they've received as small business owners or support that folks have received as childcare providers, and also the direct assistance that we are continuing to try to get out the door for our arts and cultural community. So thank you again for all of the work that you've done. Today's council bill again calls for 120150, provides now $28.7 million more for rental assistance, $7.7 million in direct assistance for seniors to deal with isolation, abuse and neglect. $13.5 million for specific transportation projects that were largely predetermined by our federal partners, as we are working to act as a pass through for that. And Michael Hall, who has been awarded $2.1 million from the Seattle Business Association excuse me, administration to address the shuttered venues grant application that they received. Colleagues, again, $5.2 million. And I want to thank members of central staff for their hard work on this, along with all of you, and sit in my office as we work to get these dollars out the door as soon as possible. Thank you. Councilmember Mesquita. Any other comments on Council 120150 item three on the agenda. Yes, Councilmember. Or is this item secret only? Thank you for recognizing me. Council President Alex Peterson. Just really quick, I want to say Castro mosquito. This has been a lot of hard work with this ARPA money and thank you for going behind the scenes and talking to us, at least talking to us individually and as a team. Where the money was going, how we were targeting it, and what our needs and concerns were. So I really, really appreciate that you are consensus space and always look for that middle ground for us to be practical and actually get across the finish line. So thank you. I'm done. Thank you. Any other comments on counts? 4120150 item three on our agenda. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Morales. Yes. Thank you, Macheda. I so want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbal. Yes. Boris. I and council president Peterson. High. Eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item four into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the construction of protected bicycle lanes; requiring major paving projects to include protected bicycle lanes as identified in The City of Seattle Bicycle Master Plan; and adding a new Chapter 15.80 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119601

Please read the agenda. Item number three. Agenda item three cancel 119601 relating to the construction of protected bicycle lanes requiring major paving projects to include protected bicycle lanes as identified in the City of Sails Bicycle Master Plan and adding a new Chapter 15.80 to the The Code. The Committee recommends the bill passes amended. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you, colleagues. This this ordinance is really directed towards safety, specifically safety for bicyclists in our city. And the ordinance is really intended to ensure that we uphold the commitments we made to the motor plans, in this case, the bicycle master plan to build the facilities, the protected bicycle lanes that have been laid out in that project . What the ordinance would do would require that in repaving projects, on arterials, major repaving projects, these are projects identified as being more than $1,000,000. If that arterial is slated in the bicycle master plan is having a protected bike lane that the the expectation is that when they do that project, they need to include that protected bicycling. A couple of things I want to speak to here. One is one is the safety issue. A lot of work goes into making and updating the motor plans and a lot of factors into how to building a network of of bike lanes in this case that allow people to safely get around the city. Not so much folks like myself who may have been bicycling most days for the last 20 years. But for the vast majority of people who are interested in cycling but don't feel safe today, we want to make sure there's a network for that. Heard Councilmember Gonzalez this morning speaks to her experience in Copenhagen, which is vastly different than ours and where, you know, depending on the day, a majority of people might be commuting via bicycle. And it's a place where from a climate perspective and human health perspective we'd like to get to, but it requires the commitment to making those safe points. If you're going to build the infrastructure, the most cost effective time to do that is when you're already tearing up the street and redoing it. And so by requiring that folks, when they're doing a repaving project requiring the department installs a facility at the point at which they're already doing the work, the marginal cost for that is minimal to make that happen. And so it's the most cost effective way to achieve the safety net where we're trying to achieve what I, I want to be clear, we're going to talk a little bit about community engagement, I imagine, in the discussion. And it's critically important that there is community engagement throughout this process. We've heard in public comment today the desire for that to be early and the expectation is that folks have those engagements. My intent with this legislation, this is a community engagement process to say, should we do this or not? Because the implementation plan, the bike master plan, has already decided that this is a place where we need this facility, but rather how do we do it? Does it make sense for the facility to on the east side of the street or the west side of the street? How do we deal with the intersections? You know, how do we make sure that in the case of business districts that they're proper loadout zones so they continue to have access. Those are there lots of very neighborhood specific questions that need to be addressed. And frankly, the city has a really great track record of doing that really well. There's a few exceptions, but in general really well. And this this the intent of this legislation is to just make sure we stick to that moving forward. So I'll pause there and I think there's some other discussions and potentially amendments. Okay. I know that Customer Herbold has mentioned and drafted an amendment. For Section one and gave us the language because for how long would you like to speak to that? I'm going to speak to that. I'm not going to move it because Councilmember O'Brien has a substitute. But I do want to speak to my intent. I in the amendment itself, I refer to the need for continued community engagement and input in the project development. And then I speak specifically, I speak generally first about community engagement, and then I speak specifically about the need for business district stakeholder engagement. The intent is not to suggest that one set of stakeholders is more important than any other. The intent is to to reflect a reality that that we see and that I have actually worked with business district stakeholders in in district one with bike lane and bus lane implementation and Avalon of how important it is to project completion, to have these stakeholders at the table because of what happens when you don't and you're at 90% design and the engagement has not been has not been deep about what those impacts are. I chair the Council Committee with Oversight on Economic Development Issues, the Office of Economic Development. I think feels really strongly as well that as it relates to Department of Transportation construction impacts, that they're the relationships that they develop in these business districts are really important to have, you know, when you're at 10%, 30%, 60% and 10% of the design phases. I mean, so that was my intent. It was if you want to get the project done. The reality is, is that if if folks who actually own property on the bike route and are doing business out of the property are on the bike route, aren't in engaged early on in throughout, it's going to inevitably delay and sometimes derail the project itself. All that said, if people feel more comfortable removing the reference to the business district, I'm okay with doing that. And you know, this this amendment is about accountability or our desire or the council's desire to have accountability as it relates to both those instances when a project when it decides that a project is not moving forward as well as those instances, and when it is moving forward and it's out of our desire, I think, to be good stewards of the council's intense in plans. And so I will if the will of the Council is to move forward with an amendment that doesn't call out business districts. I'm just going to have faith that community engagement writ large does include. Those business districts. Thank you, guys. Very well. Councilmember Suarez. I'm actually disappointed that Councilmember Herbold is pulling her amendment. I did not. I saw your intent. And those of us that have dealt with this bike lane issue understand that having the business district stakeholders in there doesn't mean that one group of stakeholders is more important or more hurt than the other. However, what we've learned and lessons learned in bike lanes and communities in what we've watched and I've learned since 2000, 2007 with the bike master plan that has gone through five iterations, that each time we have paused when we looked at safety, ridership, equity, infrastructure, race and social justice issues when we first passed the bike master plan . Customer Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong. The first two ideals were in 2007 were safety and ridership, and from that five more important values became integrated. They became integrated because community came together and said, You passed a law. It's working now. There's some other ideas that need to be folded in. In this other council's agreed and passed it. One of the ones that was most important to me, besides safety and ridership, was the whole equity race and social justice issue and that we needed more bike lanes south, the ship canal in districts one in District two. So when I read Councilmember Herbold amendment, which I would have supported, it made complete sense to me that if you have and we cannot pretend that the business community is not impacted and Casper O'Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong again, but my understanding, too, is that bike lanes are also exempted from from the Environmental Impact Statement Review from ISS. And somebody made that decision somewhere. And that's not neither here nor there, good or bad. But my point is we make these decisions all the time, and that doesn't mean that one stakeholder group isn't more important, but it's recognizing that community is also includes and should have teed up the issues that business districts are concerned about in. A lot of them go beyond just parking. And I think we heard that loud and clear. So. So that's what I wanted to add. Thank you. Customer awareness. Any other comments? You think Council Member Brands can address some of the pending comments? Sarah One quick one. Bree, if you're still here, I want to say thank you and acknowledge what you had said about genuine community engagement early on. And that's something I know Cascade Bicycle Club has been advocating for, as have all of us up here. So I want to support this. I really believe that that real community input also will result in what we've heard from Copenhagen and what we know that the Bloomberg studies found in New York City is that getting community stakeholders involved and local businesses involved is that their businesses do do better when they're there giving a thumbs up . They've got places where people can come and park their bikes. That just based upon what we have seen in New York City and Copenhagen alone, we know that economically this this work. So I'm going to be supportive of this. Frankly, if you want to keep the language in that identifies business districts, I'm fine with that. Councilmember O'Brien, if you prefer your amendment, I'm going to support it either way. So thank you for the good work. And and again, I just want to acknowledge what you're saying is that the community engagements got to be early, often and real. Thank you. Katherine Bagshaw. Before we proceed, if I to consider Councilmember O'Brien's amendment, we don't have any amendments on the table right now. We're going to have to suspend the rules because of the time deadline a little bit, because of the lateness of the amendments. So Lester's objection, I'm going to suspend the rules to be able to consider any potential amendments made by Councilmember O'Brien. So, Councilman Brian, you want to take it from there? Yeah. Thank you. Council president and colleagues, I I'll just send to the public. I want to just acknowledge we're back from two weeks in recess. And so I apologize that we're we're playing a little catch up here after our deadlines. And so I appreciate the flexibility. Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate your work on the language, and I agree with everything you said. I know that the intent is absolutely there to ensure that that we do a stakeholder process, including the business districts. One of the challenges I think we heard from folks in the community in public comment today is the language chose to single out business districts as an area to do it because those are critical areas. They said business districts, not businesses. So anyone that's along those lines would be included. And I also hear from community members that we want to make sure everyone's included, including folks that are historically left behind. And I think that's important. At some point, we start to get into a series of not to exclude, but including these types of folks. And the list gets really long. And so what I'm proposing here is kind of broader, higher level language that as Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Wise said, it's absolutely critical that businesses in business districts are consulted along with other folks. And what the amendment would do is in under the requirements where it currently says under a whenever the Seattle Department of Transportation constructs a major paving project along a segment of the Protected Bicycle Lane Network, a protected bicycle lane with adequate directionality shall be installed along that segment. And the amendment would add, just extend that sentence to add with an expectation that the final scope and design of the project reflect continued community engagement and input in the project development on how to implement the protected bicycle lane. It doesn't specifically mention businesses, underrepresented communities, residents, but the intent is this. This inclusion and stakeholder engagement should be broad and inclusive. So I will propose that amendment. You have a copy in front of us. I think there's a few copies on the podium if folks want to see in the audience. Again, I apologize for making this up in response to real time. I know this is not the ideal way we do business in full council, but I appreciate your indulgence. Council President. Thank you, Castro and brian for what appears to be inclusive and expansive language to meet the needs of meaningful community engagement. Are there any comments? I'm going to need a second. A second on the amendments because of I will the second and any other comments or questions. Councilmember Gonzalez, you have the floor. Thank you. Council President. I appreciate the attempt to reconcile. What. Seems to be conflicting language, but not necessarily actually conflicting in the sense that I think the intent is the same here. But how will this is an ordinance, not a resolution? So this is actual law that the agency will presumably referred to in the course of its work in implementing the intent and the actual letter of the law. How will the intent that we've been discussing for the last few moments be articulated to Sudan in terms of the characterization from the dias that the intent here is to do community engagement in the broadest, most inclusive sense, which would include those business owners and residents within our business districts. So in in my recent conversations, I say conversations over the last six months with staff at Ascot on what community engagement should look like around implementation of the bike master plan. I would say that what I have heard is their intent is completely aligned with what we've all discussed here today, that they want to do engagement early . They want to do it at a point where there's still opportunities to influence the actual design. They want to be broad and inclusive. That includes the obvious stakeholders that that may own businesses or live right along a corridor, but also folks from the broader community who may want to have access to that corridor, whether it's they want to access the businesses or other facilities along that corridor or they commute through that corridor, and that's the route they go to. So I, I feel very confident in the folks at Ascot that their intent is to implement this. And I think they have examples where they do this well. And like anything of the city, there's also examples where they're falling short. And so I'm not sure what other language to put in at this point. But I think what it will require is a conversation, probably multiple conversations to ensure that we understand what this looks like . And the good news is that there are projects that meet this criteria that will be happening in the near future, that we can start working on this together and say, let's come back with a model of what your engagement will look like on a project, say like the Rapid Ride Corridor on Eastlake as an example. And how do you plan to engage stakeholders along that community on how to implement the bike master plan? I just I think that I appreciate that and I don't you know, I'd like to believe that all of the agency employees and leaders are watching us on the dais now and have a full, robust understanding of our legislative intent as we are having these debates. But I know that that is not necessarily a reality. I think there's an opportunity to potentially communicate in a more formal way to Ascot and the mayor's office about the intent around this community engagement piece. I do think it's an opportunity of improvement for how we implement many of our infrastructure projects, including bicycle infrastructure. And I think that's where we can lose the most in terms of credibility and trust in advocating for ongoing development of a bicycle network and infrastructure that works for everyone, primarily for those who are using them, of course. But I do worry that excluding excluding a call out of stakeholders in this area can be interpreted as us wanting to exclude engagement of those very individuals. And one of the things that was really impressive to me on my learning trip in Copenhagen is having a mentality and a culture around these infrastructure projects that really is centering the concept of going somewhere as opposed to passing through a place. And and that is really sort of essential to creating true public space and livability within our city. And so I want to challenge us all urbanists, to really think about how we are creating infrastructure, not just to pass through something safely, but to get to that place as well. And that, I think to me includes our main street businesses within our neighborhoods that are essential to the vibrancy of the city. So I, I accepted Councilmember Herbals language with that intent in mind and hope that we can find a way to effectively communicate that to the department and the mayor's office. My preference would be to leave it in the ordinance because it is an ordinance and not a resolution. But if that is not something that we can find agreement to at this moment, then I hope there will be an alternative way for us to make that communication and that intent clear to the agency. So, colleagues, I don't have I believe what we're discussing here, the distinction our intent distinction is is doesn't exist. I think we're trying to go the same way. And I'm flexible to go either route. I have my agenda before me. But if colleagues want to do something else, what I would suggest, because of your comments come from Gonzales, which I really appreciate, would be a committee sometime before the end of the year to, you know, work with the director of START and the team that's leading the outreach and have them come do have a discussion with us about what what their interpretation of this is, what our intent is in a public forum where we can actually talk through that and hear how they plan to do that. And include also economic development as well. To do that. That sounds great. So. And that probably won't happen before budget, but we can do it shortly after budget and be my guess on the timing on that that may my amendments out there and it has a second but if folks feel strongly about going in a different direction, I'm happy to consider that too. So I don't think we're actually arguing. What I'm hearing is we can proceed with the amendment. It has been seconded, but there is a need legislatively perhaps to clarify and strengthen the intent of our language. And we have some opportunities this year to still do that. So that's what I'm hearing at this point. I don't know where the votes will fall, but I don't think one excludes the other. So I think we could at least I could support the amendment knowing that we may take further action to legislatively articulate our our intent. So we haven't a live amendment on the table we're going to vote for. Is everyone ready to vote on the amendment? Okay. It's been moved in. Second it an amendment number one is proposed by councilmember and then the number two as proposed by Councilmember O'Brien. You have it in front of you. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So that amendment passes. They were ready to vote on the amended legislation. Is there any further need to talk about the Bass legislation as amended now? Councilman Brand, do you have any closing words you wanted to say? We're good. Okay. We're going to vote on the amended legislation. Make sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Major Gonzalez Herbal, Juarez Mosquito. Hi. O'BRIEN All right. PACHECO So on President Herrell. High. Nine in favor not opposed. The bill passed. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read the item. All right. Please read agenda item number four.

AN ORDINANCE vacating the alley in Block 19, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition, in the block bounded by 6th Avenue, Blanchard Street, 7th Avenue, and Lenora Street, on the petition of Acorn Development LLC (Clerk File 312261).

SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CB 119527

Constable 119 527 vacating the alley and block 19 areas of Sara Bell's second addition in the block, bounded by Sixth Avenue, Blanchard Street, Seventh Avenue, Leonard Street and the Petitioner ACORN Development LLC Committee recommends the Bell Pass. Brian, thank you very much, colleagues. This is the final action on Ali vacation that we consensually approved a number of years ago. This is one of the three of the first three Amazon blocks in the Denny Triangle area. This particular block is the block with the spheres on it. As you may recall, a number of years ago, we did an Ali vacation for each of those three blocks. We combined public benefit and included accessible open space and an additional streetcar for the South Lake Union, plus operating money for that. Once the conceptual approval is done, the projects move forward with construction according to those designs. When the project is completed and this project has been complete for a couple of years, they eventually come back to the city to confirm that they did in fact build the project as designed, including the public benefits. We have checked that off and the recommendation to committee was to support this. So this is the second of the two blocks that we're finalizing the revocation on the third parcel is projected to open up for occupancy sometime in the next couple of months, and we will likely see that either by the end of this year or possibly early next year. Thank you, Councilman. Brian. Any questions or comments now? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Maurice O'Brien. I. Pacheco. I. So want I make sure. Gonzalez I Herbold President Harrell high ed in favor and unopposed. Bill passed sure sign please read the next agenda item. Agenda item 11 and spoke on 195 12 relating to the city's 2019 budget authorizing acceptance of funding from non city sources. Committee recommends the bill passes amended.

A RESOLUTION prioritizing people over the profits of pharmaceutical companies; supporting the production of COVID-19 vaccine around the world; urging President Biden to end U.S. opposition to the Waiver from Certain Provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19 at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_Res 32004

Adoption of the result? Excuse me. Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item three. Resolution 32004. A resolution prioritizing people over the profits of pharmaceutical companies supporting the production of COVID 19. Vaccine around the world. Urging President Biden to end U.S. opposition to the waiver from certain provisions of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement for the. Prevention, Containment. And Treatment of COVID 19 at the World Trade Organization, WTO. Thank you so much. Colleagues, I will move to adopt resolutions 3 to 0 zero four. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution because members want to hand it over to you as sponsor of the resolution so that you can address it. Thank you. This resolution urges President Biden to end the US opposition to the International Campaign Fund, an intellectual property rights waiver from the WTO for COVID 19 vaccines. It also adds the Seattle City Council as a signatory of a community letter to President Biden on that topic that has been signed by over 400 unions, community organizations and faith groups from Doctors Without Borders internationally to the Washington State Labor Council and the King County Labor Council. The rapid and widespread global dissemination of vaccinations at the center of every strategy by public health professionals to stop the spread of the virus. However, there are breathtaking inequities in the distribution of vaccinations around the world. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 90% of the vaccines have gone to well-off countries, while low income countries have received just 0.2 percent. This has meant that on average, one in four people in high income countries have received a coronavirus vaccine, compared with just one in more than 500 people in low income countries. The lack of accessible vaccines in the majority of countries around the world is creating an unimaginable human catastrophe on a scale not seen before. In India, where I grew up. Thousands are dying daily and the right wing Modi regime is suppressing the numbers. The reality is even more serious than the reported statistics. Crematorium workers report being instructed to list the cause of death as, quote unquote, sickness rather than COVID. Reuters is reporting, quote, gas and firewood furnaces at a crematorium in the western Indian state of Gujarat have been running so long without a break during the pandemic that metal parts have begun to melt and, quote, hospitals are completely, completely overrun. And there is a shortage of medical supplies like oxygen. It is dire. This human suffering is being caused by profit driven billionaires and big pharmaceutical companies with the blessing of the Biden administration, the European Union and other major controllers of the WTO policies. They are furiously blocking many countries like Brazil, India and South Africa from producing generic versions of the COVID 19 vaccine, all in the name of so-called intellectual property rights. If we don't fight to change this, starting with the necessary first step of removing the WTO patent restrictions. Public health experts say it will literally be years before people in the Global South get the vaccine. Over 100 countries have appealed to the WTO, which enforces these so-called intellectual property rights internationally to issue a waiver to allow COVID 19 vaccines to be produced around the world. But WTO representatives from richer countries, including the US and the UK, have opposed issuing the waiver. This this opposition was initially a policy of the Trump administration, who steadfastly defended the profits of Big Pharma over the lives of millions of people in the Global South. Unfortunately, even through ten day, 100 days of their administration, the Biden regime has continued that policy. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the COVID 19 vaccine must be seen as a global public good a people's vaccine. On February 26, a letter to President Biden, signed by over 400 organizations, urged the administration to lift the US blockade of the waiver. And and the letter said quote, You can also help restore America's moral and public health leadership in the world by siding with the majority to prioritize saving lives over protecting pharmaceutical corporation monopolies and profits. This new position would be widely noted, given US officials shameful attack on the waiver at the January WTO meeting and quote , An important Op-Ed appears in this morning's issue of The Washington Post. In strong support of removing the patent restrictions on the COVID vaccine, it's authored by Joseph Stiglitz, Co-recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. They say, quote, Unfortunately, the drug companies have consistently done what they can to preserve their monopoly control. Even today, as they battle the waiver and argue that existing compulsory licensing rights are sufficient, they lobby the US government to sanction countries to use that to. These corporations have also undermined this option by building, quote unquote, targets of intellectual property barriers. They fortified their monopolies by registering exclusive rights to industrial designs and undisclosed data such as trade secrets and test data. In addition to numerous patents and copyrights for each medicine, each element would require a license, and the WTO flexibilities might not even encompass all of them, end quote. This this update from Joseph Stiglitz and Lori Wallach captures exactly the kind of network of licenses that the WTO imposes to make it impossible for countries to do what is needed to save lives. All kinds of members have received important letters from the Washington Fair Trade Coalition and from the Association of Flight Attendants, and also from Hindus for Human Rights. Supporting this resolution from my office and urging the council to vote yesterday. The TRIPS waiver, which this resolution is calling for, is supported by, as I said, the Fair Trade Coalition, but also by Partners in Health. The American Medical Student Association. Doctors for America and National Nurses, United Health Gap. Public Citizen. Amnesty International. Oxfam Labor Unions and Faith Organizations and API. China. Indivisible Community Alliance for Global Justice. Global Exchange Code Pink Right to Health Action. Washington Federation of State Employees Bossi American Federation of Teachers, Washington and the Jewish Council of Greater Seattle and the Filipino Community of Seattle, among many, many others. This allusion is timely because a new round of WTO meetings are beginning, including a Trips council gathering planned for April 30th, which is four days from now, and a General Council meeting due in early May. Activists and organizers around the world are fighting for the waiver and are building momentum to prepare for those upcoming WTO meetings. And this resolution will join the Seattle City Council as one part of that effort if it passes today. My hope is that this resolution will inspire other cities to do the same, to make it clear to the Biden administration that we will not accept a continued policy of vaccine nationalism, and we can see how building movements can win victories. Just in the past couple of days, the Biden administration was finally forced to concede and send some vaccine materials and doses to India, which they previously report refused to do. And we should recognize that this is a victory, but it is only a first step, and it's not a substitute or an excuse for refusing to carry out the TRIPS waiver and allowing every country around the world to make the vaccines they need. On the one side, we have the health and safety of all of humanity, and on the other we have the endless greed for profits by Big Pharma and the billionaire class. I hope all council members decide to stand with human life and not billionaire profits. And and I know Councilmember Herbold has some amendments which I've already said I support them, so I invite you to describe them. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. So what I am going to call now on, Councilmember Herbold, what I understand has an amendment that she circulated earlier today. So, Councilmember Herbal. Herbal, I'm going to recognize you to make your motion. Thank you. I move to amend resolution 3 to 0 zero four as presented on Amendment One, which was recently submitted. There a second. Second. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Please feel free to address the amendment. Thank you. I was hoping that the language could just be incorporated in the resolution, but I ran out of time. It's just simply the changes are simply intended to elevate the fact that during a global pandemic are the destinies of of the people in our city are especially connected to the destinies of folks in other cities, particularly those cities who have less access to vaccine. And so the amendment adds recitals to emphasize the the, the importance of disseminating vax vaccination everywhere to develop herd immunity. Again, that is something that must be done in a way that can can help all of us. The amendment also recognizes that new COVID variants continue to develop throughout the world, and the importance of getting vaccines distributed worldwide can increase the likelihood of success in the battle against COVID 19, and emphasizes the importance of vaccinations to reopening both in developed and in the developed countries and in the global south. And then finally recognizing that so many of our residents here in Seattle have family members in other countries and including those countries without adequate access to vaccine. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any comments or questions on Councilmember Rebel's amendment? Hearing no questions or additional comments. Will the caucuses called a roll on the amendment to Resolution 32004, as described by and previously circulated by Councilmember Herbold. I, Lewis? Yes. What? Alice? Yes. Peterson Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I is in favor and opposed. The motion passes and the amendment is adopted to resolution 32004. Are there any additional comments on Resolution 3 to 0 zero four as amended? Charles Moore Peterson, please. Thank you, council president. I appreciate the good intentions of this resolution 32004 and the amendments that I just voted for. I believe we all share the goals to have the COVID vaccines widely available here and throughout the globe. I believe we agree on that goal. And I also believe our experienced congressional delegation, including Pramila Jayapal, Adam Smith, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are more than capable of providing advocacy and oversight on the issues impacting the nation and international relations. And that includes how best to curtail the pandemic as quickly as possible across the nation and abroad. Once again, I think we're reminded of the limitations of our own council rules, which do not currently allow council members to abstain, even on non-binding resolutions. I believe in abstention would be appropriate when we might agree on the overarching message of a resolution like this one, but may not have either the bandwidth to research the details as we deal with the multiple crises in our own city. Or we might not have the expertize in important underlying details. For example, I believe it's important to research these details, but because of the speed at which this came about, I'm not able to delve into the matters of pharmaceutical, intellectual property or World Trade Organization agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights and other issues. I also do not believe this particular issue is within the scope of our influence as a legislative body of a city, nor is it directly tied to our duties under the charter of the city. So with no ability to abstain on this resolution, I'll have to be voting no. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Petersen, are there any additional comments on the resolution as amended? Counselor. Excellent. As the sponsor, you get the last word to close out debate and then we are going to call the roll. Thank you, President Gonzalez. I just in response wanted to respond to Councilmember Peterson quickly and then make a few other comments. In closing, Councilmember Peterson said, we I believe we all share the goal that vaccine should be available for everyone globally. But if a councilmember is planning to vote no on this resolution or even one thing expressing the desire to abstain on this issue, then no, then we don't share that goal, because if you share the goal and vaccine should be available, then as an elected representative at any level, one should be not only willing to, but eager to fight for the rights of all working people. But in this situation, this is a question of a human catastrophe that is happening at an unprecedented and indeed at an industrial scale. And so I think that it is simply impossible and it is unconscionable to view this issue solely to the narrow lens of what the Seattle City Charter says. It has to be viewed through the lens of moral and political obligations of this moment. And I just wanted to add the point that, you know, this is very much related to Seattle City Council's responsibilities, because we know that because it's a pandemic, which means it's a global epidemic. Public health experts are warning us that the virus has the capability of spreading, multiplying and mutating in different parts of the world. And the only way, as Duncan Rehoboth said, for us to help keep everyone safe is to reach the degree of herd immunity that that epidemiological statisticians are recommending that we urgently reach, which is going to be impossible without billions of people having access to the vaccine, which in turn will be impossible without this necessary first step of the WTO trips waiver. So I don't see how you can stand for Seattle's working people and the Seattle community without also standing up for the access to vaccines globally. Because such a thing is, you know, they're just mutually exclusive in the case of a pandemic. And so, in other words, not ensuring that the whole world has access to the vaccine means playing Russian roulette with the lives of people in America and in Seattle. And the city council's resolution is going to be but one step, important step, but it's just one step forward. We will need other elected officials to also weigh in. And I'm hoping that this resolution passes. So we put that example forward. I also just wanted to add that Big Pharma and the elected officials in Congress and including many Cabinet appointees in the Biden administration, claim that intellectual property rights and the massive profits for Big Pharma are necessary to create an incentive to develop future vaccines and treatments. But we should be recognizing that this is a complete lie. The reality is that no clinical innovation would be possible without overwhelming amounts of public funding and without overwhelming amount of work by armies of dedicated researchers and scientists. And these are salaried employees. These are not billionaires. And yet, once clinical innovations are available, their profits all go to the billionaires, not to the ordinary people, billions around the world who have contributed to make this research possible. For instance, The New York Times reported that Caitlin Perrigo, one of the heroes in the development of the groundbreaking mining technology that has made COVID vaccines possible and, as you know, has been the backbone of this lifesaving vaccine, spent her career going from publicly funded lab to publicly funded lab, supported by government grants, never herself making more than $60,000 a year. This is not new. We know this has happened with AIDS medications. And also in 2007, when the intellectual property rights to the EpiPen were purchased by a pharmaceutical company, it increased the wholesale price six fold from $100 in 2009 to $609 in 2016. All of this logic was clearly demonstrated in an investing article on CNBC last Wednesday titled, quote, Goldman Sachs Assets in biotech research are both. Is curing patients a sustainable business model? End quote. In other words, Goldman Sachs, which is an absolutely notorious Wall Street corporation. They are having to acknowledge publicly that while having one shot cures two results, which is completely possible given our technical knowhow today in humanity. While one shot cures are extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole, not to not only saving lives, but preventing any amount of. That people face because of diseases. It is not good for the profits and and more importantly is the repeated and chronic profit making of Big Pharma. It shows the logic of capitalism itself is completely in conflict with the needs of humanity. And we should remember in 1999, the people of Seattle filled our street streets to protest the WTO meetings, inspiring an international movement against corporate globalization. This is what the movement was protesting against. International trade agreements like WTO are written by the capitalist elite from around the globe to defend their profits against working people across the globe. And that is why we need international solidarity. And I want to thank all the organizations who have helped with this resolution and strongly build support for it. But I especially I'm going to thank everybody, of course, who have lent their support for this. But I especially wanted to recognize the coalition of Seattle Indian Americans, the Washington Fair Trade Coalition and socialist alternative organizations who really build strong support for this resolution. And as I said, it will be a small but very crucial step in building momentum towards the April 30th Council meeting. I'll end with a message to our movement. I agree with the activists calling for a Seattle protest on April 30th. Let's end the status quo of billionaire driven, billionaire profit driven vaccine apartheid and vaccine nationalism and save millions of lives by winning vaccine, internationalism and a people's vaccine. And let's make sure that we build on that in the United States by winning Medicare for All. Thank you. Thank you so much. That does conclude debate on this particular item. So at this point, I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended. Boris Yes. Thank you. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Peter Son. No. Sir. I want yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. And Council President Gonzalez I seven in favor. One opposed the motion carries, the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business colleagues. Is there any further business to come before the Council? I'm sorry, Lewis, please. Thank you, Madam President. I would ask the indulgence of the Council to be excused from both briefing and full council for the May 3rd meeting. Hey. Thank you so much. Colleagues, if there's no objection. Member Lewis will be excused from council related meetings on May 3rd. Hearing no objection. Councilmember Lewis will be excused from our full council meeting on May 3rd, as well as our council briefing. Any other further business to come before the council? Hey, hearing none, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, May 3rd, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned.

A RESOLUTION relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing submission of application(s) for grant funding assistance for Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) project(s) to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in RCW 79.105.150, chapter 79A.25 RCW, Title 286 WAC, and other applicable authorities.

SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_Res 31691

The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Resolution 31691. A resolution relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing submission of applications for grant funding, assistance for aquatic lands, enhancement account projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in RTW. 79.105.150. Chapter 79 8.25 ah S.W. Title 286 WAC and other applicable authorities. The Committees. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you. I am pinch hitting here for Councilmember Suarez as her vice chair of the Parks Committee. We have this item in the next two items or resolutions that will support grant applications. The reason that we do this is that we will be requesting money, but we will also have matching money. And we need to make sure that the granting organizations know that we are primed and ready to make our match. So this first one is a resolution that will support a grant application for $475,000 to the Aquatic Land Enhancement Account at the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board for the Arboretum Waterfront Trail. And these funds would be matched 1 to 1 with other revenue to improve a one half mile of trail connecting Fisher Island to the rest of the trail network, making the trail more ADA accessible, and fixing the ongoing flooding issues that can sometimes make the trail inaccessible. And the Parks Committee recommends two paths. 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.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between The City of Seattle and certain City unions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120242

Record board of the City Council? Agenda Item one Council Bill 120242 An ordinance relating to City Employment authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle, certain city unions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120242. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I'll address it first and then I'll open up the floor to any additional comments. Colleagues Items one, two and three. On the agenda are council bills 120242120243 and 120244, which all stem from the work of the Labor Relations Policy Committee and related to 2022 wages for represented and non represented city employees. These three bills are interrelated and so some of my comments will apply to all of the three all three bills rather than each one individually. Specifically related to Council Bill 120242. This bill would authorize the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Seattle and certain city unions, including the Coalition of City Unions, which modifies certain city employees terms and conditions of employment. The memorandum of understanding between the City and the Coalition would last from January 1st, 2022 through January 31st, 2022, and would cover approximately 6028, regularly appointed and temporary city employees represented by the Coalition. The key terms of the Memorandum of Understanding include a 4% area wage income increase for eligible employees, the establishment of two new paid city holidays, Juneteenth, which is June 19, and Indigenous Peoples Day, which is the second Monday in October. And the the additional term of the Memorandum of Understanding also includes an agreement on a collaborative effort to conduct a market wage study to review the city's approach to its compensation philosophy. Because the Budget Office estimates you. Guys feel like in year seven. Let's hold on, Judy. All right. That's okay. Go ahead and meet yourself and I'll continue. Thank you so much. Okay. The city budget office estimates that the aggregate cost of wages, including other wage related items authorized by separately by other legislation, would be about $37 million in 2022. This estimate would cover wage adjustments for about 10,500 employees, including represented employees in the coalition and coalition unions and most non represented employees, central staff funds that there are sufficient funds to cover the costs of the annual wage increases in planning reserves. As a matter of practice and the city's financial and labor relations policy, these funds are held in planning reserves so that when the city negotiates union contracts, there are funds available to pay for the changes within the parameters authorized by the Labor Relations Policy Committee, a committee in which five council members sit on in conjunction with representatives of the executive, including the director of the City Budget Office. The executive provides notice of the planning reserves in the six year financial plans included with the proposed budget that the City Council deliberates, analyzes, evaluates and votes on yearly. Again, all three of these Council bills that we are voting on today approve labor relations policies and fiscal impacts related to those policies that were established in the parameters set by the Labor Relations Policy Committee. And I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation and the next two bills which we will vote on individually . Are there any additional comments on agenda item one? Council Bill 120242. Hearing, no additional comments will occur. Please call the role and the passage of Council. Bill 120242. Agenda Item one. Lewis. Yes. Morales. US must get up. Hi, Petersen. Hi. Strauss. Yes. Verbal? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzales. I eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please? If it's my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the court please read item two into the record? Agenda Item two Council Bill 120243 An ordinance relating to city employment providing salary increases for 2022 for certain non represented city job titles and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary documents including subsequent amendments, with Office Depot, Inc., of Cincinnati, OH, for furnishing and delivering custodial supplies, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Region 4 Education Service Center (ESC), of Texas, through Omnia Partners, in an annual amount of $2,000,000, with a 10 percent contingency of $200,000, for a total annual contract amount not to exceed $2,200,000, until the Omnia Partners contract expires on January, 31, 2025, 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_02152022_22-0180

Most of these carry nine zero interest. Interesting 14 we've. Had in 14 report from financial management. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing city manager to execute a contract with Office Depot for furnishing and delivering custodial supplies in an annual amount not to exceed 2 million by. So I write a motion to Ranga so I can throw. Councilmember, you're going to want to speak to this. A good second to. Start making. The comment. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine. CNN. That concludes public comment. Fantastic. Let's have a roll call vote. Catwoman Sunday has. Catwoman. Alan. I. Catwoman. Price. I councilman's it, but now I. Councilwoman Mango. I. Councilwoman Sara I. Councilmember Ranga I. Councilman Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. On the motion is Cory nine zero.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the Emergency Operations Plan; and authorize City Manager to amend and update the Plan on a periodic basis or as requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02022016_16-0083

Item number seven. Report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the emergency operations plan citywide. Councilman Austin. Is there any public comment on the item? Please come down. Larry. You're good. You work as the address. I am suggesting that. At this point, the city should undertake the following action. They did return the responsibility of the police dispatch. To the police department. And the fire dispatch to the fire department. Period. Over the last year, I've been before this council and also through one of the police review commissions or whatever else. There's a serious lack of training. Relative to. The operators that are answering the phone. I don't know where that is. And we didn't have that much of a problem until this merging. So I'm suggesting that you give very serious consideration to returning the. Communication paradigms. To the police department. They will have the direct responsibility. And the fire department will have their direct responsibility. Quite frankly, I have absolutely no confidence that these people that the present paradigm would be able to handle an efficient manner, a major disaster period. So before you rubber stamp this, I think this needs to be given very careful consideration. I'm not sure how often you call, but there's it's an absolute absurdity, period. They have no cognitive skills relative to what needs to be done. In my view. Thank you. Thank you. Got some roasted. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to get a brief staff report on this shirt. Mr. West. Reggie Harrison. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The item before you. Is to adopt a resolution approving the emergency operations plans and operate and authorizing the city manager to amend and update the plan on a periodic basis. The while the causes of emergencies vary greatly. Earthquakes, floods, tsunamis those. Impacts that we encounter with these various emergencies, the potential effects of the emergencies do not change a lot in terms of loss of property, loss of life, sheltering needs. Etc.. So those things. Are constant when we deal with an emergency. And so what the emergency operations plan does is it provides an organizational framework by which we can manage these kinds of disasters. The the the plan. Defines the responsibilities for city staff. Who is responsible for notifying the public of a disaster? Who is responsible? Who is responsible for providing for food and. Shelter of residence? Who is responsible for coordinating necessary resources through the county and through the and through the state? So our plan. Identifies all of those responsibilities that act. It authorizes the activation of the. Emergency operations center, as well as the expanded duties of. Designated staff. As we talked earlier about the the newly approved emergency procurement. Documents that we've recently entered into. It also positions the city by having a plan in place that positions the city to be in a better place for. Reimbursement for FEMA in terms of grants and. Reimbursement for our expenses associated with disasters. So it puts us in a position where able to identify a plan that we have in process. We've we've coordinated the plan with all. Of the city, with all the city departments. We have also coordinated our plans with the County Office of Emergency Management, as well as with the State Office of Emergency Services as well. So our plan, we believe, follows all of the FEMA guidelines and we request your approval for it. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Members, please cast your votes. We already did. Public comment. Motion carries an excited please.

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

SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119970

Agenda Item five Council. Bill 119970. Amending Ordinance. 126000, which adopted the 2020. Budget, including the 2023 2025 Capital. Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Rossiter, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you very much, Madam President. Colleagues, this is the quarter four supplemental budget that amends appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, including the capital improvement projects. This is ideally intended to be a bill that screws up any additional costs and helps to tie up any loose ends before the calendar year concludes. This helps to ensure that there is a balanced budget at the end of each year. Ideally, quarter four is to be technical in nature. However, the proposal that we received this year from the mayor included a request for speedy for an additional four additional spending authority. The council, as you know, this summer passed a resolution that tied to our summer budgeting process, stated the following The City Council will not support any budget amendments to increase Spd's budget to offset overtime expenditures above the funds budgeted in 2020 and 2021. So Council Member Herbold, as Vice Chair of the Budget Committee and Finance Committee and myself, we have introduced an amendment to do just that, to hold the line, to make sure that there are consequences for an overspend, which is a managerial decision, and to make sure that we are looking across these two budgets to accomplish the goals in the resolution. This is accomplished both by the amendment that is included in this bill for your consideration today. Again, thank you. Council colleagues who were part of the Finance and Housing Committee, who included this amendment and is also being accomplished by the Bill on the introduction and referral calendar today, sponsored by Council member Herbold and myself, which I had discussed this morning. Madam President, if it pleases the President, I would like to defer to Vice Chair Herbold to talk about this, and I will offer some comments in closing before the vote if that quizzes the President. Absolutely. So customer verbal wants to go next. Customer must get a you will have the last word on the bill as we close out debate. But for now, let's hear from Councilmember Herbold and colleagues. Is anyone else, if anyone else would like to make comments on this particular bill, please, please do. Let me. That's remarkable. Then followed by, conversely, American generals. So as Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, we are co-sponsoring an amendment that ensures that the budget process never ends. Yes. So this amendment adds a new Section 13 expressing council's intent to take additional action in 2021 to reduce the police department's 2021 appropriation authority by at least 5.4 million. This is reflected in the introduction and referral calendar today with new Council Bill 11 9981. And it's going to be referred to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee early next year. As Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned, pass by the Council in August. We made a statement that the City Council would not support any budget amendments to increase the police department's budget to offset overtime expenditures above the funds budgeted in 2020 or 2021. We expressed the Council's intent to reduce the police department's budget in phases and increase funding for community led research and participatory budgeting. The three appropriation increases in the fourth quarter supplemental. Total $5.4 million. And there are three items that make up that $5.4 million. 1.6 for separation pay, 1.9 million for female reimbursement. And that is specifically overtime associated with police officers who are staffing, staffing some of our COVID testing sites. And so there's there's a anticipation that there will be FEMA reimbursement for these costs and 1.9 million for parental leave. The connection to overtime for that one is when officers go on parental leave. The department cannot simply hire new officers to fill in for that short period of time. And so that's when they bring folks on overtime. Each of these is connected to use of overtime in backfilling work. As I stated in committee last week, I don't see myself as a person who is rigid, even given the statement that was in the Council resolution about overtime and the intent to not increase funding for overtime, I might have been willing to consider some additional overtime if it wasn't for the fact that I do believe that there is still a lot of work that the Department needs to be doing right now in real time to address the the allocation of overtime. Not connected to that. The three items that I mentioned earlier, but really overtime connected to to staffing the protests that that we have been seeing for for many, many months now, we are still seeing large numbers of officers deployed for very small numbers of protesters. And I want to just make note that back on October 31st, Chief Diaz announced via the SPD blotter that SPD was changing its approach to demonstrations, including, I quote, recognizing that the visible presence and appearance of officers at a demonstration can impact crowds, can impact interactions with the crowd, and that reducing the department's presence when safe and feasible was a goal. And I, I applaud that that stated changed approach to demonstrations. But in. In just five days after this. The statement went out on November 4th on Capitol Hill. There appeared to be what looked like almost 100 officers present at a demonstration of 20 to 30 people. We heard public comment last week in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee that even last week, large numbers of officers are continuing to show up at protests of small groups. So, you know, I recognize that over time, management reports are being sent to all bureau chiefs, sworn commanders and civilian managers every month, and that these reports contain detailed information for all employees who work over time in the prior month. But I think we we need to not just review the overtime after it's approved. We need to be really looking at the decision making associated with the approval. We know also that the budget director receives monthly overtime reports and has throughout the summer and I think is also in a position to do more to control overtime. I just want to note that on a broader level, part of the problem here is that the council has not received regular ongoing updates about speedy spending, and that's why these type of end of year spending bills are common. And so to bridge this information gap, the Council adopted two actions in adopting the 2021 budget. First of all, first of all, we're going to be requesting we're going to be receiving we have requested we are going to be receiving monthly reporting on overtime use. And that will allow the council to to really keep an eye on on how overtime is is is being deployed in an effort to do necessary course correction in future deployment of overtime. Secondly, the Council has requested that CPD provide monthly fiscal reporting beginning in January 2021. This reiterated a request made during the summer supplemental process. And you know, I think, again, we are going to be looking on a monthly basis the the spending of of the larger overall spending of the department, as well as over time for the department. I think we also need to think about. What we are what our expectations are to reduce the 2021 budget authority. Beyond beyond this action here today to consider what specifics we might we might need to really focus on in these in these monthly reports, whether or not that's total spending to date by budget control level. And I look forward to working with council members and central staff to just to have more more discussion not only about how we want to use this information, but how we want to receive it in a way that will make it most useful. Usable. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Okay. I have Councilmember. So once and then Councilmember Morales. I will be voting no on this supplemental budget, which gives Seattle us more. It's a little hard to hear you. Sorry. Is that better? Yep. We can hear you now. Thank you. I will be voting no on this supplemental budget, which gives the Seattle Police Department an additional $5.4 million to fund the extra overtime that they have used abusing and intimidating the Black Lives Matter movement. Every city department is allocated a budget at the beginning of the year and those are the funds they have available to do whatever they need to do. Here we are in the last council meeting of the year, the same year we had a historic Black Lives Matter movement, a year in which, under pressure from the street heat, the Democratic establishment made sweeping promises to defund the police by 50%. We now hear the police have spent $5.4 million more than their budget, $5.4 million that did not belong to them. And they are requesting retroactive permission for these millions in taxpayer money that they have stolen. They have taken this money in order to abuse the Black Lives Matter movement, spending millions in overtime to fill the streets of Seattle with tear gas and other weapons. And they have taken this money for personal enrichment with individual officers amassing hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay. Imagine a car thief who tells you that if you just retroactively give them your car, then they will not have stolen it. And the Seattle Police Department does this almost every year to the point where the council even passed a resolution in the summer which was mentioned pledging to say no if the police make this request at the end of this year. Now is the test. Well, council members hold the line or yet again backfill the already bloated police budget with renewed pledges to hold the line next year. Unfortunately, in the Finance and Housing Committee last week, council members on the committee unanimously voted to approve this police funding this year while pledging to take it from next year's budget . But what does it mean to take the money from next year's budget if council members prove that they have no intention of holding the police to that budget? What if the police go over their budget by $5.4 million again in 2021? Will the council hold the line then or push it back another year? What if they go over by 20 million in 2021 or 50 million? What will make the council members more willing to hold the police to their budget next year? Given that this year the Council already took the extra step of passing a resolution a year in which we had the largest street mobilization in U.S. history pledging to hold them to their budget. Does the Council need to pass two resolutions in 2021 saying no, but for real this time in committee? Public Comment. Community organizers demanded the council, quote unquote, hold the line. This is not holding the line. It is moving the line back a year with no guarantee that it will not move again and again and again. Of course, the reality is it's not about lines or promises or resolutions or even the goodwill of elected officials. It is about the power of the movement on the streets. At the height of the Justice for George Floyd movement, councilmembers promised to defund the police by 50%. A couple of months later, that was reduced to just a couple percent and a promise not to add that funding back at the end of the year and a couple of months later, here we are. The lesson for our movement is we must depend on our own strength. Always, we have seen also how, with the receding of the street movement, the city council Democrats just approved nearly $200 million in cuts to other departments like Housing and Community Services. I want to raise one additional part of the supplemental budget that is particularly insidious, that is funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to fund something called the Fusion Center. I voted no on supplemental budgets in the past because of the fusion center funding. The fusion center is the place where the Seattle police and the FBI share information about protesters so that protest movements like Black Lives Matter can be charged with federal crimes. It was similarly used against the anti-war movement at the height of the Iraq war. So this is nothing new. I will be voting no, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is Councilmember Morales. And then is there anyone else who would like to make comments on the scale? Okay. Councilmember Morales And then it doesn't look like. I haven't seen anybody else indicate that they want to speak on the bill. So if that remains, the case will have conspiracy to close out debate. Councilmember Morales. Thank you. I'm going to be honest and say I am very conflicted on this bill. You know, I understand there are many departments that need to have their year end items covered. And I do want to say, Councilmember Herbold, for walking us through all of the measures that we passed in order to help. Us keep closer tabs. On the LAPD budget from now on. And I also want to be really clear that I don't support the notion of covering a study over time, even if we're reducing authority next year. I really think it is outrageous that city continues to disregard this legislative body and the efforts made to reign in to rein in their overtime expenses, despite this body's expressing its intent over to budget processes this year. The interim chief submitted a request to cover additional overtime for activities that Judge Jones has deemed out of compliance with our accountability measures. If any other department manager had overspent their budget by $5 million, especially on. Any. Activities that a judge has deemed in contempt of court, we would not hesitate to hold them accountable. So I'm I am I am as frustrated as I know all of my colleagues are on this issue. If nothing else, it demonstrates to me that our search for a. New police chief will need to include. A thorough vetting of their financial management skills and their commitment to a reduced role for police in our community safety. As I said, I understand that there are other year and other departments whose year end work is sort of in the balance here. And so I am. I am. I am conflicted and. Frankly not prepared yet to figure out what I'm going to do. But I do want to express my frustration with this continued problem. And my hope is that the measures that we passed will allow us to be in a very different position next year. Thank you. That's more or less. Okay. Just checking in one more time. Anyone else have any comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on this bill, councilmember mosqueda. I'm going to hand it over to you to close out debate with some final remarks. Thank you very much. Council President. Thank you, colleagues. Cosmo Morales. I'll just pick up on the last comments that you made. I am too also conflicted by this. I wanted to bring forward an amendment last week that would have stripped these pieces. We heard loud and clear from the law department and the executive team that the funds that are being basically held back that are needed for this allocation include things like paying for leave that really reimbursable expenses for emergencies and separation pay. But those were managerial decisions, right? Those could have been paid first. Instead, overtime was paid first. Then council was asked to basically fill the coffers. So in lieu of us having additional tools in the last week here of the 2020 cycle, the amendment that Councilmember Herbold and myself introduced on Wednesday, which clearly articulates our frustration and concern with this process and the amendment, coupled with the piece of legislation introduced today, effectively immediately in 2021, we will be able to, if acted upon, reduced the 2021 city budget by the proportional amount, because if the tools that we currently have at our disposal are to not allow for I'm sorry, limit us and do not allow for us in theory to be able to hold back on that $5.4 million. Then it needs to be taken out of the 2021 budget. If I can, Madam President, I just want to read from the piece of legislation introduced today. The Council has reason to believe that Speedy would have sufficient appropriation authority to cover the 5.4 million had it not overspent its overtime budget due largely to over deployment of officers during the largely peaceful protests in the summer of 2020, including the deployment of officers that exceeded $10 million in overtime costs and less than 60 days. Specific examples of the type of response that we saw during those days included an unarmed elderly person with a cane being pepper sprayed and slammed down to the ground by an officer, an eight year old child getting pepper sprayed in the face, a bike cop literally riding over a person's neck and an officer putting their knee on someone's neck. We also heard, as Councilmember Herbold talked about the large number of officers who continue to be deployed to respond to a relatively small number of individuals over the last few months. And this seems to be in contradiction to what we had heard from our police accountability partners, specifically Mr. Malmberg, who talked in his in his summary in Councilmember Herbert's committee about how the sheer presence and the type of force that was being shown in response to the protests was escalating situations. And the recommendation that if it were scaled down and officers were to be responding in different ways and in smaller force, then there would be less of a need for that type of response from the officers. And I think that the lack of follow through on that recommendation continued to escalate the cost. The legislation also says the council anticipates that there will be salary savings in city's budget to achieve the 20 achieved in 2021 due to higher than anticipated attrition, which has already occurred in October. And as I noted this morning, we found out on Wednesday is occurring as well in the numbers we're receiving in November, and we anticipate that that trend will continue in 2024, December as well. So the amendment commits to and the bill follows through on that commitment to reduce the city's 2021 appropriation authority, offsetting the increase the authority provided in 2020, and make sure that we're increasing the funding for community led participatory budgeting where called for in resolution 31962. This is the tool that we have at our disposal right now in this moment to hold the line. This is how we are making sure that there are consequences for overspending, the authority already authorized in the budget. And, you know, I equate this to going to a bank for those who have been able to purchase a home or for even those more than half of Seattle residents who are renting. You wouldn't go and purchase something that you didn't have the funding to buy and then go to the bank later and say, oops, I overspend. That wouldn't fly there. It's not flying for other departments. And we have to use the tools that Councilmember Herbold commented on and I talked about in the last committee meeting as well, to have even more specific language in each BSL and each line item in our budget so that we have greater understanding and control over how these dollars are being spent. This is part of the story. This is part of the narrative in the wake of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's murder, in making sure that we as a council for the budgetary documents that we have control over in the wake of those murders, have made sure that we're not only not increasing, but we're now holding the line. Across 2020 and 2021. So it's not a matter of of, you know, saying that this will be dealt with next December. In fact, the bills already been introduced. It will be heard in early January. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her foresight to request regular reports. And I think that this gives us all an opportunity to think about the type of information that we would like to be seeing on a monthly basis as those reports come in , so that we and any future council is never in this position again, and that we have greater transparency not just for our budget making process, but for the city at large. I look forward to working with all of you over the next year to make sure that we have greater tools at our disposal to continue to hold the line and continue to move forward on our efforts to expose and have greater accountability, transparency and further scrutinize the spending so that on the managerial side, which council has a responsibility for as well, we don't continue to see overallocation of overtime funding and that we expect all departments to stay within those budgets, especially though our Seattle Police Department's budget in the aftermath of our speedy inquest that we launched this summer. I appreciate that we've had a long conversation on this, today's meeting and in last Wednesday's meeting. And I do also want to reiterate to folks that there are a number of other important technical fixes and items within the quarter for supplemental. It's not all just about that, but we did, I think, for good reason. Want to spend quite a bit of time explaining to the council and the the general public the way in which this piece of legislation, the added amendment, the bill that was introduced today, all go hand in glove to make sure that we are following through on those commitments. Thank you, Madam President. Okay with that, colleagues, I am going to go have an officially close out debate on this particular council bill and now going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Want no spouse? Yes. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Yes. Peterson Yes. Council President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. One opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the show will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item six Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record? Agenda item six.

Recommendation to declare the City-owned property located at 227 Elm Avenue as surplus, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with CV Communities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Buyer), for the sale of the property in the amount of $1,325,000, and accept Categorical Exemption CE 14-045. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0859

Recommendation to declare a city owned property at 2 to 7 Elm Avenue has surplus property and authorize the sale to the sale and Purchase and Sale Agreement with civic communities for the sale of the property in amount of 1.3 to $5 million. Vice Mayor Alonzo. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to convey my appreciation for the city's efforts to move our successor agency process forward. I'm really excited about the development of this block, sometimes referred to as the Broadway block. Many of you are very familiar with this because it's contributed to the disconnect, to a disconnect between the East Village and the core of downtown. If one looks out a few years from now. However, I think what we'll see is that this disconnect all but disappearing as the Edison lofts come to fruition and the Old City Hall East Building is built, the American Hotel is restored for commercial and dining, and hopefully the Edison Theater is adaptively reused. Thereafter, the Beachwood Brewing and others set and others are set to renovate commercial spaces on the west side of Long Beach Boulevard and third, and the Broadway block begins to take shape with this and other exciting projects to come. And so when we play the life cycle out of of these actions and this action tonight, it's something that's very exciting and something that we have a lot to look forward to. And so I hope very soon that we won't see this disconnect anymore. And we'll look at the Broadway block as vibrant and a core part of our downtown efforts. And with that, I'd like to make the motion. It has been in motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote. I mean. Yes. Motion carries nine votes. 26.

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00)in the form of a grant, for the FY21 Sustainable Materials Recovery Program/Recycling Dividend, awarded by the MA Office of the Attorney General to be administered by the Public Works Department. The grant will fund a cost-benefit analysis of programs that utilized economic incentives to increase residential waste diversion in Boston Small Business Relief Fund.

BostonCC_01262022_2022-0167

Docket 0167 message in order authorizing City of Boston to accept and extend an amount of $70,000 in the form of a grant for the FBI 21 Sustainable Materials Recovery Program Slash Recycling Dividend awarded by the Mass Office of Attorney General to be administered by the Public Works Department. The grant will fund a cost benefit analysis of programs that utilize economic incentive incentives to increase residential waste diversion in Boston Small Business Relief Fund. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Clerk, since this is a small amount and it will go towards improving our waste program. I'd like to respectfully suspend and pass this grant. Now at this time, all those in favor of suspending the rules in passage of this docket, please say I. The polls say nearly. The ayes have it. Docket 0167 has passed.

Recommendation to request City Manager to engage regional stakeholders, including the Gateway Cities Council of Government and the Southern California Association of Governments, regarding the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s efforts to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulatory framework; and Request City Manager to participate in the commenting period by articulating the City’s vision for a modified CRA.

LongBeachCC_10092018_18-0909

That's why we're doing it. But seeing that I'm a first and second place girl of Kosovo. Item 17. Communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Urunga Recommendation to request city manager to engage regional stakeholders regarding the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's efforts to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act regulatory Framework. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So a few comments on this. So we have a unique opportunity on our hands, and I want to walk folks through what this is. So in response to this investment in redlining certain neighborhoods, Congress enacted the CRT Act of 1977 to promote financial reform. CRT encourages banking institutions to meet credit needs of all communities they serve, including low to moderate income communities through decent, through investment and lending. Here's the problem. Within its 41 years of activity, the CRT has only been modified two times. Unlike the banking industry, which has undergone extensive organizational and technological changes such as interstate banking, internet and mobile banking. Current CRT regulations do not fit the banking landscape, does not adequately meet low to moderate income communities financial needs. So here's our opportunity. In April 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury released recommendations on how to modernize CRT using four categories one assessment areas to examination clarity and flexibility. Three The examination process. And four performance. Following this outline, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency entered a 75 day comment period in August to gather input from financial actors and community stakeholders regarding these focus areas. The comment period is. Extremely rare as. The C.R.A. has only been revised twice in the last 40 years. The recommended the recommended changes will shift CRT framework from a narrative based framework to a qualitative assessment, ensuring that that the CRT Act is in alignment with its original intent. Here's a few statistics to consider. So in the U.S., there are approximately 9 million unbanked households, 43 million people without without bank accounts that rely on alternative financial services, such as check cashing and payday loans. The average and annual cost of not having a bank is roughly $500 for people who rely on a prepaid debit card. Currently, the L.A. Sierra assessment area monitors all of L.A. County and Orange and Ventura Counties. However, nearly one in five neighborhoods does not have a bank or credit union. In the L.A. County area, which means approximately 600,000 residents in 46 neighborhoods across the county are unbanked. Locally, speaking here in Long Beach, nor the ninth District was the only council district without a bank, and the West Side still doesn't have a banking institution. So thank you, Councilman Rangel, for signing on in support of this. In closing, this is a critical and opportune moment for us to enhance the accountability and responsibility of financial institutions that the responsibility they have in our communities. Historically, Serra's impact on low and moderate income households has resulted in affordable housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization and lending to the underserved. Updating the Sierra is in alignment with the city's adopted 2018 federal legislative agenda, and it's consistent with the Long Beach economic blueprint. Support of this effort advances economic inclusion opportunities and financially empowers the low income communities. That said, I want to just acknowledge this letter of support and say he couldn't be here today to express his. He sent a letter of support from Randall Hernandez, a chair of economic development. And I want to thank James Alba from City Community Development for bringing this to my attention. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Miranda. Thank you very. I want to thank you for bringing this forward. This is an opportunity for a revitalization of our neighborhoods through improved lending and business opportunities. And I totally welcome the opportunity to grow this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next council. Woman mother. Yes. Earlier. I appreciate that. I was asked to sign on to this item. I'm interested in a project like this, but as I've stated, I'm really concerned about our allocation of resources. So it's hoping the city manager could tell me how many hours of staff time they think that it would take to participate at this level. From what we understand right now. We've we believe this would be a very short period of time. It simply would be to get a letter in that summarizes what our feelings are. So probably just two or 3 hours, we believe. Diana, do you agree with that? Yes. Wonderful. Mr. Richardson or Councilor Richardson, are you open to a do not exceed 5 hours of staff time? I think that is incredibly disrespectful of the intent and the opportunity we have in front of us. My district doesn't have a bank area is filled Long Beach. We have a unique opportunity to express how we feel about this. We've attempted time and time again to partner with banks and institutions. And what message do we send after item after item tonight? We just allocated the item of $70,000 for deal was Muertos. We just had a whole conversation about resources in our parks and recreation. And what we're talking about right now is simply a comment letter give putting Long Beach in a better position for C.R.A.. Here's what else I'll say. We always talk about the cities that are our size Atlanta and Miami. All of those cities have their own C.R.A. assessment area. We are lumped in with all the county of Los Angeles and Orange County and Ventura County. What that means is if a loan is is deployed in Pomona, it counts for Long Beach. If a loan is deployed in Ventura. That counts for a Long Beach. If a bank branch is deployed in Santa Ana, that counts for Long Beach. The industry wants to modernize these standards. We would like to modernize these standards. Staff is aware of this. It takes 3 hours. So, no, I'm not open to that. Well, I think that your response to my response is disrespectful. I warned your staff about this when they brought me the item. I've been very supportive of everyone's items on the agenda tonight. I gave double the amount of time the staff requested for. All I'm trying to do is, as I stated four weeks ago and as a policy that this entire council. Should always be. Tough law. This council unanimously approved. You guys excuse me. I think he was asking him and he said he gave you the answer. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. But as a response, as a policy that this council unanimously approved, that we would start to discuss and send things to committee, which I was not asking to do at this time. I'm very supportive of the item. I think that this is a good thing for us to do. But what I do not feel is appropriate is that we continue to toss stuff to staff with no controls over when, where or how and what other items are being put where. The item regarding the deal, Los Muertos was her funded item, and one of the things I'm definitely interested in for the future would be to say that every councilmember has $100,000 of staff time available to them and they can allocated as they wish. If that were the case, that would be different. But this is not the case. Currently, the cases, whatever councilmembers bring, the most items receive the most allocation of staff time to their priorities. And that's not necessarily a fair and equitable way to distribute staff resources. I'm very supportive of the item. I'm just trying to, on a consistent basis, starting last week, quite frankly, I believe with Councilmember Price's item, sending things to committee because I would like to get controls over the over prioritization where everything in the city is a priority one. I believe this is important. I believe a letter is a great thing to do. I wouldn't be surprised if staff had already crafted the letter because it is so important. If it was so important, I'm surprised that it's October 9th and the comment period has been open since August. But what I would like to say is I'm very supportive. I don't think giving double the number of hours. I'm trying to set a framework, a framework that I thought you were very supportive of when it came forward from Budget Oversight Committee. It seems like to respond to that because then those. Okay, fine, Mrs. Pierson. I queued up before the back and forth. Well, that's. What I was trying to. Say. So I know. I just want to say that I'm I queued up not to engage in the back and forth, but to say that I think it is absolutely essential that our neighborhoods have access to banking and that we as a city need to do everything we can. Myself, where I live, I, you know, my closest bank is downtown, takes me 5 minutes to get there based on lights. I understand that one is the challenge of not having banks, and two is the challenge of having predatory check cashing agencies. And so I wholeheartedly support those. And I think I hope everybody just focus on this. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Councilwoman Margo. Is there any amount of staff time limitation that you'd be open to discussing? It's not to put a limit on the fact that we don't do it. It's more to set a standard of it's only going to take 2 to 3 hours. Why not? Councilwoman attempted on one of your items? I don't remember the tonight of every week I barely bring forward item. Councilman, there have been 16 items we've heard and in two different hearings. Correct. All of which were brought by this. Bring on someone, have a conversation in advance. You cannot legislate relationships, Ernie Hudson. You don't have the floor. Do you? Just ask me a question. Thank you. No, you just asked me, was I willing to open so that warranted response? You didn't answer the question. You just started a dialog. That's how I answer my questions. Okay. You know, I think we should have a better conversation about about how we go about this. This is a fairly. Ministerial, small. Thing. And I think we're sending the wrong message at this point. I agree. And I'm. Hopeful that the minister for small things, because. This is an approach. No, the answer is no. So to my point, the reason I feel it is most appropriate is because it is a ministerial and small thing. And one of the hardest things is that our big giant items, it's so hard to get our arms around them that we're never going to be able to get to that point. And so just as a side note, your staff were notified that this is how I felt about the item and it was discussed with them. Chief, the chief last week. Thank you. Thank you. Any more. Okay. Fine. We. Please. We've only had a public comment, so would you please cast your vote? We've already called it. There's no book. Excuse me. Any public comment? Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to develop the item 18, please. I need the vote. Okay, let's get.

Designates 1250 Welton Street (Emily Griffith Opportunity School) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Designates 1250 Welton Street (Emily Griffith Opportunity School) as an individual structure for preservation 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 4-27-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0311

Oh he's excited about the owner supported. Yes so it is an owner supported this is for the entire block and it is divided into contributing and non contributing areas. The contributing areas include the 1926 schoolhouse as well as in 1847 and 1956 editions. This was submitted to CPD on April 1st. It went through the Landmark Preservation Commission. It went through the committee first reading and second reading is right now. All of the notices were done correctly. It was posted on the website in legal journals and all of the RINO's were noticed. This is a slightly different application, so I'm going to kind of talk about this as being Denver public schools were involved as this is their property. They have a policy called the fee policy, which deals with historic schools. And the intent is to facilitate the long term preservation of the school district's most architecturally and historically significant schools, but also to meet the board's ongoing responsibilities for educational requirements and to provide flexibility for future generations to construct new facilities. The route for this particular designation started with a certificate of non historic status in 2012. Denver Public Schools withdrew it after historic Denver expressed interest in landmark designation. They initiated the FB policy evaluation. They hired the architectural firm of Slater Paul to complete the historic structures analysis. The HSA confirmed the National Register of Eligibility Determinations that there was that it is eligible and that there are adaptive use potentials for the building. So Denver Public Schools convened the Historic Evaluation Committee, which is made up of historic Denver Landmark Preservation Staff and History, Colorado. They basically agreed with the HSA findings and the committee determined to prioritize the designation of the Welton Street site as an option. Denver Public Schools formed a sales advisory committee and they wanted to balance capital needs, downtown development, zoning needs and preservation values. The city and county of Denver then hired Humphrey Polies and there is actually a representative of them in the crowd as well. If you have questions to do a study of this and to rate the designation and they felt that that they wanted to preserve the most significant buildings, which are those along Welton Street. And so the recommendations from this study were the basis of the application that's before you. This is a slightly different application. It's going to be kind of three parts. There's the standard designation that you guys have seen in the past. And then there are two other sections, one that deals with the design and development patterns, and it's an addendum to it. And then there's also a supplemental design standards and guidelines, which is an attachment. So part one for the Emily Griffith School. It is designated as a structure. Its zoning is DC and you one it's for the entire block of 170, which has been the historic boundary of the school since about the 1940s. But we understand that there's a large redevelopment for this particular area. So this is an opportunity to integrate the older historic building along with new construction. So the contributing area is along Welton Street. These are architect designed buildings. They were purposely planned and designed as the main street of the school. They were the primary operations and classrooms here. And these have the strongest association and history with Emily Griffith herself. The non contributing portion along Glenn Arm has some consistency in the architectural style, but it's much more simple. These parcels were purchased over time and there's less of a design plan for those. So in order to be listed, it has to have integrity and it has to meet two out of the following three categories and relate to a historic context or theme. This particular property has very high integrity. The school, while it was originally built on the edge of downtown and had more of a mixed residential and commercial setting originally still is in the same location. The original architect's design is intact, the brick and terracotta is visible, and it still has a really strong street presence. It meets the criteria under history for direct association with historical development of the city. The school was founded in 1916 and it provided an alternate education for the residents. It's a very innovative and early form of this kind of education. There was a lot of work for workforce training, for auto mechanics, plumber, plumbers. It helped build a competitive, competitive workforce for Denver. And there were a lot of partnerships during World War One and World War Two with the Emily Griffith School for Training the Workforce. It's also directly related to Emily Griffith herself. She was the driving force behind this. Behind this school, she is was the principal until 1933. She founded in 1916. And she is recognized at the state capitol as a very important woman within Colorado history. The property is also significant for its architecture. The original 1926 design has Renaissance revival styles with Beaux-Arts embellishments, and it's done with a lot of brick and terracotta details. The 1947 and the 1956 additions integrate the brick and terracotta, but they use an international style. And this would be one of the first international style buildings in Denver if it is designated. And finally it meets it under geography. This is a prominent location. It's just off of Colfax. It's highly visible. This school was called out on travel maps of the early 20th century, and it's one of the few remaining historic schools in the downtown area. It relates to the themes of vocational and continuing education, as well as women's history. And the period of significance for this property is 1916 to 1956. The Landmark Preservation Commission determined that it had physical integrity, that it met the criteria under history for historical development, as well as being associated with an important person that embodied distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type, and that it had a prominent location and was geographically significant. They also believed it in its historic context and themes of Denver, and they voted unanimously 6 to 0 to recommend it going forward. So part two of this particular designation is intended to help preserve the most significant parts of the building that are associated with Emily Griffith to retain the sense of massing and form as these distinct buildings and to make sure they're visually, visually prominent on the site. But it's also to accommodate new construction and the idea that there's going to be new, dense development primarily along the glenarm side of this. And so it's to ensure that you can integrate both the old and the new. So within this there will be a contributing a non contributing section within the non contributing section. Applications for demolition would not go to the Landmark Preservation Commission, but would be approved by staff. However, they would not be released until there was a replacement plan that was approved by the LPC. That is actually also true within the most part of the contributing areas. There's the demolition area for contributing that could also be approved by LPC staff for demolition. However, it would have to have a replacement plan improved in place by the approved by the LPC and also a plan that would show if you demolished part of the contributing building that the rest of the building could still be retained and would still stay up. That does not include the demolition, does not include the initial 1926 building, building, as well as the facing of the 1947 and the 1956 addition. Within that, what we're calling the preserved area that would go through the typical landmark preservation design guidelines would go through on the typical design guidelines that are currently in place. It includes the significant buildings along along Welton Street on the key Frontages and retains the cantilevered vestibule that's on 13th Street. Any part of demolition that would go through on the preserved area would be subject to the general chapter 30. So in terms of design parameters for this, there are two areas that are restricted, firm, any type of development. There the small yellow areas, restricted areas one and two. And the intent of that is to preserve the size of the buildings and give some sort of allow those buildings to remain prominent, the historic buildings on the site, while also allowing for development and growth in the transitional height area, which is the area that can be demolished , although it is a contributing building that would be allowed up to 112 feet. The remaining part is only restricted by zoning and the state owned state capital of you in terms of the size of the development and in the. Part that faces glenarm. And so this is kind of just to illustrate some of the areas that could be preserved in the areas that would allow for development. The yellow portion of that is the preserved area, and it's illustrated above is the part that would be protected and then you would have the non restricted height envelope and would allow to go as high as a zoning would allow for that area. So in order to sort of enforce that and to maintain that part of it will preserve, but also allowing for new construction. There are design standards and guidelines, and these are intended to be customized design guidelines for this particular site. It's to allow significantly larger construction abutting or connecting with the historic building. And so it's to encourage and integrate both the old and the new and to ensure thorough and high quality architectural design, articulation and materials for new construction. This is a separate document that would be approved as part of this designation process. Landmark Preservation reviews the design guidelines and standards as part of the designation as a whole, and then they in the preserved area in the other areas, they would combine the traditional design guidelines with the new design guidelines that are attached with this designation . Those design guidelines are intended to address the transitional height area, the restricted areas, as well as the zoning restricted areas. And there divided into four parts with an addendum that talks about the character defining features of the historic building at the Landmark Preservation Commission. There were there was a letter from historic Denver, which is a co applicant, as well as 30 additional emails and letters of support. We have not received any other emails since the Landmark Preservation Commission Commission hearing. There were four comments from the public. Three were in support and one was in opposition. And the Landmark Preservation Commission passed this unanimously. Thank you. We have four speakers and I'll. Call all. Four and you can make your way up the beat to Bruce and Levinsky, Jane Chrisler and Sarah McCarthy so you can make your way up and Ms.. Bruce can begin your remarks. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I am DEVITA Bruce. I have the pleasure of serving as the director of operations, outreach and engagement for our Denver Public Schools. Mr. President, Councilman Brooks, and other distinguished members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak speak briefly regarding the historic designation bill for the Emily Griffith Opportunity site. What you have before you is a culmination of years of thoughtful dialog and a broad with a broad spectrum of stakeholders with varied interests. As DPS prepared for the sale of the site. We were seeking to. Create a designation that honors the legacy of Emily Griffith and the countless contributions she made to the field of education. The city of Denver and the state of Colorado. How fitting that this designation bill occurs and the year that we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Emily of Emily Griffith's first school. We also recognized that it was important to establish a set of design guidelines that provided greater certainty and clarity for potential developers as they determined how this prominent square city block could continue to be a catalyst for future opportunity. What we. Discovered. In the act of this exploration was a pathway that allowed committed stakeholders to proactively resolve competing interests to get to an outcome that met the needs of all. Each step of the process leading to the has this. Historic designation. And design guidelines has been carefully considered. Having the support of the historic community as evidenced by historic Denver being a co applicant. There is a testament to what is possible. With the synergy. Of collaboration, the willingness of the civic, business and development communities to engage and provide input on how to balance the goals of the school district and the interests of the broader community has been invaluable. Just as Emily Griffith herself opened the doors of opportunity for all who wish to learn. Our hope is that the certainty provided with this designation will yield continued opportunity for downtown Denver and ultimately for the. 91,000. Students currently served by DPS. Thank you for your consideration of this bill. As Denver Public Schools seeks to utilize all available resources to ensure that every child succeeds. Thank you. Thank you. Annie Levinsky and this 76 minutes. Thank you. Hi, I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, located at 1420 Ogden Street. And I'm really thrilled to be here tonight. And it's not quite. The 11th hour. Yet. And fortunately, it's not the 11th hour for the Emily Griffith Opportunity School. We've been. Working on this. As the beta mentioned, for several years, more than three years of analysis and. Conversation and planning. And so I really want to thank DPS for their willingness to take a really careful look at this site before it transitions out of public. Ownership for the first time in 150 years. And I also want to thank the. City and. Brad Buchanan's leadership in helping the stakeholders. Work through the details related to this designation and the redevelopment concept before you. Tonight. Historic Denver does have a long history of working with DPS regarding historic schools, and in the 1990s we received a National Trust. Honor Award for efforts that. Encouraged student led designations of many of our most important public school buildings. And Sarah McCarthy will. Speak in a minute. But she was one of the volunteers that was really intimately. Involved in that. In the early 2000s, the program was further structured through. The DPS policy. RFP, which. Karen mentioned the policy at that time. DPA also conducted a survey. Of many of its UN designated buildings and ranked them from Tier one through Tier three, with Tier one. Being the schools that were most appropriate for historic. Designation. And Emily Griffith. Was identified as one of the Tier one schools. In 2012 when word spread. That DPS plan to move the school program from the. Site. Historic Denver heard from many concerned. Community members about what would happen to the buildings. We reached out to DPS to express the importance of preservation and they agreed to work with us and implement the policy outlined in policy. F.B. The process outlined in policy be the Emily Griffith. Site and specifically the Welton Street side of the campus, has been in public ownership for more than 150 years, with. The first public school opening there in the 1870s. In 1916. DPS granted Griffith, who was then principal at. Crofton Elementary. School, still standing, and Curtis Park. The permission to open a. Nontraditional school for all who wish to learn in the vacant building on the site. Based on her early teaching experiences, Griffith recognized. The needs of not only her students, but also their parents. Her first offerings at the Opportunity School included English language courses, citizenship. Courses and technical training programs. By the 1920s, the school. Was so popular that DPS. Invested in its expansion, constructing the classical. Revival style building that now sits at the corner of 12th and Welton. It was later expanded with Annex to. Significant international style. Additions that complement the 1920s building. One in 1947 and one in 1956. And that really. Completed the build out of the Walton Street side of the. Campus and replaced that earlier school, the Longfellow School, that had. Stood and been first used. Gradually and incrementally. DBC then acquired the property. Along Glenarm place to build a variety of one story shops. The 1926. 47 and 56 buildings along Welton Street are interconnected. And today are experienced as one. Building. With multiple entrances. The interconnected structure clearly and definitely meets all three criteria. In the landmark ordinance for designation. Representing the most historically, architecturally. And geographically significant. Aspects of the Emily Griffith site. And serving as a symbol of her legacy. It is through the doors along Welton that more than a million students have access to education and opportunity, and it is above these doors that the school's values of opportunity and achievement are emblazoned. Griffith's legacy is. Profound and historic. Denver feels strongly that it deserves. To be physically represented in a. Place that has deep and authentic history. We are confident that the Welton Street buildings, deemed most significant through this whole process, can meet the. Site's. Story and represent its architectural character. The designation application before you clearly identifies the structures on Welton as the structures for preservation and the smaller one story structures on Glenarm place as non contributing. This means the buildings on the Glen own side of the block may be approved for demolition without a public hearing. And historic Denver fully anticipates and is aware that a new and most likely quite large development will take place in this location. DB has officially listed the property in the same week the designation was filed and we are commend them and thank them for doing this process concurrently so that both the prospective buyers of the site as well as the community will have certainty about its future. Before those discussions get too far underway. Preservation, as Devina mentioned, is most successful. When it is collaborative. We are grateful to the city, the Community Planning and Development Office. Humphreys Polay Architects, the Downtown Denver Partnership, and all these stakeholders for engaging in thoughtful and productive planning for a place with great importance in our community. The Emily Griffith process demonstrates that property owners and the preservation community can work together to find solutions that make our. City more unique. More vibrant and more adaptable for the future. So thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Levinsky. Jane Chrisler. Good evening. I'm Jane Kreisler with Humphreys Poly Architects. And we acted as a consultant to the city and Denver Public Schools. And I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Sam McCarthy. Good evening. Thanks for your attention. More than 20 years ago, a collaboration began between Denver's preservation community and Denver Public Schools, led by Jennifer Moulton, who was then the president of historic Denver. This effort sought to identify the district's architecturally and historically significant schools. We found dozens of them. More than 500 students researched the history of their schools in their community, its architectural style, so they could nominate their schools as Denver landmarks. Many dozens of these students came happily before this body to defend these nominations. DPS and historic Denver received a national award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. For this program, I spoke of it as raising little preservationists. But we ran. Into a problem. Since the 1880s, DPS has been hiring noted local architects to design its schools using high quality materials and craftsmanship. These schools represent a spectacular 130 year span of the spectrum of architectural styles, ranging from. The 1880s. Richard Sony In Style through the. 1920s Collegiate Gothic style to the 1950s Usonian and international styles until 1952. No. Two Denver schools were built alike. Denver schools were built to last 100 years and more. And they have, consequently. All the schools first surveyed met Denver's landmark commission criteria for designation to designate all would devalue the recognition. So a tearing system was to was developed to identify the districts most architecturally and historically significant schools. The Denver Board of Education established its policy to recognize this. Unique ranking process to support. The preservation of schools like Emily Griffith Opportunity that was ranked Tier. One while balancing. The district's responsibilities to educate our young residents. Schools are tangible symbols of the value the community places on education. And in Denver, the value of our history, especially our public assets. I applaud this continuing collaboration. I wholeheartedly support this. Nomination. And encourage you to vote yes quickly. Thank you, Ms.. McCarthy. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions of members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Kara. Could you would the height of anything that's going to go behind it? 112 feet? What is the height of the 1926 building? I am sorry. I don't know that off the top of my head. I'm just trying to get a relative sense of the. Changes that it's three and a half stories. I'm sorry, three and a half stories. So. Four 4147. 5157. Thank you. That's almost perfect. I just want to get a sense of the scale. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Kira, quick question. Thank you, Mr. President. Gina is the Gina guy. Is he the one who who wrote or that person? Is that the one who wrote the letter of opposition or spoken opposition? I can double check the name. I don't have it right here in front of it. It is. But just can you give us for just this? She was basically concerned that designating the historic property would lower the value that Denver Public Schools could get for the land. Another member then of the community then spoke up who was part of the sales advisory group and felt that this would allow for a good value for Denver public schools. Knowing the surface. Is Gina a part of DPS at all or just a concerned citizen? I not that I'm aware of. I believe she's just a concerned citizen. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Councilmember in other questions, 311. Seeing on public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilman Brooks, how many questions for this one, huh? I am excited and really happy to support this designation. I always love to hear KERA Dona Dona owner support it, but I personally was involved this couple of years ago with in the process and was in the early meetings with Down Syndrome in partnership with Davida, leading those meetings with Annie Levinsky with many stakeholders. And I want to be clear that we are celebrating today, but there were many days in that room where I think I think folks were pretty far apart. And it's just amazing to see the community kind of come together. And I think Bradley can and played a huge role in that as well with his ideas as well. And so I'm excited to support this. Sara, I appreciate you bringing up Jennifer Moulton. You know, for for some of us younger urban leaders, she was a visionary that we long to live after as we're city builders here. And so I appreciate you bringing her up. The other reason I really am supportive of this is I think it sets a precedent for what we can begin to to see the integration of new development in historical buildings in downtown begin to look like. So thank you for the Denver Public Schools for being a part of this and being so open around this whole issue and everybody else who works so hard to be supporting this. In Katherine Brooke. Councilman each. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Brooks, for the role you played in the process. I was actually going to remember a time slightly even before that, which was with my former colleague, Councilwoman Raab, who really we have to credit her for helping to start the conversation early when the certificate of non historic status was filed . Our first meeting that I went to with Councilwoman Raab with the district was not so supportive. There was a flat out statement that there's just no market potential for this site if we do designation. And Councilwoman Raab, with her experience, was really able to offer the ideas of bringing in developers with expertize to get their input. And I think there was a walk through that happened really early in the process, even before there was a commitment to the committee. And that walk through is an example where folks were in I don't remember who we got. We had suggested folks like Dana Crawford and Charles Wooley and and but to to hear from folks to say there are ways that this could be done. You know, and I think that that first seed of it could be possible. I just want to thank Councilwoman Robb and for her, I think, diligence in helping to kind of help plant that seed and and help do a little activism. And I'm very glad that we have the happy story that we do. But sometimes in those early days, it takes a strong advocate to get that started. And so in this case, I just want to honor her and I'm excited to support this today. My experience with Emily Griffith is through the amazing construction apprenticeships that they have hosted at that school, all of the construction apprenticeships, including most of the union and a few of the nonunion, they get 42 hours of college credit and they've been earning them through a certification that Emily Griffith provided. So one of the things I hope with this designation in this redevelopment is that we get apprentices working on this building as it's rebuilt around with the new development. That would be a great way to bring Emily Griffith's legacy to a completion. So I hope you negotiate that in your sale contract because it would be a missed opportunity if we didn't anyway. Happy to support it tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each next. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Comments. I just wanted to say, this is brilliant. This is a genius. Love it. Love how creative everybody was. And I like the councilman, Brooks said. I hope it sets a precedent. I know this is not easy work and we can't always do this, but I do think we should. We should be able to figure out how to when we have those buildings that we go, oh, when we see it, when a proposal comes in, whether they've applied for historic MENA status or, you know, it's going to lead, there is do we have the tools to sort of capture both new development in a creative fashion? I think part of the charm of Europe is they figured that out. And so we sort of have the two extremes. It's either preservation and maintaining it in its in in an intact form or gone. And there's actually a lot of potential in in this sort of blending. And so where we have those opportunities, I'm glad to see this this happen and this tool exists because I think we're seeing it over there potentially at the tavern as well. So thank you to historic Denver, Annie and John Annie. You guys are doing a wonderful job and CPD staff. Thank you, Brad. Thank you. So thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Shooting. There are very few places in Denver that I think can match this site for its historical significance, along with its connection to so many, probably thousands of residents of Denver. I can think of maybe Union Station as another example where not only a historic structure, a magnificent structure, a beautiful structure, but one that has a connection to the daily lives of of so many people who grew up in Denver. And it's just a pleasure to to see this. It's it's almost an emotional connection to this building with a lot of people in Denver who took advantage of what what Emily Griffith established in 1916. And I think, Mr. President, my only regret is that the building on the on the Glenarm Street side is is going to be demolished because we taped so many programs from DPS on Channel six of Don Kinney's State of Colorado show in there. And I think just for that reason, it ought to be historic, but it'll be sad to see that one go. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I know the answer is no. I know you want us to stop talking, but I just have to say, I have a long personal history with this school. My dad taught there in the fifties. He taught bookkeeping and accounting. And I have a very long personal history with the Denver Public Schools. Hello, David. A long time supporter of DPS and the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, which is no longer called that. And as co-chair of the 2012 Bond Committee, we talked about this building a lot because its sale was supposed to fund the purchase of 1860. Lincoln, which is the home of the new Emily Griffith Technical School and High School. So I know everyone figured out a way to make it all happen, so I couldn't be more thrilled and also thrilled that Emily Griffith's legacy continues at 1860. Lincoln, which is now called the Emily Griffith campus and all of the things that she worked for are still happening today. And it's really incredible. And it is one of the greatest success stories of the Denver public schools. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez. I am picking that up from that screen. I am super enthusiastic about this designation. You know, I think Councilman Flynn really hit the hammer or really hit the nail on the head and that it has so many such a big connection to so many people in the area. I talked about him earlier, but my grandfather was pictures right here and played the role of my dad. He was called to service in World War Two before he can finish high school from Ault, Colorado from up north and really use a beat picker. He ended up coming back and was able to finish that a program for folks who if they had, he was an older high school student. So after they came back from the service, he came back and finished his high school diploma at Emily Griffith. And that was the impact that that had for him in his life. But there's so many people around that time in Denver. Emily Griffith was the school. It was the school to go to. Yes, it was west and east and north and south. But you still had Emily Griffith right there. And he was able to do that, finish out and. You know, provide a foundation for a lot for a lot of his children and grandchildren. And I think, you know, that that's the historic nature of the school. We can talk about the architecture, but in its walls and in its brick and mortar, those kind of stories throughout Denver. So, you know, thank you. I'm proud to vote yes for this. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I believe that all the speakers. Are actually all the councilmembers are chime in our. Screens. Kind of crazy right now. I think that's everybody. So they were good. All right. So you know the comments, Madam Secretary, wrong call. Roll call. Brooks. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn Hi. Gilmore I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega I black I Mr. President. All right. Now, secretary, please for civilian house results. 11 ice 11. Ice 311 has passed one for a German announcement Monday, June 13th Council will hold a required public hearing accountable to 61, allowing short term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use with limitations where residential uses are currently allowed.

Consider Requiring Paid Parking at Any Future City Owned or Operated Parking Lots, Including the Main Street Ferry Terminal. (Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7642

Nine is consider requiring paid parking at any future city owned or operated parking lots, including the Main Street Ferry Terminal. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Vela, and we have three speakers. Okay. So, Councilmember Ballard, the floor is yours. I'll keep it short. But basically this item has come up a number of times whenever we've discussed our Climate Action Plan and various projects that have been brought before the Council. And I thought that it would be helpful to have this conversation agenda so that we can really discuss it in full. Because I know that there are a number of items coming back to the council are scheduled to come back to us and as we all know, free, there's nothing that's really free. It just means that it's subsidized from somebody. And and in in this case, subsidizing parking means that we're spending public funds on parking, which is not necessarily in line with our stated goals under our Climate Action Plan or in line with our other goals in terms of finding ways to provide more housing and things like that. So I just want us to have this conversation so that we can give staff some direction ahead of these items coming back. And I certainly I didn't I specifically didn't put a dollar amount or anything like that because obviously it depends on the project and how we go about and, you know, enforcing it. But I think if we can at least have the general conversation and perhaps give staff some general direction to put this into effect, then any time an item comes up where there would be a city lot or city parking, we know to to include this analysis in the staff report so that we can vote on it. And it just becomes part of the conversation as opposed to something that we add on later on. So I hope you'll be supportive. Okay. And so I. I think I'm. So what's your ask? My ask is that we direct staff essentially to come back to us with either what basically to give directive to staff that for any projects including city parking city. Any any parking lots or other parking structures that they provide us with options for how to actually do that had actually charge for parking and that that be part of the the cost analysis that that gets built in. Okay. For new projects. Mm hmm. Okay. And we have new public speakers on this. Are we do we have three? Okay. Any current questions from council before we take our public speakers? Calcium or maybe not from the author, but from staff. So the parking lot at Seaplane Lagoon Ferry, I mean, is that something that has already been. We've done that. It's already there. Okay. So. Okay. Anything further? Let's hear those patient public speakers Denise Trapani. Debbie Ryan and Ruth Harvey. Who they are. Good evening. It's still evening. Thank you. Hi. Hi, Madam Mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight and especially thank you, former Vice Mayor Vella, for bringing this subject up. I also want to start by thanking staff, especially the transportation and planning staff and the public work staff for the work they've done to encourage aluminum and to choose alternative transportation options. We heard from the public works director that said the Cross Alameda Trail, a big section of it is opening in a couple of days. It was actually open today and I got to ride it tonight. And it's amazing. It's stunning. But even with all that encouragement that our staff is doing for people to choose, alternative transportation's drivers are continuing to kill and injure people on our streets, and our greenhouse gas emissions from personal transportation continue to rise. It's clear that encouraging people to get out of their cars isn't enough. I'm here to ask you to please go beyond encouraging people to do the right thing by also actively discouraging driving. You can do that by no longer paying the cost of people to park in our public lots at the ferry and in other places. If this comes up and we have a public conversation about it, you're going to hear from people who say that you can't charge for parking at the ferry until you provide another transit option. But that's simply not true. That's no different than people saying you can't approve any more housing construction until you solve all our traffic issues. The issues are unrelated and drivers will just keep moving the goalposts. If you were able to magically get Alameda or Alameda County Transit to provide bus service to the terminal, people would still need to pay an extra 450 daily for their roundtrip bus drop bus ride. I don't know why we would think that the they need the option to pay for a bus ride before we start giving away parking. We've run bus service out to Main Street terminal before while there was free parking. People didn't stop driving then and they won't do it now. Not unless the option is at least financial parity, which means we have to charge for parking. And I'd also ask you to maybe consider something a little more radical, which is potentially absolving yourselves from the responsibility to provide free parking. It's it's not our responsibility. It's not a free parking. It's not a right. It's a luxury that we've decided to give to those who are lucky enough to afford a car and choose to drive. There is no free parking, so I think my time is almost up that I'll just close with that. So thank you for raising this issue. Thank you. Debbie Ryan and Ruth Abby Ben Smith. Good. Very late evening, Tom. Yeah. Good evening. Try to keep it short. Hopefully you received a letter earlier today from Qatar. Can the action for sustain. Mm. But my name is Debbie Ryan with Qatar. And the gist of the letter is that we are in support of furthering this conversation and considering the requirement of paying for parking as stated in the referral. Mainly because we do want to completely connect this to the transportation plan, the transportation choice plan that was committed to start a year and a half ago. The Climate Emergency Mobilization Resolution that was committed to in March of last year, as well as the Climate Action Resiliency Plan that was committed to in September. We very much feel that these are directly related. And if you look at the current plan, which details on page 21 to 22 and as of January 2020, about 70% of Almeida's annual GHG emissions will come from transportation. And in order to reach the city's newly set sustainability goals, Alameda must achieve deep cuts in transportation emissions. This is directly affiliated with that. And if you look at the letter, it does detail. I don't have to go through all the bullets, but all the different ways that we really can reduce GHG, we can increase carpooling, we can look at increasing biking to the ferry and the cross Alameda Trail and ridership on AC Transit Line 96. So all of these can be implementable and increased upon. Now, we do also look at the idea, I think, what the last speaker just said, which is that in conjunction we have to look at this by continuing the momentum, the forward innovation of affordable transportation options. Because speaking to many folks, including at a community event this evening, people want to ride their bikes, they want to lock them up. They want to ride their scooters. They want to see new lines and new pools developed. We have to keep working on that together, but we have to avoid the use of the single occupancy vehicles. Real quickly, I just wanted to also read a quick note. This is not here locally, but just a congratulations article to the towns of Banff and Canmore. Yet another city who's increased their use of paid parking in order to look at the reduction of GHG emissions. And I think there's a really good point here in that it says these proposals do not represent yet another fee, but rather paid parking redistributes a silent charge on all taxpayers to an explicit charge for those who use public parking lots. And I think that's really important for us to consider, because these parking spaces are worth something and the city should use perhaps the funds coming out of it to work in other ways to get people out of their cars. So thank you. We're in full support. Thank you for all your good work with Ryan Mosby. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. And we support the the request to put this discussion on a future agenda. You're not going to be discussing the merits of the proposal tonight. But I think one of the things you might ask staff to do when you do is to look at a blanket policy rather than coming up for each new development to provide options for paid parking. Just, you know, develop a city council policy that you will always have paid parking for public spaces, and that would be our recommendation. Then you don't have to worry about it. You don't have to litigate it every time and have public comment and concerns about it. It would just be the policy of the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Mr. Smith. And good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members. And thank you, Councilmember Melo, for bringing this up. I've been a member of the Sierra Club for a long time and I remember bringing up housing for a long time. All of these organizations have been saying, we, we need to do something to have people pay for parking. It's another example of inequality by subsidizing the car, not paying the full prices. And we make people pay for a bus ticket, which is environmentally better. It's also the people that take the busses generally have less money to begin with. So it's just backwards, bad public policy. So I realize that it's it's difficult to do politically, but this is where the education begins and great deal with climate change deals, inequality. We've got to begin educating people and there's no way to begin that education and with the pocketbook, but no better way to do that. So thank you. I really do support having this come up for discussion. Okay. So council your thoughts. I'll jump in. Again. Yeah. So just to finish my other point. So when the ferry station parking opens, is that going to be paid? Seaplane Lagoon. Seaplane Lagoon. Yeah. Yes. That's the intent. We are actually bringing back. And so we can take your comments tonight and we're bringing back a parking. Staff. Report, I believe, in March. So we can at this point, this is great timing. So we can take your comments from tonight and put it into that staff report. Okay. So I'll be really quick because it's getting late. I fully support this. I think we need to go even beyond what this this does. San Francisco, you know, different neighborhoods have different stickers where you're allowed to park in certain times. Where I grew up, we used to every car had a village sticker and it was kind of cool to see the different art on them. But the point is, if you didn't have a sticker, you got a ticket and you also generated some revenue. So if there was something we could do to kind of charge for parking, kind of in a way, you know, like you got to have a permit to park on a city street. I don't know what that solution looks like, but other cities have done it because I think, as the speaker said, you know, there's just way too many cars here and the cost of driving nice to drive to San Francisco. It would be $7 to park and $6 for roundtrip. I mean, that was $13. That's not a lot of money to go to San Francisco. But, you know, if it was 25, I'd never go because it was 40 bucks to park downtown. But, you know, if if the cost of parking is comparable or is prices you out, then, you know, you'll have to take a bus. And then last thing, this chicken and the egg thing about the funding, I think if we start charging for parking and we can amass enough money, we can help subsidize bus because I think that's what we did with the line 19. We paid for it as a city the first couple of years and then we paid more. But once it generated more revenue and then I and I also think we're having site A I think we're getting bus service on day one, too. So I mean, those kind of arguments don't really hold a lot of water with me. I will just chime in and remind us that what we already know is that we can charge for parking, we can have regulations, but it requires enforcement. And I do know I have it on good authority that in the next month or so that item is coming to us. So, you know, we want to manage expectations. It's never enough to just say, yeah, we're going to pay for parking, but there has to be a way to deal with it. And then yeah, just a reminder. Councilmember Desai One thing that I would encourage when we talk about single occupancy vehicles is this the people who drive to work are not bad people, they're not evil people. They are fellow residents, they are neighbors. They love this city just as much as anyone. And if the trend is any indication, at some point we're going to get out, get away from. You know, gas powered cars that everything will be electric. So I would encourage the residents to avoid rhetoric that paints single occupancy vehicles as bad people. And I'm very concerned that that's the trajectory that we can be going. They get up early in the morning, travel long distances like San Jose or Fremont, you know, to make a living for their families just like everyone else. And by the same token, you know, it doesn't mean that, you know, people who ride bicycles are, you know, all the virtuous people. Let's not create caricatures of different people who utilize different modes of transit. Let's just have a policy discussion on its merits. Thanks. Hi. Well, I appreciate. I think. I think that's a that's a point well taken. Um, let's see. Just going down the line. Oh, well, the maker of the motion and I. Want to clarify one thing, because I this is a I had two drafts of this and I realize this is after it got published this it. This is this wasn't the original one. And that there was this not the one that I intended to use. And it says that new including the new terminal at Main Street. And that was a typo. And it's. The seaplane lagoon, but also any any new parking or changes to the parking at Main Street. Because one of the things that has come up in the past that we've discussed is perhaps repaving or expenditures out there. And I want that to be considered as new parking if we're going to be expending any sort of major funds to improve existing lots. Right. Basement X way. Sure. So obviously. Well, hopefully. Obviously, a topic near and dear to my heart. I guess I'm struggling a little bit with what we're actually asking because we already have policies that every public every public parking project that is underway or exists is priced except for our two ferry terminals and Main Street ferry terminal is likely going to fade into fade in its use significantly. It's very unlikely that anybody will be using it at once once the new the new terminal goes in. And I would want to be careful that we're not spent encouraging encouraging the spending of money on unpaid parking infrastructure. It's a place that people might not be using, although I think if it's going to be revamped because it's getting used, I think I think it's a it's a good idea. My understanding is that we have a parking policy for street parking, etc., that is somewhat under development. We've tried so many different things that the transportation folks I have no idea where that is and I don't have an expectation it will be to us in the next month. But. But. I guess I'm not I'm not I'm not exactly sure what direction we're giving to staff. I don't know that there is. With all the different transportation projects, whether or not something asking for somebody to come back very, very soon on this issue I don't think is going to have a huge impact. And I'm wondering if we can kind of give more direction that when issues related to city owned lights and etc. come , you know, rather than a discussion in the future, why don't we just can we just give it the the direction tonight that there always be a paid parking option? That's what I'm asking. Okay. So I heard bring it back for discussion in the future. Not tonight. So that sounded like a whole new parking item. So it's just this. Just give direction. Yeah. Okay. I do want to say one thing. The residential parking permits do not pay for themselves or barely pay for themselves. They are something like $27 a year and the state law does not allow for anything more. So all they end up doing is privatizing the street for the people who live in a specific area, but they aren't a really good management process for managing overall use. So I think we're not correcting you. There are places where they exist. We have actually given it away for free out at Harper Bay near the ferry out there. I think that's something we should maybe reconsider someday. But we're nobody parks in the street, but nobody has to pay for permits. So nobody parks anyway. But yeah, I can see if that if that's if that's the intent. I'm 100% on board. And I would just say I actually think that people will continue to use the Main Street Ferry terminal. It'll just be more trips that are going to Oakland, and that's yet another way we get single occupancy vehicles off the road. But I also think that it is a matter of prioritizing both staff time and funding. And I think that Seaplane Lagoon should be were our biggest pressures because I think that, you know, this is the new ferry terminal and you're starting from scratch from the ground up. You can do it. Right. But I think it's those are good recommendations. I just think that we also need to tell staff it's not something that you push everything else off the desk and work on this. But I think, you know, it's it is something I think. We. Do need to do whatever we can to incentivize people out of their single occupancy vehicles. But I, I hear what Councilmember de SAG is saying. I think I always like to look for as many carrots as sticks. I mean, my carrot is I'm not sitting in my vehicle surrounded by traffic, but it's probably telling people they're horrible people or implying that that's not your most effective strategy. But we're rather going to strive to do better. And even if you drive in TV, we don't need more cars on the road because the roads are pretty crowded and that will keep working. So so this is essentially a recommendation to staff and do we need anything further? Okay. So then thank you for bringing that to our attention, Councilmember Vella. And then with that, we've got Council Communications Councilmember Vella, anything from you?

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Mount Zion Baptist Church, 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_05292018_CB 119261

Excellent. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The appointment is confirmed. Please read the part of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee. The report of the Finance Neighborhoods Committee Agenda and for it Council 119261 really district preservation person controls upon the Mount Zion Baptist Church in landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 City Limits Vicodin Adding to the table historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32. The Salem Massacre Committee recommends a bill pass. Kasper in back. Thank you so much. And I want to say special thanks, Reverend Belmonte and your team. Thank you so much for coming and to coming to my committee last week. It's a real pleasure to be able to recognize the Mount Zion Baptist Church for this historic preservation. And to my colleagues. I want to reassure you that the church supports us, that I believe you voted in January of 2018 to move forward with the incentives. And it's not often that we see all six of the criteria met and what we're going to be landmarking today, and those controlled features are going to include the site itself, I understand the sanctuary, the bell tower, many of the exterior features of this beautiful church. And I'm going to recommend that we add Mt. Zion Baptist Church. That's located at 1634, Reverend Dr. Samuel McKinney Avenue to our table of historic landmarks. So thank you very much. Good. Any further comments? I'll make one brief comment. And again, I want to thank the members and leaders at Mt. Zion Church for bringing this forward. The building itself, both interior and exterior, will now be a historically designated landmark, and I think that's extremely important. But I also think it's incredibly important to know sort of the the cultural landmark or the life landmark that this institution has had for so many decades and decades. And so I think that this that the building itself is only part of the story, an important part of the story. But again, as many of us witnessed it. Reverend McKinney's memorial service that lives have been changed, Seattle has been changed. There's been so much incredible work done by you and your children and those that came before you. So thank you for this part of the journey, part of the process, and certainly my personal honor to support this . And thank you for that child for bringing it to the fore committee. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. By John Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson by Macheda O'Brien, sowhat president Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and Cher will gladly sign it. Thank you. Please read the next agenda item.

AN ORDINANCE granting SP Greenwood LLC permission to construct and maintain a public art installation on a portion of 1st Avenue Northwest, southwest of the intersection with Northwest 85th Street, 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_07252016_CB 118734

The bill passed and chair will sign it to an item number six, please. Agenda item 16 Council Bill 11873 for granting SB Greenwood LLC permission to construct and maintain a public art installation on a portion of First Avenue Northwest southwest of the intersection with Northwest 85th Street. For a ten year term renewable for two successive ten year terms, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. This was this is a parcel on 85th, just west of Greenwood. It's across the street from the Fred Meyer up in Greenwood. The folks are aware of that. There's a new project being developed. It's a more mixed use development on the south side of 85th as part of that development. That developer of their own accord went out and commissioned some art to be done and that art installation. The intent is that will be installed on the sidewalks when the public right away they came to the council, I believe it was last year to get preliminary approval of the concept and we approve that. Now they are back there, I believe, ready to install that piece of art. This would allow them to essentially rent that space and the public right away, the annual fee. It's a relatively modest footprint that the art will take up and the rent is about $140 a year. This ordinance has a ten year lease and then they can do that renewed twice for two additional ten year periods. I just want to comment that I think it's great to see private developers incorporating public art into their projects. And when someone has thoughtfully decided to do public art, even in public right away, I believe this is an instance that the public will significantly benefit from at no cost to the public. The private developer is bearing the cost of both the art and the lease of this public space. Thank you. Councilman Bryant, any comments from any colleagues? Councilmember Herbold. Just a question. So this is not something that was that came out of design review. This is something that they just decided that they want to do themselves. I don't believe it was a requirement of the design review process, but it may have been that design review looked at that comprehensively as part of the building. I don't recall that person. Do you. Do you know what the art is? Sorry. Do you know what the art is? Do I know what it is? Yeah, I can kind of define it. It's like a tripod of three things. Art. What's that? What is art? Oh, do we have an hour? Because I could really go into this. No, we don't. We do not. Have. However, I would say counter to council member, the artist that was commissioned has done one piece, I believe it was in Discovery Park already, and this is sort of a second piece. We had a really good presentation at the committee where we outlined what it looked like, but unfortunately that wasn't attached. But it is a beautiful sort of two story structure that I think I was past there this weekend. I think is going to compliment the area very well and I'd echo your comments. Councilmember Bryant, it's great to see private development taking an interest in more public art. Absolutely. I think it has a kind of a tripod footprint, so with the majority installed on top. And so the actual footprint on public property is relatively modest. But it's a you know, it's art. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the art value to it. I'll let others with more expertize say that. I think that description was what I was looking for. Thank you for the save. Councilmember Johnson. Although with no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill. O'Brien by Sergeant Burgess. By Gonzales Herbold. JOHNSON Hi. Whereas President Harrell I eight in favor and and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. So that concludes our agenda items. Is there any further business to come before the council? Councilmember So once. President Harrell, I move to be excused from the August eight, 2016 and the August 15, 2016 full council meetings. Begin. Has been moved and second Councilman Swan be excused for August 8th and August 15th. All those in favor say I, I opposed. The ayes have it. We have it. Any other further business group for the council? Okay. It's been a long day. With that will stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody, and have a great day. Thank you.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for an agreement with Transportation Network Companies registered with the California Public Utilities Commission to provide transportation services under a nine-month pilot program at the Long Beach Airport, and authorize the imposition of a $3.00 pick-up and $3.00 drop-off fee. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12062016_16-1090

Great. We're going to take item eight with the rest of the items as they come up. We're going to go ahead and begin some of the items that are here. So let's go and begin by taking item 31. Report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with transportation network companies to provide transportation services under a nine month pilot program at the Long Beach Airport and authorize the imposition of a $3 pickup and $3 drop off fee citywide. Councilman Mango. Yes, I'd like to slightly modify the motion submitted by the city. I'd like to direct the city manager to meet and take input from our stakeholders, including ground transportation providers at the Long Beach Airport, and solicit input from members of the public as well, so that we can develop a TNC rideshare program for Long Beach Airport and return to the progress report within 90 days and prepare for implementation program in 2017. There is a motion and a second by Councilman Price on Price. I would just like to request that when we're considering this item for the for the networks that we're considering that we include See Jane Go, which is a new, new transportation network with female drivers designed for female rider. So if we could include them in the mix in terms of who to consider, I'd appreciate that. You and see no other public thing, no other council comment. We're going to get any public comment. Okay. Senior public comment members, please go ahead and cast your votes. So for those that don't know what TNC is, it's basically a technical term for rideshare. It's a. Membership runoff. With the councils voting on is beginning a process to allow the lifts and and the Ubers and the and the C Jane goes allowed at the airport so that that's what taxis are. Okay. Motion carries. Moving on to the next one that we pulled out, which was I'm sorry I skipped the hearing.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association for a one-year term. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_09222015_15-0959

Thank you. I'd also like to make another announcement, and that is that hearing item three has been withdrawn and item 16 will be considered under the consent calendar. So, Madam Clerk, hearing item. One. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt the resolution. Continuing the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for the period of October 15 through September 16, and authorize the City Manager to extend the agreement with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association District to. Leicester City manager. Assistant City Manager. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of the City Council. The staff report will be provided by Mike Conway, Economic and Property Development Director. Thank you. Thank you very much. This item is the annual approval of the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report and Ongoing Assessment. On August 11, 2015, City Council approved a resolution granting approval of the annual report and set today's date for the public hearing. The recommended action on this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment nor significant changes in the proposed activity. Therefore, staff requests that City Council received the supporting documentation on the record. Approve the resolution, continue the letter of the assessment and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. And this concludes my report. Thank you. I don't believe there's an oath required here, so I'd like to move to receive supporting documentation, conclude the hearing, and adopt the attached resolution, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement with Fourth Street Business Improvement Association for a one year term. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on hearing item one? SINGH None. Members Cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request Department of Development Services to work with the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance dissolving the Disabled Access Appeals Board (DAAB) and transferring the responsibilities of the DAAB to the Board of Examiners, Appeals and Condemnation (BEAC); and return to the City Council with the implementation ordinance(s). (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0414

Item 16 Report from Development Services. Recommendation to request the Department of Development Services to work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance dissolving the Disabled Access Appeal Board and transferring the responsibilities of the B to the Board of Examiners Appeals and Condemnation and returning to the City Council with implementation ordinance. So move. Moving, seconded. Any public comment on item 16? Any counsel request. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mayor. Yeah. My question for staff is, is why do these two boards exist? And I never know why we eliminate it now. I mean, I guess my question is why when the second one was proposed, why didn't they just roll those functions in to this other board at that time? Councilmember I'll turn it over to the development services director, Amy Bodak, and the Deputy Director, Angela Rounds. Thank you. City Manager, West Mayor, City Council Councilman Johnson I can't really tell you the genesis of the two boards, but what we're proposing is a is an efficiency because they were both they're both seated to hear appeals of the building officials rulings, one for accessibility and then one for everything. So it's just a matter of efficiencies. The disabled board rarely meets, so we wanted to just combine them with the back that already exists. Board of Examiners Condemnations and Appeals. Has that received any comments or concerns from disabled community or others about the change? Well, part of the change would require that two disabled folks served on the back, and that's the same in the ordinance for the disabled board. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further comments? Members cast votes on item 16. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 17, Mr. Park. And this has got just one motion or do we have to?

Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel.

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1338

Thank you very much, everyone, so quickly, because this is just the announcement in your request vote at the next meeting before the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. I am pleased to nominate Ms.. Christina mann. I miss my name is the Director of the Housing and Community Development Department for the City of Oakland. She has a master's in city planning from UC Berkeley and a Bachelors in Urban Studies from UC San Diego. She spent. Extremely well qualified. And then for the two nominees for the mayor's economic development advisory panel, where we have representatives from different sectors of our economy. And there were a couple of openings to fill. I would like to nominate Yvonne Jennings, who is the dean of Career and Workforce Education at the College of Alameda. And I would also like to nominate Dan Paretsky with Blue Rise Ventures, and that is the entity that owns Marina Village Business Park, which is getting quite a few exciting tenants in the biotech field, R&D. And these are my two recommendations. So thank you very much for allowing me to put those nominations forward at this time. Okay. And then we will move on to item number three, which is proclamations, special orders of the day and announcements. And I do have a proclamation to read and. And I will start now. This has to do with October being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer questioning man. Whereas, for 15 years, the month of October has been dedicated to the celebration of the important role lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer questioning individuals have played in creating social

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, subcontracts, and any subsequent amendments, including amending the terms, or changing the amount of the award, with the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH), Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC), for the COVID-19 Emergency Homelessness Funding, Large Cities allocation, to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $764,902, for the estimated period of April 15, 2020 through June 30, 2020, with the option to extend the agreement for an additional six months, at the discretion of the City Manager; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, subcontracts, and any subsequent amendments, including amending the terms, or changing the amount of the award, with the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH), Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC), for the COVID-19 Emergency Homelessness Funding, Continuum of Care allocation, to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $369,106, for the estimated period

LongBeachCC_04142020_20-0313

Thank you, guys. We'll go on to the next item. So I'm going to do that for 1/2. The next I do, I'm going to try to move quickly through quickly. We have item 42, which is a COVID 19 funding item. Can you please see the item on the Quick Work. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to execute all necessary documents necessary for the COVID 19 emergency homelessness funding. Large city allocation to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of 7004 764,902 citywide. Okay. Unless there's any objection, I'm going to go ahead and do a roll call vote. We're going to go ahead and start with trying to do this. Like I did the first that first meeting where we just called the we just called the voting. Yes. Mayor, are you I assume you would get a motion and a second and then we're saying any opposed and that. Would be an unanimous. Okay. So let me let me go ahead and I'm going to do these really quick and do these things quickly. And so I'm going to ask for the motions. I'm on the phone for these. Okay. They're going to get a motion to approve. So listen, they have. Then they have to make it a second. Second Andrew. Language. Okay, second. Andrew Then without objection, we will pass that item by unanimous consent. Next item is 43.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the submission of an application to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development for up to $13,350,000 in loan and grant funds available through the Transit-Oriented Development Housing Program; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents and agreements necessary to apply for and utilize these funds for the construction of the affordable senior housing project proposed for development at 901-945 East Pacific Coast Highway, and related public infrastructure improvements. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_07142020_20-0661

Yeah, thank you very much. Now, item 20 plate. Could you please me? That is. Item 22 Report from Development Services. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of an Apple App. Application to the Transit Oriented Development Housing Program and authorize City Manager to apply for, apply for and utilize these funds for the construction of the Affordable Senior Housing Project proposed for development at 9013945. Especificos Highway District six. Fine. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion. Could I get a second, please? Create a second price. I'd like to say a few words before we start here. First of all, I'd like to congratulate McCormick and congratulations to the Mercy Housing. This project has been in the works for quite some time and I am excited to see additional housing units being built for our senior population who are struggling, especially during these times. Last year when housing count was released, we saw the number of homeless seniors skyrocketed. But from a previous year and this kind of development is going to be a part of helping address our housing shortage and our homeless count. Thank you to Long Beach Community Investment Company for their efforts on this. Well done. And I'm looking forward to a socially distanced ribbon cutting ceremony. Thank you very much. Any any public comments on this? There we have it. But yes, we have Dave Shukla online. Dave, your time. Thank you. Hello, this is Dave Shukla, third district. I would just like to congratulate Murphy Housing. This site is across the street from my high school. I think you're the right developer for this project. We just heard a long, lengthy discussion about affordable housing. We're going to hopefully hear the presentation about transit oriented development and how that can help a lot of the housing burden that a lot of our residents are struggling to stay in place in the town right now. Thank you very much for your support on this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dave. I think it's costume with my eyes glued also. Many more people coming. No. There's no more public comment. Okay, fine. Can we have a roll call, please? District one. I. I. District two. I. District three. I district for. By District. Five II. District six. I. District seven. District eight. II. District nine. I motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to pop item 28 and I'm going to have to get off and take over a plate. Thank you very much.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Dispatchers’ Guild; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118706

Agenda Item two Constable 118706 Relating to city employment authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Dispatchers Guild and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Councilmember Burgess, thank you. This first item, agenda item number two is approval of a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Seattle Police Officers Dispatchers Guild. This unit represents approximately 100 city employees that work in the 911 communications center. The terms of the agreement call for this contract to last until December of 2018. The wage increases and other benefits are consistent with the parameters that were established by the Council's Labor Relations Committee. And the agreement gives the city the authority to introduce a new Tier two hour employee retirement system for those hired January 1st, 2017 and after. Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Are there any further questions you're hearing? Then I move to pass Council Bill 118706. Second. Is moved and seconded to the bill. Pass any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Burgess by Gonzalez Purple Juarez. Hi, O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant. I make sure there's a hero. I eight and favorite nana post. Please read the next agenda item, please. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Agenda item three can 118707 relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Teamsters local union number 117 and ratifying confirmed research and prior tax cuts. Member Burgess Thank you. This is another collective bargaining agreement between the city and Teamsters Local Union. 117. This union represents approximately ten city employees who work as warehouse employees at the Police Evidence Unit. This agreement also runs through 2018. The wages and benefits are consistent with the parameters set by the Council's Labor Relations Committee, and this agreement also allows for the implementation of a second tier in the city's retirement system for employees hired after January 1st, 2017. Thank you, Councilmember. Are there any further comments? I move to pass Council Bill 118707. Second. It's been moved in. Second, the bill pass. Any further discussion? Please call a roll on the passage of the Bill. Burgess. AI. Gonzalez Herbold Suarez O'Brien Swan Bakeshop. President Harrell. High. Eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and chair will sign it. Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.

AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Seattle Police Department; amending a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120320

Agenda Item eight Council Bill 120320 An ordinance relating to appropriations for the Seattle Police Department, amending a proviso imposed by Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you so much. Thing to work on the 2022 budget, the council requested a report from the executive on a citywide hiring incentive program analyzing the vacancy issues across front line workers. Vacancy issues that are creating a service issue with the public or inhibiting the movement from fulfilling a core function. Report we received indicated that for a number of positions that department struggled to fill the positions that are important to city business, not just including police officers, but also carpenters, truck drivers, the civil engineers and firemen dispatchers. Consequently, this bill requests the Department of Human Resources amend its personnel rules so that we can give appointing authorities of multiple departments greater flexibility to pay for the moving expenses for people who are coming to work in these hard to fill and important positions as include police hires. But it also isn't to address the limitations in our existing roles across several departments. Current personnel rules limit this flexibility only our pay bands such as department directors. So if we're doing national recruiting to fill positions in departments all over the city, I think it's important that we look at paying costs associated with folks moving here, do public service on behalf of City of Seattle so that the bill is also to release the proviso on spending for the Seattle Police Department. Frankly, some people were testifying to not supporting hiring incentives for officers. But I just want to clarify again, this proposal allows for offering payment of moving costs for new hires again to fill hard to hire positions in several departments, not only the Seattle Police Department. The release of the funding is not needed for the other departments because unlike the Seattle Police Department, they can use funds from position vacancies. Once the Human Resources Department changes the rules, allowing hiring authorities to pay the relocation expenses of recruits. This is not a case for the Seattle Police Department, and it's not the case only because of the existing proviso. That's why the legislation releases $650,000 of existing city funds for SPD for this use. It is not new funding for CPD and it is only to allow SPD to do what we are trying to allow other departments to do as well. There are already funds in the budget to support salaries associated with speedy hiring and to hire 125 officers, also funded in the 2022 budget modified to 98 new hires. Releasing this funding would work to assist with that. Now, with this hiring and with I think again, it makes sense given the earlier action support hiring plan was amended in committee to add funding for a campaign to help. Attract and to fill. These officer positions and to pay for a national search committee to permanently fill the chief of police position. And lastly, because I've heard a lot of folks talk about our efforts to develop alternatives to police response to 911 calls. I want to also lift up the fact that in our May 10th committee meeting, the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, we heard in a tweet from the executive on the continuation of the 9110 analysis and with National Institute for Criminal Justice with analyze call type, we analysis what we call the junior analysis last year. Now the executive is pulling together a interdepartmental team that includes the council to make sure that the analysis on the report, which only looked at how calls were initially classified to examine the calls are resolved as well. And that will allow us to classify calls by risk level in order to assist with which with determining which nine on one call and respond to. I others not police officers in which will still require a sworn officer. So it's not just about the new report. It's about this next level of analysis that we're doing. And I'm really convinced that the executive is committed to doing this work and that this work is going to continue throughout throughout the year. The next step, because 91 dispatchers will be trained on new steps for sending mail, one calls to others besides police and fire. Seattle Communications Center has completed its request for proposals, and they're working on identifying offenders for this for this new dispatch protocol that is that is necessary as we develop a continuum of 911 response . So we're looking to have the next eight on the development of the 901 alternatives at the Unit eight committee meeting. That work is continuing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbert, and thank you for explaining the work that you've been doing for a long time. So is there any more comments or concerns that we want to address to Customer Herbal before we move to a vote? Okay. I am going to be supporting this and I'll just be very brief. I know that Councilor Herbert has is the chair of the Public Safety Commission in Council Member Nelson. I know the media has been portrayed in this way, which isn't always accurate. I don't think that council member Nelson Herbert had to be encouraged or there was some kind of brokering. I think council member Herbold, because of Nelson, were incredibly staid in their comments, in their positions, but also committed to working collaboratively, building consensus, working with the executive. And I think that gets overlooked sometimes. And so and I want to give a particular thank you to Councilor Herbert because she's been on council as long as me and she's been on the public safety issue and she serves on the PC as I do. And so kind of going back to what Councilor Petersen was saying, this really is a more holistic approach. And I appreciate all of your comments and all of your concerns, but I think at the end of the day, what we saw come out with the resolution and then this this legislation is, I think, what people want government to do. I think that's what we're elected to do, and that is to to move forward, to work together, agree where we disagree and find consensus and what is the best for our great city. So I'll get off my soapbox. And with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the President? I'm sorry. Customers get it. Thank you. Madam President, I also realize that I spoke quite a bit on that last bill and happy to wait my turn if someone else would like to go before me. You know, why don't you just go ahead and then I apologize. Comes from where else? And then I forgot for herbal tea, if you want. Since this is yours, I'll let you have the last word. I apologize for that. I keep forgetting that. Go ahead. Customs data. And talking. Thank you so much. And let me preface this by saying, you know how much I appreciate again, Councilmember Herbold and her leadership on public safety. I consider her a thought partner, not only in how we address public safety, but how we continue to invest in alternative responses. And I know I know she cares very much about the policy details, much, much to the knowledge of every person who watches committee meetings. So I know these details very much matter to her. And and I again, I'll just underscore where I'm coming from on this piece of legislation. This comes down to, for me, a question of whether or not these funds could be available at the end of the year if a proviso were kept into place. Many, many folks in our community and again, thanks in large part to Councilmember Herbold, who has championed these budget additions in the last year related to food security, social services, the shadow pandemic, mental health services. We have a known need in our community for our continual investments and we have an evolving budget situation. And until we have greater certainty on the number of dollars available at the end of the year, I just cannot support releasing a proviso that is currently in place for the Seattle Police Department. I do appreciate that this was broader than speedy in terms of the of the moving fees, but in terms of the proviso that's being lifted, that's specific to Seattle Police Department dollars, where it is a known quantity. And I and I don't support the effort to either use it for a moving fee or for a recruitment effort to get more folks to apply for the chief position or a recruitment person to try to incentivize more folks to apply for city officer positions in the face of the crisis that we're facing in the budget. And I know many of us are committed to continuing to look at additional progressive revenue, but until we have those questions answered, I want to make sure that we are looking at the recommendations from the recruitment and retention workgroup and more holistically looking at the end of this year about where we can make investments next year and the fall and in the following years to what we know frontline workers want. And that includes making sure that we're looking at existing strategies to promote from within, especially a diverse work workforce, to make sure that we have a better pipeline for internships and for apprenticeship apprenticeship opportunities that we're looking at underpay for many positions and we have in the past partnered on HST and and human service wages and we know that there's going to be an increased need for making sure that we're recruiting folks across our department for multiple positions. And I think that it's not just recruitment, right? It's retention strategies as well. So I would much more prefer to be looking at retention strategies for recruitment strategies end of the year holistically when we know either what the budget gap is or what available dollars we may have. And those variable dollars do shrink if we lift this proviso today. I'm actually not opposed to hiring incentives. Excuse me, I'm not opposed to moving fees being paid for in general. And I think that that could be part of the overall approach that we are looking at supporting and in doing so, in partnership with the Coalition for City Unions, who have been long calling for investments like that through the Labor Standards Relation Committee, I'm forgetting the actual name of it, but the body that was created to bring together management and labor to talk about strategies to do just that, invest in retention and recruitment. I also want to lift up some of the things that we talked about in committee that is underscoring sort of the need, I believe, for a pause for us to look more generally at retention and recruitment strategies. Nationally, we are seeing a downward trend in police departments, staffing levels. Cities like Atlanta, Phenix, Philly have all seen hundreds of officers leave the force. Philadelphia is down 440 officers. Atlanta down 400 to 500 officers in the last three years. New York saw 5300 officers leave since 2020, Louisville lost 233 officers. Portland is the police force is now under 1100 officers from where they started. So thanks to you very much, Surya Basu on my staff who has done incredible research and has pulled this information from Forbes article in late April, this is the trend across our country. I think that more broadly, instead of investing in just a hiring bonus strategy or a PR firm to do outreach for a police chief or for a recruit. To try to get more people to apply to a position where we are seeing national trends and downward staffing. I would much more prefer to be having a conversation at the end of the year about where precious and limited resources can go. And to not list a proviso now so that we have more resources especially and resources available for upstream investments that don't require an officer and a badge to show up. And lastly, Madam President, in our many meetings that we've had, we've talked about how some of the strategies, almost all of the strategies that we have invested in and community resources are a retention strategy for officers. We just need to continue to get those dollars out the door that are currently sitting there and work in partnership with those community partners so that there's more mental health service providers and community responders available that can help with retention strategies. And I think we need to see that as one way that we're investing in retention and hope to do more to support retention strategies by making sure that there are trained and skilled community responses that we've begun to invest in in the end of the year. So again, lifting a proviso at this point for specifically SBT and not knowing what the underspend is in other departments, other departments who will be offering moving fees as well as the Coalition for Setting Units noted, creates an inequity. There is not unknown. There is not a known answer to whether or not there is going to be the same hiring bonus excuse me, the same moving fee offered to individuals across departments and they raise concerns about equity and parity across departments. I raise that question during committee. I have not seen a response yet, so to date I'm still concerned about that. Again, I'll be voting no on this piece of legislation in front of us, though I appreciate the sponsors hard work to try to broaden out more holistically how we are looking at retention to our city family generally and look forward to continuing those discussions with the Coalition for City Unions and Community as we think about the 2023 2024 budget. Morales. But you Council President. I will also be voting no on this. I do appreciate the hard work of the Chair of Public Safety Human Services. Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Councilmember Nelson. But I will be voting no. I feel like this bill tries to solve an issue without basis in the kind of well-founded information that was commissioned . The council issue is that we can't seem to retain officers. And as Councilmember Muscadet just said, this isn't a problem that's unique to Seattle, an experience that's happening across the country. And in fact, the department's own response to the statement of legislative intent or this council bill, council budget action was inconclusive on whether a hiring bonus had any impact on hiring numbers. And further, the impact of the hiring bonus, as has already been said, could cause deeper cultural problems in a department that is struggling with culture change. We know that employees are internally, either those who have been promoted internally or already in the job can also feel undervalued and underappreciated when their financial package that match what new police hires are receiving. We have to continue to make a fiscal and policy choices. We are still grappling with the impacts of COVID, and to offer this kind of bonus to one department really sends the wrong message to the rest of our city staff and doesn't really address the community's long term desire for accountability and culture change in the police department. There is need for culture change within the department. Lack of officers is a retention and management issue. The Recruitment and Retention Workshop found that sergeants are promoted based on test results with no real consideration given to whether they can actually manage people. OPA found a culture of insubordination when the State Department of Labor and Industries was unable to complete investigations around the masking issue. They were literally turned away at the door. And the Seattle Times reported on May 5th that officers routinely disobeyed direct orders from chieftains to wear masks and to observe social distancing protocols. So there is definitely a culture problem, and hiring bonuses is not going to solve that. It's not going to solve the management issue either. And there are the fiscal constraints that we're under and the fact that we hear regularly that we need data and evidence to support our funding decisions. I've seen no evidence that hiring bonuses will do anything to address our retention issues or to actually increase our hiring ability. And finally, there's the issue of public safety. If we really want my husband's phone, if we really want to increase public safety, there are better ways that we could spend four and a half million dollars could create at least one safe consumption site, which not only provides someone a place to dispose of needles that isn't on the streets. Something that we hear about often also pairs that with medical services that help people address addiction. We could build two tiny house villages. We could find a 14 permanent supportive housing units. We could cover the cost of groceries for 116 families of four living at 30% ami for a whole year. We could cover $30,000 in startup costs for 150 low income residents looking to start a small business. We could cover a year's worth of back rent for Seattle's for about 170 struggling renters. The point is that there are any number of ways to increase long term community safety for our neighbors. One time hiring bonuses, isn't it? So we've got every other department being asked to make 6% cuts. We're not sure why one department would have different expectations of what is expected from their department. And so, again, while I appreciate the hard work of sponsors and the executive, I'll be voting no on this bill. You know. So, Kessler Herbert, you want to close this out before we go to a vote? I wasn't going to say anything further. Oh, I saw. Your hand up. I've changed my mind. I apologize. I think the underlying budget concerns is expressed by both councilmembers Mosqueda and Morales. But I feel like I really have to correct the record by some of the last comments I heard. This is not. An ordinance that funds hiring bonuses for speed. This is an ordinance that directs. The Human Services Department to adjust its rules and that in a way that will allow multiple departments to offer to compensate. New employees for the relocation costs associated with their move to our city to work to serve the public. It was designed this way specifically in recognition of what we heard from the Human Resources Department as it relates specifically to the issues of morale are created for morale, issues that are created when you offer a traditional hiring bonus for one kind of employee but not another. This is intended to recognize that anybody who comes to work in our city to fill a position where we're having a difficult time hiring for that position, and that position is a highly needed position that we should we should compensate them for their relocation costs. This is not a traditional hiring bonus. Thank you. Okay with that, we are going to go to a vote. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales No. Councilmember Mosquera now notes, remember, Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. I council members want. No. Council. President Suarez. Yes. Six in favor. Three opposed. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. Madam Clerk. Lisa, fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Thank you. So we've done items eight and nine in reverse. And so now we're going to go to our favorite committee, transportation of sale of public utilities. I understand Councilor Peterson has items ten, 11, 12 and 13. So, Madam Clerk, will you please read item ten short title into the record?

A MOTION approving the Third Quarter 2016 Expenditures for Emergent Needs and Unanticipated Project Costs Summary Report prepared by the road services division in the department of transportation as required in the 2015/2016 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 53, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC_12072016_2016-0548

All right. We're going on to the next proposed motion, 2016 0548. There's the motion approving the third quarter 2016 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Provided Prepared by the Road Services Division. The Road Services Division. Thank you for being so patient and welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. These are the key accounts of staff. I will do this very quickly for you today. Given the time consideration of my staff, report for this item begins on page 97 of your packet. As you may remember, counsel included a proviso in the 20 1516 biennial biennial budget. It requires the executive to provide quarterly reports on expenditures from emergent needs and quick responsive projects. This is the last of those quarterly reports and would release approval of a motion would release $75,000 of the $525,000 expenditure restriction. The report before you today shows the transfer of a little bit over $3 million of appropriation authority from quick response to two slide repair projects to bridge design projects, one road repair and a pedestrian signal. Those projects are listed on page 98 of your packet. The report also shows four emergent needs. Transfers. Does appropriation of about $1.2 million to reconcile with adoption of the first omnibus that was to fund the snow and ice material storage budget. The report also shows transfer of $735,000 from emergent needs to reconcile some indirect cost rates for some specific projects. Those are listed on the executive's report on page 108 of your packet. Great. That completes my report, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate that we've gotten these reports all year long to make sure that we know what's happening with emergencies like slides. So we know about that. And I think this is very straightforward and I would be ready for a motion if somebody would be ready to put this before us. So move, Madam Chair. Thank you. We have before us motion 2016 0548. Are there any questions? The clerk please call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Remember Belushi? All right. Number DEMBOSKY. Speaker Number one council member got about $0.85. Member done. By. Councilmember Gossett County Councilmember Cole. McDermott. All right. Yeah, that's my girl. I am number one right here. Madam Chair, I am just, you know, I don't know. And Councilmember Goss said, excuse. Thank you. There was one item on the agenda left. And what we're going to do with that is to hold it until next year. But it is a review of all before that branch people leave. I want to tell you, I was at a meeting last night and a citizen came up to me and said we asked for some help from roads and they were out within two days to help me on this problem. And we expected it would take at least a month for them to respond to us. And we are so thrilled. So I just wanted you to know good things. Thank you. Here's the last one. Maybe on consent calendar and expedited. Okay. So on our last item here, these are the things that we covered this year. You can look it over. It's on page 13, 114. It has been a very busy year, and I thank you for all of your hard work.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and all necessary amendments including term extensions, with the Department of Homeland Security to receive and expend grant funding for the 2021 Port Security Grant Program, in an amount of $942,000, with a Port of Long Beach cost match of $314,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,256,000, for a period ending August 31, 2024; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund Group in the Fire Department by $756,000, and the Police Department by $500,000, offset by federal and Port of Long Beach grant funds. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05242022_22-0604

Thank you. Item 25, please. Item 25 A report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications. Fire and Police Recommendation to execute a contract with the Department of Homeland Security for the 2021 Port Security Grant program for a total amount not to exceed 1.2 million citywide. Emotion. They moved in second it. Is there any public comment on this? No public comment. We have a brief staff report. Oh. Yes. We can have a brief staff report from. Who's Commander Dowd? Oh. Deputy Chief LeBaron. Good evening, members of Council. Thank you for considering this item. Recommend the US Department of Homeland Security administers the Port Security Grant Program and prioritizes funding on infrastructure protection, and they reflect the DHS overall investment strategy in which two priorities have been paramount in risk based funding and regional security cooperation or Port Security Grant Program Finds support increased port wide risk management, enhanced domain awareness, training and exercise, and further capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices and other non-conventional weapons. The Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications Department administers the SGP grant for the city. The police and fire departments can both be awarded funding for activities and equipment, meeting grant focus areas. The city has been awarded SGP funds for many years since at least 28 and the Port of Long Beach has provided the 25% percent cost match for these funds for grant year 2021. The grant being accepted was which was the last the grant was accepted. DHS has approved the grant proposal submitted by the Police Department under the FY 21 Port Security Grant Program for a total grant award of $500,000. Inclusive of the cost match provided by the Port of Long Beach, the grant project will fund one project to support port security, equipment, maintenance and once again, Harbor Department has agreed to contribute the 25% cost match requirement. So there is no hit to the general fund. The total cost share required from the PD portion of the grant is $125,000, which will be transferred to PD as revenue. And the cost matches budgeted in the Port of Long Beach for a 23 security division operating budget. The grant performance period is for September 1st, 2021 to August 31st, 2024. This concludes the report. All right. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this? No public comment or public comment has been moved and seconded. Thank you for the report. In questions Hearing none, please vote. The motion is. Carried.

Recommendation to receive and file the Summary Report on Proposition H (FY's 2007 - 2013).

LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0676

Item 13. Communication from City Auditor Recommendation to receive and file the summary report on Proposition H for fiscal year 27 through 2013 code. It has been in motion and in the second. And with that, I'm going to turn this over to our city auditor, who is going to make some comments on the on the audit and her work on that. So thank you very much. Appreciate your time tonight. I just have a brief summary report to report to you this evening. I really appreciate your discussion earlier on the importance of public safety. This was a measure that was I have a little PowerPoint, I'll be moving along, but it wasn't supposed to be like little keyboard here. Madam Clerk, is there something for the auditor there? Okay. This was a measure that was passed in 2027. Four. For those of you that weren't here, maybe I can just give a little brief history. One of the first audits our office did was to review the oil production tax in Long Beach and doesn't really seem to be working. Okay. There we go. Thank you. And we found that the oil production tax was first established in 1990 here in Long Beach at $0.15 a barrel. When we reviewed it compared to other neighboring cities, we found that Long Beach was the lowest out of all the taxes. So we recommended to the council that it be increased by $0.25 per barrel to bring it in line with the neighboring cities. We collaborated with the council, with the mayor, with the oil production companies, and they agreed that $0.40 was fair and equitable. The council put that $0.25 increase on the ballot and allocated that to public safety. So I'm here tonight because seven years later we have information and data to show that this has been a consistent and reliable revenue stream and has benefited public safety greatly in the city of Long Beach. It was it was an overwhelming success as far as the vote. Over 70% of the vote of the people, the first time in the history of Long Beach that the tax increase had passed. And to report to you over the past seven years, the city of Long Beach has brought in $22 million through this oil production tax . It has spent $19 million on personnel staffing, 12 police officers, 11 firefighters over the past seven years to improve and strengthen public safety throughout the city. The additional $2.8 million was spent on fire, truck acquisition, retrofit technology uniforms and other safety needs. And the ordinance also required our office to perform an annual financial audit to ensure that the city is in fact receiving and collecting all the revenue due from the oil producers and that the money is spent as intended according to the code. So our office has agenda is that item for the September 16th consent calendar. I'll be happy to answer to any questions at this time. But I did want to just briefly report tonight that this is a really positive revenue stream for the city, and it has produced $3.5 million annually for public safety specifically. And I really want to thank the mayor and the City Council for their collaboration and for what a great benefit this is tangible benefits for our community in strengthening public safety, as well as thanking the police chief and the fire chief for identifying the most beneficial ways of protecting our city by our use of this money. So that's my. Report. Thank you. And thank you. I'll just let me just add briefly, just I know they speak for most just thank you for all your hard work on on all the issues, particularly this one. I think you've done a great job and it was widely written about in the press, which I know we all have had a chance to read. It was great to see that, you know, that your work and the work of the council got the type of real good, thoughtful coverage that it did. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I truly want to thank our city auntie, Mrs. Laura Dowd, you and her staff for that very, you know, informative report on Prop eight. You know what? While while I do appreciate the carryover funds and the interests that it attracts, I want to make sure that we are all supplying the police and the fire department with all the tools they need to continue to keep our city and street safe. And thank you very much, Mrs. Dowd. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. I also wanted to chime in and just say great work and thank you for showing this data. I think it really builds good faith with the voters to show that when they step out and make investments in our city, we do track it and we spend it the right way appropriately to provide the services that are much needed and they count on. So thank you for providing that transparency. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember O'Donnell. I just want to acknowledge the work of Brian Meneghini, my chief of staff, who actually led the ground effort on this campaign to get this passed. So that was how it was a collaboration, like you mentioned for sure. I just want to acknowledge him. Thank you. The people. Who actually run the campaign and do the do the. Groundwork don't often get acknowledged. So congratulations to him for helping get this passed as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ringa. I'm not sure if this update comes every year, but it certainly explains a lot of things for me in regards to how our moneys are spent with with the transfer of funds that go to it to to provide additional officers where police departments. I want to thank you for that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we have a motion on the floor if there's any public comment on the item. See none. Thanks again for the report. Members, please cast your vote. I think. Councilman Richardson. Motion carries nine zero. All right. Thank you. Now we're going to be going back to 1.15, which is it turned back to Vice Mayor Lowenthal, which is the first of the two final votes. And I believe that everyone has the recommendations as amended.

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending and restating the City of Long Beach Healthy Snack Food, Beverage and Vending Policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08182015_15-0815

Item number 28 report from Health and Human Services Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Amending and restating the City of Long Beach. Healthy snack food, beverage and vending policy citywide. Case staff. Do you want to give a staff report? We have Kelli Collopy, our Health and Human Services director. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the Council. The March 10th, 2015 meeting, the Council passed a motion to amend the current healthy snack food and beverage policy and the Healthy Beverage Policy. The motion expanded the existing snack policy that was previously focused only on youth to include all snacks served at city sponsored community meetings, ground breaking and ribbon cuttings. It also added to the vending policy that at least 50% of snacks sold in vending machines on city property will meet the nutritional standards. And 50% of beverages sold in vending machines on city property they're not accessible to public will meet nutritional standards. The policy for beverages and vending machines that are accessible to the public will remain at the same at 100% of healthy options. The policy before you combines the two previous healthy snack food and beverage policies and simplifies them. The nutrition standards for this policy are outlined in Exhibit A on page three and reflect the Federal Food, Nutrition and sustainability guidelines for concessions and vending operations and are consistent with the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The resolution allows for updating the policy to reflect revisions in the USDA and vending guidelines as they become available. It also requires a specific language to compliance to these standards be included in vending contracts and that by by 1201 2016, all vending machines meet Section 40 zero five of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires that total calorie content is displayed for each item. There are some exceptions to the nutritional standards, which include fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, including nut butters and peanut butter plant based spreads such as hummus, guacamole and pesto and low fat cheeses. It also focuses only on snacks and beverages, not food served as meals. It does not include city events that require special permit or city celebrations. It does not include donated food or food purchased by individuals. And it does not include during times of emergency is declared by the authorized city safety personnel. As you can see on pages four through nine of the Exhibit A, the list of snacks that fit the criteria is long, provides many appealing options. It's not exhaustive, but it provides a sample of snacks that meet the nutrition guidelines as outlined in the policy. We believe this policy is an important next step supporting health within our community, ensuring that all people visiting city property have access to healthy and nutritious options. Thank you. That concludes my report and I'm open for questions. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Austin. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you. Ms.. Culpepper, for your report and for bringing this back to the council. I also want to thank Council Member Richardson for his efforts on this. This this item as well. I have been working in close contact and with some members of the community on on this issue for some time , along with the community partners like the American Heart Association. And I am pleased to see this motion before us to this item before us. You know, Long Beach has long been a leader in promoting healthy choices in a number of settings. Since 2011, the City of Long Beach has required strongly nutritional standards for public spaces, vending machines and youth settings. Earlier this year, the Health Department gave a presentation on the origins of the City Health Healthy Snack Food, Beverage Vending Policy. The policy has been a success. The community members are satisfied by the selection of the healthy options. However, today we have an opportunity to really strengthen the nutritional standards to cover all see vending machines and food served at city public events. And for this reason, I like to introduce the motion for and support this motion. But I'd like to to amend it to actually include 100% sodium and 100% trans fat nutritional standards recommended by the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Health and Sustainability Guidelines for the Federal Concessions and Bidding Machines. I think it's very important that we do this to have a real policy that that that really addresses the health of our employees and those in the public, that that will come in contact with any machines and and events sponsored by the city of Long Beach. I would love to get a second on that amendment. Because that well Constable Richardson had seconded the original motion. And that. Is. It does so. So Councilman. So yeah. Well actually then you need to not second that's the motion that councilman is making. So a second the staff recommendation. It is a different. It's a different it's a different motion. So you should remove that motion. Councilman Okay. So I will. I'll go with the staff recommendation. We don't go forward with that, but I think we should definitely talk about enhancing the staff recommendation as well. I don't I don't know see any good reason why my colleague would would not support a stronger policy. But I'll leave it to him to explain that. Okay. So then so Councilman Austin, that you're just to be clear, so you're back to just making a motion on the staff recommendation, is that correct for right now? Okay. So can someone second that. Okay. The second on that. Councilman Richardson, you're cued up. Do you want to one offs or are you done or you want to do anything else? Well, I have a new seconder on a motion. Councilman Tharanga. And so I'm asking council member your angle would you second the motion to add the the include 100% sodium and 100% trans fat nutritional standards recommended by the USDA and the American Heart Association. Yeah. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Second category, Ranka, do you have any additional comments? I want to go on to the speakers list. I'll let my colleague speak. Summary Ranga, you're you're. You're the second on this motion. Did you want to make an additional comment? I mean, I agree that the amendment is an important one. We should also look at salt intake and and. Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So. So I'm a little disappointed just at the tone that this is taking. So first I'd like to ask Miss Colby, who led on this item, bringing this the City Council for Adoption, which council members signed on to that item? In the original Councilman Richardson. Was Councilmember Austin a member of that item? In this pattern in March or when it came to item. This item that prompted you to make this report. Councilman Richardson, you brought this to the table. I'm sorry. Councilman Richardson brought this to the table. The councilman out into office, worked very close, was working also very closely with the American Heart Association. And when this item came to city council in 2011. In 2011, which members of the City Council are still on the City Council today? I would I would think is probably Councilmember Lowenthal and Andrews are the only ones that were on the city council at that time. So traditionally when a concept comes to city council, we like to see those things from start to finish. And that means do the work in our community to include folks like the Coalition for Healthy North Long Beach, who's been really at the forefront of really determining and developing health policy in North Long Beach, but also citywide. I think it's not only is it disrespectful, but it's bad tact and not very politically astute to to step in on a motion like this, that should be a relatively positive thing. That should get relatively unanimous support at the city council. I would love to make our health policy stronger. We began in 2011 and it was significantly watered down. We took steps to make it stronger. We took additional steps last year to make it even stronger since then. And tonight I had a motion here to make it even further, even more strong, that I worked with the Coalition for Healthy North Long Beach and a number of people here. But I was I wasn't given that opportunity. So tonight I'm going to offer a substitute motion and to to go back to the original policy and to come back with some recommendations on how to make it stronger by taking a look at trans fat and some of the other recommendations from the American Heart Association. And that's my motion. Is there a second to the substitute? So I think, councilwoman. Councilman I think Councilwoman Gonzalez or Councilman Mongo Lowenthal OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal is the one that's in there. So that is there's a substitute motion by Councilmember Richardson to go with staff's recommendation and then to return with additional measures to make the to make it stronger. So that's the motion currently on the floor. Of a point of order, I guess, in terms of this is already an audience. Is that what it is? Yes. This is an this is this would be an update to the policy. Okay. So if the original motion is not adopted and we accept the the substitute motion that's proposed by Councilman Austin, it basically changes what we can't do. Councilman Councilor Richardson. It would it would update the policy and then it would return with additional amendments to that policy. At some point in the future, it would still update the policy. Okay. Is that correct? I think that's that's correct. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you want to speak to your second? I concur with Councilmember Richardson. This is something that started some time ago. I believe that it was Councilmember Neal and I either were the original sponsors of this, which does not mean, of course, that there is no opportunity for others to weigh in. So hopefully in the time that staff will take to come back with the item, the issues that Councilmember Austin has raised will be addressed and also the issues of working with the community. I do think every time something comes before the council, we do have an opportunity to make something better and hopefully that's what supporting this motion will do. Councilmember Richardson's motions make it better. Thank you. Councilman Andrews? Yes, Mayor. I'm sure that I was one of the original, you know, of this you know of this policy back in that time. Because I because I can say without a doubt, the policies has been great for our city. But I also tell my staff and kids that, you know, I teach that your your health is all you have. You know, and once it's gone, it's gone. And so if you have to do it what you can while you can still keep your body healthy. And this is definitely I'm in favor of this because the fact that this is what we're seeing every day is no doubt about it in our schools and even in our walk of life, you know, diabetes, high blood pressure, overweight. These are things that we really going to have to get ourselves more in line with because we don't you know, we're just running the risk of just losing a generation here. So I'm actually in favor of anything we can do to help, you know, make this even better. Thank you. First question, I want to back on the coolest that you have know. Okay. Councilman Austin. Yes. Yeah. I thought this would should be a pretty pretty much a no brainer in terms of the getting support from the council. The the substitute motion on the floor, I think, essentially seeks to do what the original motion will do. But as time and you know, in terms of I won't address the the comments made earlier about political correctness, I think this council is here and I think all every body up here is is committed to promoting promoting health and safety in our community. That is or should be our number one charge as it is a city council. I wasn't here in 2011, but I was here in 2012 before most of the members of this council. And no, I wasn't a part of the original motion and I wasn't on staff for anyone who brought this original motion forward. But it doesn't any way, in any way diminish my commitment to the health of our residents, the health of our employees, the health of our community as a whole. And so I'm committed to that. Diabetes is real. Hypertension is real. These are real factors that that that impact the our communities, particularly in the lower income areas where people have less access to quality food. And to the extent we as a city council can make a good decision tonight to improve this policy, but include the the amendment that put forth in the original motion. I encourage us to do that because it's the right thing to do. I don't think we should get into ego trips up here in terms of who brought what first and and protocol because protocol has been. Broken on many occasions in my my three plus years on this council. For the most part, we try to get it right. We try to work together to do the right thing. So the original motion put forth by myself and seconded by Councilmember Urunga, I think is the right motion. It addresses a healthy building policy and we move forward with including trans fats and sodium. Based on the standards recommended by our our national or our health, federal government and the American Heart Association. I love to hear public comment on this. Okay. That concludes Council on the cued up right now. So we're going to get a public comment so we can hear of members of the public. Please come forward. Come on. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. I'm really excited to be taking a look at amending the snack food and beverage policy. And I hope that we can come to a strong conclusion to make sure that the standards are as strong as it can be. My name is Violet Ruiz, and I'm the government relations director for the American Heart Association in Los Angeles County. And first, I would like to begin by thanking the leadership and the council members that we've been working with on this issue. I would like to thank Council Member Rex Richardson and Council Member Al Austin for your leadership in leading efforts to improve nutritional standards for snack beverage vending machines and food served at city and public events. The American Heart Association has worked with several community partners on improving nutritional standards for the past year, which include Long Beach Fresh Long Beach Alliance for Food and Fitness, Cambodian Association of America Building, Healthy Communities Center for Latino Community Health and Long Beach. Latinos in Action to name a Few. The American Heart Association is in strong support of the proposed changes to the city of Long Beach healthy snack, food, beverage and vending policy. While this is a step in the right direction, the American Heart Association is requesting to amend the policy so that all food served in Long Beach vending machines meet 100% of the sodium and trans fat nutritional standards recommended by the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Health and Sustainability Guidelines for Federal Concessions and Vending Machines. Diets high in sodium and trans fat are the leading contributing factors of heart disease and stroke. And to illustrate this issue, 77 million Americans have high blood pressure, which is the leading risk factor for death in American women, resulting in 200,000 deaths per year. Long Beach has the opportunity to continue being a leader in the region, state and nation by providing solutions in healthy food access as a means of public health prevention and health equity. Other cities have established strong vending standards, which include El Monte, Baldwin Park, Santa Clara and Pasadena, which are similar to Long Beach as it has a city run Department of Public Health, which is one of three in the entire state of California. And furthermore, Long Beach has the opportunity to really level the playing field for nutrition standards so that they are the same for youth, employees, residents and visitors. The American Heart Association respectfully request your support in amending the city of Long Beach food, beverage and vending policy to not only include the amendments from the Department of Health and Human Services, but also to include 100% sodium and trans fats standards to really make access to healthier options available to everyone in the city of Long Beach . Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And members of. Staff and members of Council. Huge. Thank you to Kelly Collopy and the Department of Health for continuing to be leading pioneers in health policies. And to council members Austin and Richardson for their leadership as well. My name is Tony D'Amico and I represent. Long Beach Fresh, and I'm also on the executive committee of the Long Beach Alliance for Food and Fitness and a member. Of the Building Healthy Communities. Neighborhoods Work Group. I stand. Here to support restating the city's healthy vending policy with the proposed change that the recommended guidelines for sodium and trans fats. Would be applied to all vending machines, not just 50%. So it's 100% of the standards applied to all. Of the machines. As a local food systems collaborative and an active member of the California Food Policy Council, Long Beach Fresh believes that our local government plays a critical. Role in tipping the scale toward healthy living, especially with nine in ten Americans eating too much sodium and 75% of that sodium coming from. Package and processed food. So I urge council to show a deeper commitment to preventing deadly illness by making the healthy choice the standard in Long Beach. And again, commend you for. Your efforts and stand today with the American Heart Association Building Healthy Communities, Long Beach, Long Beach Alliance for Food and Fitness and. Respectfully requesting. That you are vote for the. Proposed amendment by Al. Austin. Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor. City Council and staff. My name is Erica Bonia. I work at the Center for Latino Community Health at Cal State Long Beach, and I am also a resident of District seven. Thank you for the opportunity to just be able to share with you tonight. I am in strong support of amending and restating the city of Long Beach, healthy snack food, beverage and vending machine policy. As we know, there are many chronic conditions that affect our communities. Diabetes being one of them. And it's as we've seen, it's one of the leading causes of death here in Long Beach. So I respectfully request the amendment so that all food offered in Long Beach snack vending machines meets 100% of the sodium and 100% of the trans fat nutritional standards. And, of course, any amendments to further strengthen the policy. Thank you. Speaker. Good evening, Mayor. And the city council members and our staff. My name is Jan to you. I'm working with Cambodian Association America. I'm a program specialist and I live in the eighth District. And I would like to thank you, the council member, Al Austin and Council and Richard Richardson, for your leadership and your support in the strong support of the amendment of the city of Long Beach for healthy snack food, beverages and vending machine policy. I respectfully requested an amendment so that all the food offered in our Long Beach snack vending machines meet 100% of the sodium. 100% of the meat of the. The transfer nutritional standards to meet the federal guidelines. Thank you very much. And good night, Don. Thank you. Thank you for being so patient tonight. We're going to go and go back to the council and to a vote. I just want to restate the motion on the floor, which is to recommend to adopt the resolution amending and restating the Long Beach healthy food sack policy and to work with the community and come back for additional amendments to the council. This is a motion by Councilmember Richardson. And secondly, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Austin. Yes. And can you state the original motion? I would just ask that the the the council reject this this amendment or the substitute motion it seeks to actually accomplish what the original motion does. The original motion will accomplish that tonight and without delay. And so I think we send a strong message that we are serious about promoting healthy vending here in the city of Long Beach for and our vending machines and our in our our public events tonight. So let's let's let's reject the substitute motion and and support the original motion on the floor. So okay, so that was a restatement of the wisdom of the original motion. So we're right now we're on the substitute motion. And good. Gordon Cashman wants a counteroffer. And you restated the original version, correct? Okay. So I want to make sure that. So I take it please vote now on the subsidy motion by Richardson and Lowenthal. Motion carries five three motion carries. So the motion passes and the Health Department will work back with the community and come back for additional amendments. So, Madam Clerk, let's go ahead and go back to. Believe it will be now. Item 25. Yes. Thank you. Item number 25, report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt specifications and execute a contract with Worthington Ford for the purchase of 11 compressed natural gas field service trucks in an amount not to exceed 660,000 citywide.

A RESOLUTION requesting a plan to develop an “Infants at Work” pilot program for eligible City of Seattle employees and their infants.

SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_Res 31910

Bill passes and chair was sign it. Please read the first agenda item. The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Resolution 319 ten requesting a plan to develop an infant scent work pilot program for eligible city of Seattle employees and their infants. Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks, council colleagues and all of the folks who came to testify today. And over the last few months, as we've been putting this presentation together to bring forward for the city's consideration, as you heard, bringing children to work has become a growing trend, allowing parents and caretakers the ability to come back to work while having the bonding time that they need with their new child. Let me be very clear about something. This is about all genders and all family types. This is about making sure that parents and guardians can bring their children to work if they need to. And there's very positive reasons for this. The ability to bond, the ability to be around children. Making sure that we are both addressing the health benefits of having those kiddos around. And there's also an equity issue that we're trying to address here. The negative consequences of having the lack of childcare, the lack of access to childcare, and the lack of affordable childcare. So this resolution, this effort today really combines both the positive aspects of having time with your kiddo and addresses the real consequences of having lack of access to childcare. We'll continue to work on these issues as we celebrate that every family now has the ability to take 12 weeks of paid leave beginning in 2020. We know that many families will potentially not be able to take this full 12 weeks because it's not full pay in some cases. And we're very excited that our state is now leading the nation in the length of time that every parent and adoptive parent and folks who are getting a child through various ways will be able to take 12 weeks. But this is pales in comparison to what other countries offer six months, a year, two years of guaranteed paid time off and guaranteed income. So while we're happy about the ability to now have more families to be able to take leave, we also know that at the end of those 12 weeks, many families are faced with the impossible decision of whether or not they pay for childcare, leave the job market, and what to do with their kiddo. This resolution offers a solution to enforce that work resolution and ask the executive to consider with input from the community, including the Women's Commission, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Labor Standards, our City Unions, new parents and Guardians and the Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee to come up with a pilot strategy within six months that we can implement here at the City of Seattle. We know these programs are good for employees in workplaces. They reduce turnover, reduce stress for parents and guardians while increasing the health outcomes of kids by allowing for additional bonding time and breastfeeding and breastfeeding. The benefits go on. There's increased healthy brain development for the child, greater job satisfaction for the employee, and lower health care costs. And importantly, we don't talk about this often within that first 12 months when a parent is able to be with their infant. There is reduction in parental suicide and reduction in complications for the health of the parent. And this is also true for those who are adopting kiddos. There is increased life expectancy for kids when they're able to stay with their parents and have additional breastfeeding just feeding time and to be close to their parent or guardian. So I also want to be clear about another thing. This is not for me. This is not for me. This is for every employee here at the city of Seattle. I am lucky in that we have cobbled together various leave opportunities for the first year of our infant's life to come. This is about a long standing policy that we know to be a true and proven public health benefit when infants can come to work. It is good for the health of that baby. It is good for the health of the parent and guardian. And frankly, it's good for the health of the employer as well. So to anyone who's asking, this is absolutely about the greater good of Seattle's workforce. And in Seattle, we like to be pioneers. We like to have a plot ourselves for all the work that we've done on labor standards. But let's be real. We're actually catching up on this one. We're making up for lost time. We are not the first ones, as you've heard. There's at least 200 companies across the country with countless non-profits and for profit businesses, including municipalities like you heard from King County, Washington State Department of Health has already implemented this. And in King County, I was really inspired by the report that we received at the Board of Health, initiated by Councilmembers and Barofsky, to allow for people to bring their infants to work. Thanks again to Christina Logsdon and Elizabeth Evans from the King County Office of Councilmember Dombroski for their work to initiate a pilot at King County and their support for this resolution. The resolution largely tracks what King County has implemented, and there's three new additions that I'd like to call out, Mr. President, that I think are important. Please do. The first is that we're promoting equity across economic status and job classifications. So this resolution asks the question what alternative options exist for employees like bus drivers, firefighters, police officers, frontline folks who cannot bring their kiddo to work physically with them? Maybe there's a flexible schedule, childcare subsidies, additional paid time off, something like that to compensate for those individuals who work in somewhat dangerous situations. The second thing is we are going to ensure success with this. With this proposal, we've ensured success by asking for training programs for both participating staff and NONPARTICIPATING staff to ensure for successful programing . And as you've heard from Elizabeth Evans and Christina Logsdon, the presence of infants sometimes can actually be a boon for the entire workplace, not just for the infant and the parent. And then lastly, there's a racial equity and cultural competency component to this. We've asked for cultural and religious accommodations to be baked into the pilot. And this also recognizes what Christina and Elizabeth said, which is often it's women of color who have less life likelihood of having the longevity of breastfeeding, and that further complicates health outcomes. So the resolution is designed to ask the mayor to give us a pilot within the first six months sorry, between now and six months from now, we are hoping that the mayor will work with us and with the community at large to come up with both the financial needs, the policy framework and the training opportunities. And we look forward to implementing the strategy within a six month period. We're also going to be looking at training and alternative provisions as well as physical safety requests for kiddos and making sure that there's a successful workplace. And with that, I'd just like to thank the folks who helped to bring this resolution to you today. Protect 17 are union friends. Martin Luther King County Labor Council, who you heard from at Katie Jarrow, Civic Ventures, Moms Rising who testified. Police officers working in Washington, the Fair Work Center, Office of Labor Centers, Office of Civil Rights. And again, Councilmember Dombrowski. Special thanks to several in our office for coordinating with all of those stakeholders to bring this forward. And with that, Mr. President, I'm really excited about the resolution in front of you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Skeeter, Casper and Bagshaw. Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito, it would be just fine with me if you were doing this for Camilla. So you thank you. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that this is for the better. Good. And I do want to say thank you to Councilmember Dombrowski across the street, our good friend from public health. But also since we know and in the mayor's budget that she has indicated to us that you're my request to have a child care center in 2020, and city hall does not look like we're going to have the support that we had hoped for. But this is at least something to get us started. And I'm interested in knowing and I'm sure that we'll hear a lot more about this in the coming months. But whether or not there will be set aside rooms for people that want to go down, take their child if the child is fussy, but, you know, have computers set up places for them to continue work, having, you know, quieting their child and also separate breastfeeding rooms more than what we've got already. So I know that this is just a study, but I would really love to see if we can be really creative about this. So everybody has privacy when needed and the child can stay with a parent. Excellent. Thank you, Casper. And make sure you know the comments or questions before we vote on this resolution. And I want to just make a quick sort of personal comment. Thank you, Councilmember Muscat, for bringing this legislation forward. And for those that testified this today, one of our Legislative Department employees had a young son here visiting, and I think there was something going on around the afternoon that required him to be here. And I have to admit, it just it warms my heart just to be able to, because this employee still could do the job. They do it quite well, by the way. But I looked at this young boy and. And then I told my staff and I walked in, I had a chance to ride the elevator with them. I said, Well, that was me because my mother and father work for the city, both about 30 years apiece. And I was always down here in the library because that's where she worked. And it's city like with my father. And while there weren't official policies like this, they were just long term employees and they were younger then in their twenties and thirties. But I was welcomed and I don't think they had a lot of options. I think I was sort of stuck down here sometimes for appointments and whatnot, but I think that this kind of thing changed the culture to where we could say we want to be not just infant friendly, but children friendly. And and so I like where we're heading with this. I think we'll see the benefits of this kind of policy five, ten, 15 years down as cultures change in the workplace. So thank you for bringing this forward. Okay. There's no other soapboxes to get on. I'm going to move this. I move to adopt resolution 31910. Oh, thank you. Moved in second and any other comments those in favor of adopting the resolution 31910. Please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted chair will sign it. You're right. Please read the next agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract with Haaker Equipment Company, of La Verne, CA, for the purchase of 11 CNG-powered street sweepers, with related equipment and accessories, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Sourcewell (formerly the National Joint Powers Alliance), of Staples, MN, in an amount not to exceed $4,377,361, inclusive of taxes and fees; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a five-year lease-purchase agreement and related financing documents with Banc of America Public Capital Corp., of San Francisco, CA, for the financing of street sweepers, in an amount not to exceed $4,770,000, inclusive of capital purchase, interest, and fees. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03052019_19-0195

Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Sabrina motion carries. An actual mold item 35 with the clerk please reliably. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing city manager to execute a contract with Hacker Equipment Company for the purchase of 11 CNG powered street sweepers in an amount not to exceed 4,377,361 and execute a five year lease purchase agreement with Bank of America Public Capital Corp. for the financing of street sweepers in an amount not to exceed 4,770,000 citywide. Thank you. Wrote a public comment on this item. Restrictions like speaking to customers. Please. I'd like to get back. To have a go ahead. Would you, please? Sure. Dan Burton Barker, fleet manager. Thanks for watching. Good evening. Members of Council Vice Mayor. Street sweepers are used throughout Long Beach to maintain city streets. Fleet Services is recommending 11 of those sweepers for replacement as they age, considerably causing a rise in maintenance and operational costs as well as increased downtime that affects sweeping operations. The Environmental Services Bureau has performed extensive testing to verify the best sweepers for use in the city and has placed several air sweepers into service for use in a city where they're most effective. The Bureau has determined that the remainder of the sweeper fleet should be a mechanical broom sweeper for best maneuverability and sweeping quality. These 11 sweepers are updated versions of those used by the city since 2003 and are proven to provide the best service on the harder to sweep roads within Long Beach. The sweepers are equipped with compressed natural gas. Engines are part of the FAA 16 to 18 vehicle replacement plans and as mentioned, will be financed through the city's master lease agreement with Bank of America. This purchase was researched extensively, both to ensure specifications, meet the needs of the department and also to ensure the city is getting a competitive price. Given the urgency of replacing these sweepers, the alternative procurement use of the National Joint Powers Alliance, a recognized government cooperative purchasing agreement, will greatly help to reduce procurement time. That concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer your questions. Perhaps we lost it. Just quick question. How are the existing fleet powered type of fuel? I see that there's this is CNG. LNG, actually. Okay. So this is a cleaner. This is cleaner and less expensive. Perfect. Thank you so much. Councilman Ewing. For this report. Glad to see that we continue our award winning efforts to maintain a clean fleet using alternative fuels. Thank you. Congresswoman Pryce. I am excited about this opportunity. I do have a question. Do you know if these vehicles have GPS capability? They will be equipped with a GPS capability. Yes. OC more to come later. But we have an agenda item that might involve. Street sweepers with. GPS signals, which is a good thing. But we can discuss that another day at least. I know we have the technological capability. We look forward to it. We embrace technology and fleet. So I would add. Awesome answer. Thank you. I would add, Councilmember, that all of our street sweepers have what we call a zone R, so we're able to see where they are and where they've been and how they've done those things. We had that on a number of our city fleet. That's great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Councilor Richardson. Thank you. I support this. I think it's time that we get a newer fleet on the edge of our city up in the Hamilton neighborhood. If the street sweeper breaks down, it never makes it to that side of the the neighborhood. So there's plenty of times people say they didn't show up well because, you know, a lot of times they broke down. So hopefully this makes our system a lot more consistent and reliable. So I'm glad and happy to support this. Thank you, Councilmember Councilwoman. I have the same issue as Councilmember Richardson, except for my issue is a thursday-friday break down issue. I think that also the number of times we've had the challenges, because they get full and different things and then have to go back more often than they usually do. I really appreciate the research that went into this and I really appreciate the staff report and discussion about these a few months ago as they were coming down the pipe, because I think it was very helpful to the residents who have in the past put their greens in the gutter and now know that the street sweepers can handle that. And that's not what they're intended for. So thank you very much. And if you haven't or don't know a lot about our street sweepers, please go on YouTube. And there's a video about what we've learned about our street sweepers. Thank you very much. Next. Actually, any public comment on this saying that please cast your votes.

Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative; Adoption of Resolution Finding that a Majority Protest Does [Not] Exist, Directing a Property Owner Ballot Proceeding for the City’s 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee and Directing the City Manager to Vote “Yes” for City Owned Parcels; and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article IV to Chapter 18 to Establish the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee. (Public Works 351)

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7257

Okay. It's a public hearing to consider the proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative, adoption of a resolution finding that majority protest does not exist. Directing a property owner ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for the city owned parcels and introduction of ordinance . Amending the Algerian Civil Code by adding Article four to Chapter 18 to establish the water quality and flood protection fee. Thank you. And I think I start first. Okay. So to the audience that thinks this might seem scripted, it is there is a legal procedure and language. And I'm I'm not going to be too spontaneous here, but we will have a chance to hear from anyone interested. So good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for being here. The public hearing this evening is the conclusion of the notice and protest period for the 2019 water quality and flood protection fee process. Notices of this public hearing were sent out on August 14, which began the notice and protest period. This public hearing gives property owners and residents another opportunity to obtain additional information about the proposed fees and services and to provide any additional input or comments to the city and to lodge a written protest against the proposed fee. After the end of the public comment portion of this hearing hearing the protest period will close. The procedure for today's public hearing will be as follows. Number one, first, we will hear reports from city staff and consultants about the city's need for stormwater services and the proposed fees, ordinance and ballot proceeding. Two Next, we will open the public hearing so that the public can speak about this measure and ask questions. Three At the conclusion of the public comment period, there will be a final call for written protest to be submitted, and then the public hearing will be closed. The clerk will then tabulate and announce the total number of protests submitted and whether a majority protest exists. If there is no majority protest, the Council may adopt the resolution finding that there is no majority protest. Consider introduction of a stormwater fee ordinance and direct the city clerk to proceed with the balloting process. All protests must be in writing and must be submitted prior to the close of the public hearing written protest, which must contain your name, the address or parcel number of your property and a signature should be submitted to the city clerk. So as that you so Miss Zorba. And, um. And so now will the staff and the consultant now make their presentation? Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I am Liam Garland, Public Works Director and happy to be here tonight talking about one of the most significant items in my time here in the city of Alameda. Tonight, we're discussing the potential for Alameda to decide whether to adopt a water quality and flood protection fee. Tonight, what I'd like to do is walk through a slide that basically shows where we've been and looking at this issue where we are today and where we might be in the near term. And then talk a little bit about the scenario of moving forward versus not and finally, talk about the immediate steps in front of us tonight. If you look at the left side of this slide, you'll see the bottom part is cut off. Sorry about that. You'll see that the discussion about the mismatch between our existing stormwater fee, which has been flat for 15 years and the stormwater systems need for revenue. We first really started discussing that back in 2015. Since then, we've had two adopted capital budgets that highlighted the issue of that mismatch between our the revenue we're getting from our existing existing fee and those stormwater needs. We had a discussion in early 2018 in which we talked about city wide infrastructure needs, and these stormwater needs were part of that discussion. We came back in, I believe it was April of 2019, to approve a contract to get Jerry Bradshaw and SSCI started on the underlying fee study. It was at that of that council meeting, that council directed staff to explore two potential approaches for a stormwater fee. That all culminates on July 16th, 2019. So not too long ago, where council approved moving forward with a property related stormwater fee. Interestingly, on that same night of council had its first chance to really engage with the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan. And one of the most important near-term actions recommended in that Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, particularly on the adaptation side, was to fix the mismatch between the revenue, the existing revenue for our stormwater system and its needs. Out of that meeting per council's direction, we initiated the first step of a two step process to consider for Alameda to consider whether to adopt a new stormwater fee. That first step started with mailed notices to all property owners in the city of Alameda as of August 14th. That essentially opened up the process that we're closing today, and that is to have a written protest submitted. And if those written protest, a majority of property owners submit a written protest, then the city council cannot move forward on a ballot. Let me stop for a moment and just go back in time again, which is to talk about the remainder of August and September, where staff engaged with local community organizations to let folks know that this process was going on. Held two community meetings to further inform the public of posted online and in various social media about various aspects of the stormwater system. And now coming back to you tonight to hold the public hearing, should council decide to move forward with the balloting process for the second step of this process? Those ballots would go out on or about October 10th. So not too far from now they would be out and have to be delivered back to our city clerk by November 25th. Then they would be tabulated and the majority vote of those votes cast would win. So if there are more yes votes than no votes cast, then yes would win and vice versa. Those results would come back to City Council at the second meeting in December. And if Alameda did approve the fee, the that would be on Alameda property tax bill in November 2020. And that was a lot in terms of timeline. But it shares a little bit about where we've been, where we are and where we might be headed. If if Allen means do have the opportunity to to weigh in on the fee and the fee is successful. There are three main community outcomes. First, we're going to be able to continue a lot of the significant work we're doing to protect the Bay by removing trash and pollution from getting into the stormwater system and into the bay. So this is 200 inspections we do every year of construction sites and various businesses to make sure that they're implementing the best stormwater management practices possible. It's installing over 250 trash capture devices over the past several years that also require four times visits per year to clean those devices, to make sure that we're getting that trash out of the system and that they're not leading to flooding. It also, if Allen means you have the chance to support the fee and indeed do, it also means a more sustainable storm drain system where we have help to solve the mismatch between the existing revenue and those stormwater needs. It also means that public works can continue. It's 24 seven emergency response with our storm drain maintenance workers out before, during and after storms even in the middle of the night to make sure that storm drains are clear and that the 11 pump stations 126 miles of storm drain and 96 acres of lagoon are operating properly. And finally, our Allen means if if they do get the opportunity to support the fee, they'll be helping to protect property from flooding, especially given that the fee includes revenue dedicated to capital projects. And we know from the adoption of the last capital budget that $0 in stormwater funds went to stormwater capital projects. We also know that there's more than $30 million in high priority needs in our stormwater system and that it's especially important to be addressing those capital needs given sea level rise and climate change. What happens if Allen Medians don't have the opportunity to take action or have the opportunity and there's a majority of no votes? We don't know exactly what would happen in that instance, but we know there'll be some mixture of measures. Overall, the fund will be depleted. Our levels of service will be reduced. We'll have a more reactive program with longer response times. We'll be reducing our storm drain maintenance both before, during and after storms. There will be less street sweeping, and we'll continue the status quo of not having stormwater funds available for capital projects. You put all that together and that increases the risk of a catastrophic failure in our stormwater system. It also means that the city is less prepared to adapt to climate change and sea level rise. Finally, the next steps for tonight are obviously to hold the public hearing on the water quality and flood protection fee. Adopt a resolution to either of a majority protest or not. Further, I'm going to spend a minute on the third ball in bullet point here, which is to direct a property owner ballot proceeding and to direct the city manager to vote yes for city owned parcels as detailed in the staff report. There's about 111 parcels out at Alameda Point for which the fee free of charge would be around $320,000. We think about half of those fees will be passed on to our lessees out at Alameda Point. And then there's another 138 parcels in the rest of the city with total charges of about 50, almost $56,000. You might be wondering why it is that government parcels are charging a fee, and this is because it's a prop proposition to 18 compliant fee. There are no exemptions under the fee and those charges have to be have to be charged for government owned parcels versus private property owners. Finally, the last action considered for tonight and recommended by staff is to introduce the ordinance underlying the water quality and flood protection fee. This ordinance summarizes the administrative procedures for staff and this Council to, on a yearly basis, make sure we set the right fee, that we get it to council and then to the county to make it on the property rolls. With that, my report is finished. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. So, Councilor, at this time you can ask questions. Who's got a question? Councilmember Desai The CPI adjustment factor is set at 3%. A CPI adjustment factor for the fee is set at 3%. I'm wondering, is there any reason why we should differ from what the Prop 13 allowable 2% increase? I mean, what's the argument there? Well, first, I want to make sure I get clear information out to the public, which is that there is a cap on the annual adjustment of 3%. If the I think it's the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index is less than that. That is what that annual cost increase would be, but it's capped out at 3%. I'll just add that if you look at construction costs, they're escalating from year to year, well above the cost of the CPI. So it's important that we at least get up to that that 3% level. And the other questions, Council member Odie. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple quick questions. So you alluded to this in the staff report. The this is all going into the stormwater fund, right? You will there'll be a new closely related fund called the Clean Water and Flood Protection Fund. And all of these all the revenue and expenses will be tracked to that one fund. And then can you just remind us what the purpose of that fund is and why it's underfunded today? And you know what what we're going to see kind of going forward if this is approved. Sure. So the existing stormwater fee has been flat for more than 15 years because there was no cost escalator or no CPI increase that could be applied. So that's challenged, number one, with the fee. And then the other challenges with the fee was that fee was never designed to capture all of the capital improvements required of the stormwater system. And it's certainly given it was back in the early nineties when that fee was first contemplated, was not thinking about climate change and sea level rise, which we know are urgent issues. Thank you. And then two other quick questions. There was I read through the protests, and I think if you protest, does that mean you don't get to pay the fee? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear you say no. Okay. And then lastly, I heard you mentioned that we as the city are going to pass on some of that fee to tenants. If if that was a discussion we wanted to have as a council for property owners, we could do that. Right. You could not today. But we could have that discussion. You could? Yes, that's true. Let me make sure that I'm being as clear as I can, which is there's some confusion with the word pass on out. So I'm going to say back in a slightly different way, which is that what we've looked at is that a fee as applied to an apartment building would result on an average sized apartment building with an average number of units here in Alameda. And if that fee went from the landlord and was covered through rent increases, it would be 1/10 of 1% of an increase. That is well within the annual general adjustment that is provided for under the municipal code. Does that does that answer the question? Yes. Thank you. As other questions. Council members. I have a couple, Mr. Garland, and thank you for your presentation. I to read all the letters that the protest letters that were attached. There were a few letters in support, I will say. But of the the protest letters and I also attended part of the presentation you and staff did at Lydecker Park, which was as that very informative. So what is the continuing themes in a lot of the letters I read is was the question of why only property owners but not renters pay this fees since everyone will benefit from clean storm drains and protection from flooding and sea level rise. So can you answer that? So with a property related fees such as this, the way proposition to 18, it requires that property owners only be balloted to decide whether that fee can be applied to property owners. So it's by law that this form of fee can only be borne by property owners. Okay. And then the the fees that are collected, assuming this is approved, will go into a special fund. Can the city divert revenue from that fund for other other uses, say, to backfill the general fund if it gets low? No. So by law, all of the revenue and expense related to this proposed fee has to stay within that clean water and flood protection fund. It can't be moved by staff to another fund. It can't be moved by the council. Nor can the state or county or federal government appropriate those funds for a different purpose. Thank you. And finally, there's no sunset clause in this measure. Do you want to speak to that or would you please speak to that? Sure. So when we looked at the stormwater systems needs and we looked into the future, we didn't see the needs in the stormwater system diminishing over time. In fact, with sea level rise and climate change, the needs in the stormwater system are only going to grow. And so that is why there is not a sunset provision there. There is a protection, however, for property owners paying the fee, and that is because of Proposition 218. The Council is bound to only set the fee to recover revenue for the stormwater systems needs. So let's assume for a moment that I, your public works director, am wrong and that sea level rise and climate change are not going to be issues in decades to come. Well, then future councils will have the opportunity to lower the fee, which is permissible under proposition to 18, to make sure that that fee is lowered to the amount of needs that are within the system. So if the needs diminished, then the fee diminishes over time. I don't see that future, but that that is a possibility. Thank you, Mr. Grant. Other questions? Councilmember Vela. Mr. GARLAND. There have been in some of the protest filed, there was a reference to the requirement that the program fee expenses are fairly distributed among property owners. And a question about, um, you know, the definitions for multi-family residential. Could you speak? Sure. A little bit. Let me start dancer and I'm going to ask Jerry Bradshaw. And I think how those categorizations occur in and what happens if there's a question about whether or not it was properly categorized. Great. I'm going to start the answer, and then I'm gonna have Jerry Bradshaw come up and finish or amend the answer. So. Oh. Essentially, what the fee proposes is to take all of the stormwater systems revenue needs and then fairly apportion them out to property owners per their contribution to the stormwater system, meaning their properties are of rain runoff that enters into the stormwater system that essentially looks at different land uses and grouping up of those parcels to make certain assumptions about impervious surfaces, remember driveways, roofs, things like that that do not catch runoff and keep it on site, but instead tend to push it off into the stormwater system. That means that the calculus behind the fee is really looking at how to fairly apportion that across those different uses. It doesn't require that it's perfect. And in terms of looking at any particular parcel to make sure that the percent of impervious area for that parcel fits in with the land use, just that it be relatively close and not necessarily perfect. And with that, there's also another built in mechanism in case staff and our consultants get something wrong, which we don't think happened in this instance. But in case we do, there's a way to essentially protest your fees on an annual basis and have the substance of that protest. It's called the disputed fees provision. It's within the ordinance that's in front of you tonight so that we've got to look at the substance of that fee as applied to the parcel and can make changes if they're warranted. Jerry, would you like to add anything to that? Sure. Good evening to you. Introduce yourself and speak right into the microphone, please. Jerry Bracha with SCA Consulting Group. I am the engineer on this that design the fee study for you and thanks for having me up here in general. The the as Liam said, the the the the apportionment of this fee across the different parcels that based on the contribution to the system, unlike your water system, we can't measure how much water comes off. It's much like your garbage rates and your sewer rates. You have to model how much contribution the different properties make. And in doing that, we have to look at the data that's available to build this model, a way to administer it reasonably, so you don't have to redo it every year. So the typical way, in a pretty fair way, time tested, is to create different categories. And that's what you have in before you as the different categories of land use as we close to them on land uses because apartment buildings, commercial properties, offices, schools, those groups tend to have similar characteristics. There's obviously variations within a group, but we have to create some sort of group of buckets to put people in. So within each bucket, you may have some parcels that are up at the high end of impervious and some at the low end. Yet they all pay the same rate. So there's it's not perfect, but there is no perfect system. Even if you drill down on an individual parcel basis, there's going to be flaws and you just have to go back to a reasonableness argument on that. So based on that, that's sort of the basis of how we do this fee, just like you do your sewer fees and your garbage fees. Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Any for the council questions? Both Mary Knox White. Mr. Becerra. Mr. Garland. Mr. Garland. Just a clarification, because you started to say that that there's a protection built in to Prop 218 that says if you don't need the money, you can't collect it, essentially, correct? Yes. Okay. You then said that council future councils have the option if they want to reduce the. But if the end of the day, I think the protection you meant is I just for clarity sake, the protection you meant to put out there was that if the money is not needed, we can't collect it in the future. Yeah, that's true. In other words, if there's stormwater, the needs of that stormwater system for whatever reason, decline over time or diminished, then the revenue and the fee have got to diminish with it legally required. Thank you. Councilmember Desai. Question So what thought was given to doing basically a door tax approach? Because a concern that I have has to do with, say, you have a three story multifamily apartment, maybe 500 unit 400 unit, multifamily apartment, used to be called Harbor Isle Summerhill. So what consideration was given to a door tax approach as opposed to this impervious surface approach? Looks like Mr. Bradshaw. I didn't quite catch you. You said the vortex or. Door tax. On rain falls down and it falls on whatever down there on the ground. So if you look down the way the rain hits it, it doesn't matter. For buildings, one story tall or ten stories tall is the amount of impervious surface that projects up to the sky. So you can have apartment building with ten units that can sit on the same sized parcel with the same basic footprint as one that has 200 units that might be 15 stories tall. So based on that, if they're on the same half acre parcel, for instance, or three quarter of an acre parcel, they would pay the same fee. And usually it works out pretty, pretty fair, I think, within a class. So what you're saying then is on a per square foot basis, regardless of use, land use type, single family home or a multi-family home on a per square foot basis, per square foot of impervious surface basis, it should be relatively the same. Yeah. And actually, if, if you calculate this for the center point or the average point of each class and work it backwards, it comes out to two and three quarters cents per square foot. Guard loss of class. Now, we don't put that in the study because that's not the rate recharging. We're charging on a per parcel or per acre basis for convenience sake and for the sake of having these categories. But it does work out the same across all classes. It's just that the Summerhill Summer House apartments are just a larger impervious surface. So on a discrete basis, they're going to obviously pay much more than I will pay. Right? Okay. Any further questions before we go to public comment? Okay. So I now open the public hearing for the proposed stormwater fee. If you wish to speak, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the city clerk. Please be ready to speak as soon as the person before you has finished. You may only speak once during this hearing. All comments are limited to I believe it's going to be 3 minutes, because right now we have just five speakers. So listen for your name. Be ready to be on deck if you're the next speaker. And let's get started. That wasn't in the script. Allen Teague and Edward Payne are the first three. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members and staff, particularly Liam and his team. Messenger Last January, I expressed my hope that the city would set a bold course to protect Alameda from both the near and longer term effects of sea level rise. I am pleased to acknowledge that a great deal of progress has in fact been made. The resolution before you tonight will give us all a very real chance to be prepared for the near-term effects. Absent absent a majority protest, I urge you to vote for the resolution, and I thank you in advance for doing so. As for the longer term effects of sea level rise, please continue to work at the regional level and state level to ensure that the Bay Area has a plan and the ability to carry it out. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Medved. Our next speaker, Mr. T. I can help. And please give your anything to the clerk, not to individual council members. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I? Who is their next speaker? Oh, it was excellent. Oh, sir, you must be the one after Mr. Teague. First off, thank you so much for passing the proclamation and LGBTQ Heritage Month. Well, History Month. As I grew up gay did not exist, which makes it very difficult for you to determine who you are. Thank you. First off, I want to thank Gerry Bradshaw and Liam Garland for answering my many questions. Unfortunately, they didn't ask one, which was what were the alternative rate calculations that we could do? According to the California Constitution, the local government bears the burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that the cost of governmental activity are allocated on a parcel in a fair and reasonable relationship to the parcels burden on their activity. In this case, a parcels impact on the stormwater management system. Preponderance basically means based on convincing evidence and is probable truth or accuracy, not on the amount of evidence quality over quantity. We have two neighboring pilot parcels. One is a lot filled with a 30 plus unit apartment building, and the other is a large single family home , which was converted to five units. Both lots are just under half an acre. The apartment building has almost 100% imperviousness and drains most of its rainfall into the storm drains. The five unit property has a property, approximately 55% imperviousness, and the vast majority of the rainfall is absorbed into the ground as the imperviousness is separated by pervious material between the back and the front. Both of these parcels will pay the same. Under this parcel, this property proposition. The only difference between the five unit and a single family home, which would be two, three or two or four units, is that it was converted the carriage house into two units, making it five. So the footprints of the buildings are the same as it was in 1900. This is a single piece of evidence that exhibits an unfair and unreasonable, unreasonable relationship of the impact of one parcel on the stormwater system. What I gave you was showing you that 10% of the parcels is supposedly representing 58% of the costs of the stormwater system. 10% of the parcels of Alameda. 10% paying. 58%. On the surface, that does not sound like the actual impact. So I am in favor of funding this project. I want to pay my fair share. I am not asking for my property be excluded or changed specifically. I am looking for fair and reasonable allocation of the costs. I don't see how this Council can make that finding with the current distribution. I do want to fund this project, but I would like to do it in a fair and reasonable way. Thank you. Thank you. Next be. Here. Edward Payne. Then Ken Peterson. Then Ruth Abbe. Mr. Payne. Good evening. My name is Ed Payne. I was raised here in Alameda. I'm here speaking on behalf of six homeowners and members of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. The purpose of me being here tonight is to inform the council members of the hundreds or thousands of tons of debris that is dumped on our properties every year for years from a storm drain. I've got pictures here showing the damage to our property from this from the debris and sediment and rubbish and trash and pollutants that it keeps get dumped on to our property every year. Two surveys showed that in a period of 20 months, 252 tons of debris and trash has accumulated on our properties. Now, in all fairness, I've met with the director of Public Works yesterday morning and we discussed this. We showed them that one of the problems we have is a broken storm drain. Now, the reason I'm here tonight is just to simply inform the council members. And I my hope is, is that a solution can be obtained to stop this dumping of debris from this storm drain onto our properties. Where, you know, we're our properties are being destroyed and these are properties which we pay taxes on. And, you know, we have a right to we've paid a premium for our properties. And I think that it's fair that a solution be found. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Payne. And I, I I'm happy to hear you talking with the public works director and staff certainly has heard your comments that thank you and staff will follow up with you. Our next speaker, Ken Peterson. Mr. Peterson. I think that's me. My hearing isn't very good. So Ken Peterson. Thank you. I'm Ken Peterson. The problem with the stormwater and the effluent is certainly is a serious problem. One of the great concerns currently with the environment has to do with plastics and the amount of plastics that are going into the waterways, the oceans and so forth, and the effect on the life of these small particles that can be ingested and get into the food chain. I was surprised to note that the containment filters that are in the system as proposed use plastic, plastic which can break down and go on into the oceans just exactly what we don't want to happen. And so I'm wondering why they choose a plastic where they can use an organic alternative such as Excelsior or Raffia or some other material which can break down and can be digested by the wildlife. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Miss Abby. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I was a participant in the city's stakeholder process for the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, and I attended all of the meetings of that plan. I also attended all of the meetings of the proposed stormwater fee and the infrastructure proposal for that's before the city council tonight. This is really an essential part of the city's infrastructure to protect the city from the impacts of sea level rise. And I would urge the council to move forward with this ballot, to put this on to the property owners tonight. And we would look forward to a partnership with the city and getting the word out about the essential nature of this fee. It is so very important that our storm water system be able to carry away the the waters that come from the storm surge, from storms from into our storm drains and out to the bay. And and this will protect the city for years to come. If we want to ask state and regional agencies to support the city in our future, protecting ourselves from this lot sea level rise. We need to ensure that we are doing our fair share, that our residents, ratepayers, our property owners are paying for the systems that we need to maintain to protect our city. We can't expect state, regional or federal. Agencies to fund our problems if we are not ready to fund them ourselves. So I very much encourage the City Council to put this issue before the property owners and to support the passage of this ballot. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Ashby was our last speaker. Okay. So are there any other people who would like to speak on this issue? Are there any written communications to be read into the record? Are there any other communications the public wishes to make? At this time, I am issuing the last call for written protests for the proposed 2019 water quality and flood protection fee. Please turn in any written protest that you wish to have counted. Protests received after the close of the public hearing will not be counted. So do we have any protests that have been turned in in the course of the meeting? No. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. City council members. Are there any final questions you'd ask of staff before the city clerk tells us whether there has been a majority protest? Madam Mayor. Councilmember Bella into the microphone, there. Were some questions raised. About the public speakers. And did you wish Mr. Galan, Mr. Bradshaw, to go back to the microphone? Yes. Did you delegate Mr. Galan okay? Yeah, I didn't. Just be surprised to. Hear it. Thank you. Mr. T brought up some interesting points and handed out some materials. He mentioned that 10% of the parcels, the nonresidential portion of the city would pay about 58% of the revenue. And that's true. But what he didn't have he didn't have how many acres were in the nonresidential, because this is more of a per acre type of fee than a number of parcels. Obviously, the nonresidential parcels are oftentimes much larger. 49% of the acreage in town is nonresidential and they pay that 58%. So they do pay a little more than their fair share per acre. But as you might guess, apartments, shopping centers, things like that are much more covered in impervious surface than our residential parcels. So that kind of fits and that makes sense. What was that percentage again? 49% of the acres in town are in that category of nonresidential, and that's what fuels that 58% of the revenues. I also did a quick calculation. I mentioned earlier that the the core element is a two and three quarter cents per square foot of impervious surface that that is universal across all classes. We don't apply that to individual parcels because it's just unworkable to have a system where you do all 20,000 parcels and drill down on each one year after year, keep track of changes to the add their driveway, all these things, it's just unworkable. That's why we do it. A statistical approach that is more durable. But if you were to take that two and three quarter, since we calculate the 55% impervious area on his particular parcel would come out to a fee of about $316. Now he's being levied 436 So yeah, he's at the lower end, but it's much closer to the 436 that he's been levied within the $85 a year he would want to be in as a single family residence on a large parcel. I did a quick one for the parcel next door, which is paved over 34 units and he would pay under that drill down number about 546. Instead of the 436, he'd be in charge. So you see, there's there's, you know, pluses and minuses within each group. But those are both much closer to the $436 that they're each being charged than to the residential rate of $85, which is what it is for a large residential parcel. All right, thank you. And city attorney Mr. Shen. I just want to ask Mr. Bradshaw a question and possibly to correct the record. Mr. Bradshaw, you mentioned, as you were explaining to the council, the fair share calculation you have. I heard you say something to the effect of they do pay more than their fair share. I'm assuming that's a misstatement. I think what you meant to say. So they do pay their fair share no more, no less. Consistent with your calculations? Yes. That is based on the statistical approach that we take for the entire rate structure. Thank you. Okay, Miss Vella, were your questions answered? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Vice Mayor Knox. What? I think this is a question for Director Garland. My memory is that when we talked about the climate action and resiliency plan, that the stormwater system and I don't remember, but I believe the stormwater system is kind of the first system in this. City that is going to be impacted and that we do not have the funding for this. That's right. So beyond just taking care of maintaining and running the existing system. This fee is going to be needed in order to address that issue and and others. That's right. And so there's two components to that. One is, with climate change, we're going to see more frequent and more intense storms. And that means our stormwater system in its capacity is just going to have to increase. And the second portion is that our perimeter is going to have to deal with sea level rise and those for those perimeter improvements. This proposed fee is a funding source. Okay. Thank you. And then my second question is more of a leading question. There's 20,500 spots. There is there is a talking point out there that somehow that we have used property the city has chosen to 18 method because the city gets to vote on its parcels and somehow that's going to have a huge impact on the outcome of this. But I believe the staff report says there are 138 parcels that the city controls that we will be discussing tonight, but that there's 20,590 or 20,600 total parcels. So it's that's less than a half percent. So I think that's correct. Looking for a yes. Okay. Question and Councilmember de SAC. So my understanding is that part of this will will help cover the costs of fixing the lagoons. Isn't that a cost that's borne by the homeowners on the south side of the lagoons right now? Let me explain. So the for both our South Shore lagoons and for the lagoons out on Bay Farm Island, there are maintenance agreements that involve both the affected homeowners associations and the city. And those maintenance agreements delineate difference maintenance responsibilities that get into a level of detail of, hey, if you're doing X maintenance, the city pays 30% . Homeowner's association plays 70%. And with different maintenance activities, there's different percentages that apply. And what not everybody knows is that those systems, those lagoons are a part of our stormwater system. That is where stormwater often goes, settles before it gets to the bay. And so the answer is yes that that this proposed fee could help fund some of that maintenance and capital work around the lagoons and that those adjacent homeowner's associations would still be responsible for their portion under those maintenance agreements. But the city is also kicking in as a whole, so it's lessening the south side of the lagoons. The residents who live on the south end of the lagoons, they're going to have to. They're going to. There's contribution will could potentially lessen because the city, if this passes, would be kicking in more. No, I'm not aware of that that the whether this fee is approved by Alameda INS or not will not change the portion which that the adjacent homeowners association is responsible under the current maintenance agreement. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any further questions by council? All right. Um. So, um. Okay. So we've asked our final questions. Can the clerk tell us the total number of protests and whether there is a majority protest? There are 20,578 parcels affected by the proposed stormwater fee. Therefore, to achieve a majority protest, we would need to have 10,290 protests after considering the protest submitted prior to a public hearing. And there were none submitted tonight. There are a total of 64 protests. Therefore, there is not a majority in the Council. May consider the resolution and fee ordinance. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the resolution stating that a majority protest does not exist? Directing a property related ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for city owned parcels and to introduce the ordinance establishing the water quality and flood protection fee. So moved. Back and. I have a motion and a second all in favor. I opposed abstained. The motion passes all of the motions passed unanimously. Thank you very much, everyone, for being here. And I would like to just call a quick ten minute break before we go into our next item. So it is almost 835. We will start again at 845. We're moving along really well. So everybody be back on time. I'll see you then. Thank you. Morning. I a. Call. There's brownies and cookies back. Okay. Si. Si, si. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, are you driving? Like I said. We are ready to go. All right. If I could ask everyone to take your places, please. Um, could I ask everyone to be seated or to take your conversation out to the hall? Those in the aisle? Could I ask you to sit down? Thank you. Okay. We said we'd start at 845. It's 845. We are moving on to item six C.

Recommendation to request Economic Development Commission to provide recommendations to the City Council and the City Manager on matters including the city permitting process, the long range property management plan, sales tax leakage and property development projects including the Civic Center and Douglas Park Projects in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.36.030.

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0416

Item nine. Item nine Communication for Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to request the Economic Development Commission to provide recommendations on matters including the city permitting process. A long range property management plan, sales tax leakage and property development projects, including the Civic Center and Douglas Park projects. There's been a motion and a second attorney public comment on the item. Seeing none before we cast their votes. I note that the new chairman of the commission, Frank Cullen, is up there. So, Frank, good to see you. Thank you for serving. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero. Item number. I'm sorry. Actually, we're going to hear there's a third commission item, but it's actually under new business, I think. And we're just going to move that since they're all part of the same thing. So can we hear item? I believe it's 19.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, consider the appeal by Barbara O’Neill, and uphold the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission to deny the Fee Waiver Request for the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance’s Step Forward For a Cure Walk (Permit No. 8213). (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02212017_17-0107

Councilman Pearce. Motion carries. Thank you. I believe the next item is 14 hearing. Item two. Okay. Item two. Item two requires an oath. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Consider the appeal by Barbara O'Neill and uphold the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission to deny the fee waiver request for the Tuberculosis Alliance. Step forward for the current walk cure. Walk citywide. Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. Oh, you have an oath. Is there an oath here? Yes. Okay. Let's have you. 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. And since this is a hearing, we the order is we go to the staff presentation next. So, City Manager West. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. The staff report for this will be given by Marie Knight, our director of Parks Rec, and Maureen. The mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, December 15th, 2016, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to deny the feed fee waiver request for Barbara O'Neill on behalf of the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance for a fundraising walk to be held in El Dorado Regional Park, the Golden Grove, in May of 2017, pursuant to Section 2.54.010 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Ms. O'Neill is appealing the decision of the Commission to deny the waiver of the applied fees. The permitted activity is a fundraising walk to be held in El Dorado East Regional Park. The fees collected and subject to this appeal include $595 in facility rental fees and a $30 permit fee. The Commission determined that there was not sufficient benefit from the proposed activity directly to the Long Beach community to warrant the waiver of the fees. The Commission believes that this action was made pursuant to the adopted fee waiver policy and in the best interest of the residents of Long Beach. The Commission vote to deny the request to waive the fees was unanimous. Under Section 902 of the City Charter, the Parks and Recreation Commission has the power and duty to establish fees for public recreational programs and for the use of public parks and recreation facilities, and have, since 2011 used a utilize fee waiver policy when evaluating the waiver requests. Ms.. O'Neill is the appellant and the representative of the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance. I do not believe she is here any longer this evening. I believe she did leave earlier this evening, and I believe she left a notice with the city clerk when she left. And so with no testimony, the council may, with a two thirds majority, decide to affirm, modify or overrule the action of the commission. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Is there an appellant here that would like to speak? Okay. Seeing none. We'll go back. Is there anything additional on the staff site? No. Vice Mayor, thank you. Okay. So at that point, at this point, we'll go open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this hearing? Seeing none. We will close the hearing and bring it back behind the rail. Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. I appreciate the hard work of our commissioners. It is a tough job that they have before them. They took this waiver very seriously and they stuck to the policy and I'm very supportive of them doing that. Our parks are a treasure and an opportunity and they are applying the rules as this council has guided them. So I appreciate their hard work. It is always difficult to say no to anyone, especially a nonprofit that's out there doing great work that we appreciate. But there are costs of doing business in the city, and it is important that we maintain our parks with those fees and we appreciate their work. I hope the Council will support the Commission's decision. Thank you. So it's been moved and seconded and we've already had public comments from members. Please cast your vote.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any subsequent amendments, contract renewals or extensions, with the County of Los Angeles, for a contract term effective June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, with an option to extend the contract for four additional one-year terms through June 30, 2022; Accept funding in the amount of $898,411, to provide bioterrorism preparedness and public health infrastructure development, for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund (SR 130) in the Department of Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $91,531, offset by reimbursement funding. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09122017_17-0787

Thank you. We will move politely and delightfully on to item number 19. Item 19 is a report from Health and Human Services, a recommendation to execute an agreement with the County of Los Angeles for a contract term effective June 1st, 2017 to June 30th, 2018, and accept funding in the amount of 898,000 to provide bioterrorism preparedness and public health infrastructure development citywide. Thank you. And this is a great item. Councilman Austin, would you like to speak to it? No, but I'd like to get a staff report. All right, let's have a staff report. Mr. West. So Mayor council members, this is a county grant that we getting to help us with funding in the amount of $890,000 to provide bioterrorism preparedness and public health infrastructure development. The additional allotments for fiscal year 1718 will be used to build on these efforts, strengthening the city's capacity under the core public health preparedness capabilities established by the CDC, including community preparedness, emergency operations coordination, emergency public information and warning, emergency information sharing and mass care, medical countermeasures, dispensing medical material, management and distribution. And we recommend approval. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for reading that back. Mr. City Manager. But a fantastic staff report. This is for the public benefit to get the past staff report we all have in front of us. And I think it's a great item and I encourage us to support it as well. Thank you. Tells me Ranga, as a former employee with the Department of Health and Human Services, I'm very proud of the services that they provide and the grant that they go after to make sure that we have that we are prepared if in the event of any major catastrophe. Thank you. I think probably comment on this item. Very good. The way that the phrase it captured my attention was bioterrorism. On hearing that and my sense is what we should do is take the U.S. flag, turn it upside down and fly it. This city can't even deal with normal day to day crime, let alone bio terrorism. That came that was self-evident a few weeks ago. And the good Councilwoman Pryce had the city staff present their views relative to budgets in policing and so forth, and it was clearly evident to any reason to mind. That the our police department now. It's a classic case of denial of the first order. It's not that they don't know. They don't know. They don't know. They cannot even control simple crime in this city. They cannot clueless as to the problems with the MTA. Period. How in God's name are they going to deal with bioterrorism? This turns to the argument into the case. For asking for before it's forced upon you, a federal master to oversee the city's, oversee the city and the police department until such time as it gets itself squared away. Period. We're a sitting target. For any of biotech, for anybody interested in that type of product, all they have to do is look at this functionality. Other police department. And too often too many members of this council. Period. I'm very serious on this. Step up to the plate. Request a federal master to guide you through and to show you the things that you don't know. You don't know. Thank you. Thank you. I see one additional person in line. Two additional people in line. Speaker's list is closed. I can't let that go. Thank you. My name is Karen Whiteside and I'm a resident of the First District. And as someone who has gone through the training and gone to training sessions at the Emergency Preparedness Center, I can totally say that the previous speaker does not know what he's talking about. This city is incredibly prepared. And one of the reasons that the building I live in, a 200 unit, senior building, low income, and one of the reasons that we were able to survive without serious injury or discomfort was because seven of our members had gone through the training right before the power outage. We were able to respond and take care of all the needs of the tenants in our building. And that's just one small example of the services that the city provides. Jay Kaplan, who coordinates for the fire department, and David Ashman, the staff. Reggie Harrison, they all do an amazing job to help our community be prepared. And there's a safety fair that they put together the last couple of years that's incredibly valuable in terms of connecting with resources. So I think our city is actually more prepared. And actually I went through training in the city of L.A. at one point in time, too, and the training that Long Beach offers is better than L.A.. So I feel. Comfortable. Thank you for your time. All right. So, Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the Long Beach Unified School District, to reimburse the City of Long Beach $70,000 in costs for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine to provide staffing and other services to conduct a ten-week summer swim program at Belmont Plaza Temporary Pool, Silverado Pool, Cabrillo High School Pool, Jordan High School Pool, Millikan High School Pool, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Pool, from June 18, 2018 through August 26, 2018; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) by $40,834, and in the Tidelands Operations Fund (TF 401) by $9,166 in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR). (Districts 3,5,6,7,9)

LongBeachCC_06122018_18-0473

Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. Okay, we're doing the two parks items, please. 12 Please report from Parks Recreation and Marine recommendation to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Long Beach Unified School District to reimburse City of Long Beach $70,000 in costs to provide staffing and other services to conduct ten week summer swim programs. District three, five, six, seven and nine. Before we start, just an announcer from comes from around us. I'd like to request what's happened. 12 Approval from the consent count. I worked at the school district and I will be because of myself from this discussion. And we put that to thank and actually councilman, we pull out of 12. So you can vote on this. It'll be one where we bring 12 up. Okay. Okay. This is 12, as it were. I'm sorry you. Said that as well. He's right. Just one. Well. Yeah, you're right. You're right. This is 12. County public comment on 12. Nope. Please, Mr. Goodyear, please calm down. My comments also apply to the other item dealing with pool and swimming. And it goes to the issue of, as I mentioned before, particularly when some people come up and point out and try to stop a roadblock, put roadblocks in the way of the improved the new Belmont pool activity going forward. And some uninformed people point out that their claim that there is no other, that people have no other place to swim, etc., etc., and that we need the city needs a lot of additional pools. The fact is, we do have, as this points out, this city has an ample supply of pools. And there is nobody, to my knowledge and I it might be a limited. But if there's anybody that doubts that and needs additional pools, funding is available through the 1984 grant. From the Olympic Fund. And if there are any residents in this city that do not feel that their neighborhood is adequately served by such facilities, by pools , all you have to do is get your act together and apply for the money and you will get that money. Period. You're going to have a pool in your neighborhood. But the records show that this city has an ample supply, in my view, of those pools. And if transportation is an issue, which it might be in some areas, there are paradigms that can be established where they will fund the transportation to those pools. Thank you. Please cast your votes.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving (i) the use of an amount not to exceed $45,000,000 of Private Activity Bond Volume Cap Allocation for the purpose of making a mortgage credit certificate election; and (ii) the MCC Program Administration Agreement and the MCC Program Guidelines. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the use of approximately $45,000,000 of private activity bond volume cap allocation for Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) and approves the Program Administrator Agreement and the Program Summary and Guidelines for the 2015 MCC Program to provide qualified first-time homebuyers a federal tax credit of up to $2,000 per year. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-7-14.

DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0850

. We've talked a lot about affordable housing in these chambers, and we talk a lot about our most vulnerable residents are homeless and are low income residents. But we also have, you know, expressed our concern for middle income residents who can't afford to stay in Denver. This is one of those programs that is for those middle income, moderate income families who are interested in becoming homeowners. And so I just wanted to take a moment to make the public aware of what this is. The mortgage credit certificate basically allows you to get a credit on your federal taxes up to 30% of the interest that you spent in a year. So everybody across the United States, under current rules, gets to deduct interest payments from their income. It lowers your income and therefore lowers your tax liability. This program allows you dollar for dollar to deduct from your actual tax payment. So if you owe the IRS $500 and you are going to get, you know, a $100 credit from your interest payment, you get to take that off what you owe the IRS. So it's a really great program for helping to make homeownership work. Whether you put that 100 bucks back into a home repair or just making the next mortgage payment. So I wanted to just make sure folks know they can find out about it. On Denver Gov Dawgs search for mortgage credit certificate and it is mostly for home first time homebuyers, although you can also receive it if you're in a targeted area that's a little bit distressed in our city or for some veterans. And the income limits are are really for those middle income families all the way up to $95,000 a year for two to adult household. So it really does help folks in that bracket buy homes in Denver. And it's actually out of funds right now. So we're really, really thanking my colleagues for their anticipated vote in support of this to keep helping homeowners buy homes in Denver. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Canete. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, can you tidy up the next one, which I believe was 828, called out by Councilwoman Fox and Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this? I would like to put on the floor for a vote, and it is the same thing as 867. So if you could put both of those together. Certainly, Councilman Ortega, we make the motion for us this evening. I'd be happy to. Could you put 828 and 867 on them for final consideration and do pass in a block on the floor.

Adoption of Resolution Declaring the City’s Intention to Revise the Sewer Service Charge and Establish Procedures for Accepting Protests Pursuant to Article XIID, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution Regarding Property-Related Fees and Charges. (Public Works 602)

AlamedaCC_02172015_2015-1247

Adoption resolution declaring the city's intention to revise the sewer service charge and establish procedures for accepting protests pursuant to Article x i d of Section six a of the California Constitution regarding property related fees and charges. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. City Staff. My name is Aaron Smith. I serve as the city's public works coordinator. Before it tonight is adoption of a resolution to set council's intent to raise the city sewer service charge, according to the procedures set forth in California's Proposition 218. Over the last few months, the city has engaged with Bartle and Wells Associates to conduct a comprehensive review of our sewer fund bottles and bottling wells as a local public finance and consulting firm. They have nearly 50 years experience guiding public agencies in California. The results of their findings are included in Exhibit one to the agenda item, the Sewer Rate Study and Alison Lajovic of Bartle and Wells will actually be presenting a summary of those findings this evening. One last note before Allison's presentation for clarity. The resolution tonight is not authorizing the increase of the super serious charge. It's authorizing city staff to move forward in sending written notice to Alameda property owners announcing the proposed rate increase and the public hearing that's scheduled for April 28th. The resolution tonight also establishes the submission and tabulation of protests for that public hearing. The city council does have the authority to approve the increase in rate subsequent to the public hearing, assuming that there's not a majority protest. So I'll be available for any questions. Following Alison's presentation, I hope that she'll be able to provide you with the content you're seeking. I can answer any programmatic questions afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Erin. Okay. So the bottom line is that the city of Alameda is under an EPA consent decree. So that's the Environmental Protection Agency consent decree to conduct sewer repairs and replacements and to have funding available for that. Sewer rates and charges must increase. And if funding is not available, sewer rates are not adequate to make those replacements of the sewer system. The city will face fines, civil liabilities and the potential for sewer overflows. So that is why we are here today. No. Yeah. Um. Yes, please. Oh, thank you. Okay. So the city owns and operates a sewer collection system, so that includes pipelines and pump stations that collect and convey wastewater flow to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, regional treatment facilities. So today we're just focusing on almeida's sewer pipelines and pump stations and East Bay Mudd's regional treatment facilities are totally separate from this rate study. So the city has already accomplished a lot of work in upgrading the sewer system. Continue. You've replaced a good number of miles of pipeline, reduce your sewer overflows. But there's a lot more work that's mandated, legally mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Three miles of sewer pipeline per year. Pump station replacements and condition assessments. And to fund this significant amount of work, the city relies on sewer rates and charges paid by the residents of this community. And what I found was that the city of Alameda, its current rates and charges are actually low to moderate for the East Bay. So this chart shows the average single family residential monthly sewer bill and Almeida's sewer bill is $23.23 per month, which is significantly lower than Oakland, Albany and Piedmont. And so Berkeley and City are actually lower than City of Berkeley or city of Alameda right now. But siege and El Serino has already adopted rate increases. And City of Berkeley is actually considering a 25% increases potentially that high. So Alameda is is well priced in this area for sewer service. Okay. So you the city last increased rates in 2010, there was a 14%, 14%, 14% and then inflationary cost increases thereafter. And the city also issued sewer bonds in 2012. And those sewer bonds are municipal debt that allows you to fund large repair and replacement projects. Those 14.7 million in projects and we conducted a financial plan for the sewer program as part of our analysis. And we are spending down the sewer bond proceeds first. And as a second priority, we're spending down available cash reserves. So those are past sewer rates and charges that have built up in a fund over time. But over the longer term, we propose to increase the sewer rates by 3% annually, and that's roughly equal to the rate of inflation. So I did some historical research. The Consumer Price Index has averaged around 3%. Pipeline replacement costs are increasing because all the other local agencies are redoing their sewers as well. So it's really on pace with inflation. And those cost increases are needed to fund your EPA consent decree mandated items to keep up with inflation and promote long term financial stability for the Superfund. And the good news is 3%. Equals $0.70 per month. It's only $0.70 increase per month for the average single family residential customer. And so this charges illustrates that the majority of the service base in Alameda is single family and multi-family residential customers. And this chart illustrates the proposed rates comparison to the current rates. So 3% annually for five years, that's the proposed rate of increase and $0.70 per month increase for the first year. And then $0.72, $0.74, 76, 78. And U.S. multifamily. Residential customers pay slightly less. They release less sewer flow on average, so they pay proportionately less. And then commercial customers have a minimum charge and then a flow charge if they release more sewer flow. Thank you. And so the bottom line is, even with the proposed increases, Alameda sewer rates and charges will be very comparable to all the other East Bay municipal utility district feeder sanitation agencies. So there's not even a change in ranking there with the proposed increases. Alameda is proposed to stay between berkeley and Oakland. So as Erin described, the next steps will be to authorize the Proposition 218 process. That's the legal statute that governs how sewer rates can be implemented in California. We would develop and mail a notice to all impacted property owners, and they would have the opportunity to protest the proposed rates. They would also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing regarding the rates. And if there is a majority protest, then the rates could not be implemented. So those are the conclusions of my study and I'm open to questions. Member Ashcraft Oh, I was just, I'm really going to make a comment because Councilmember Desai and I served on the previous council. We lived through the, the lawsuit and the consent decree and all that. So I am fully aware of the need to do this and ready to move forward. But thank you both to Ms.. Smith and to you for a nice presentations. This. We don't have any speaker steps. So at this point, council, you could do both questions and comments. Thank you. Members, I guess. Thank you. I just looked up my property tax bill to find out my sewer city sewer rates. And so my annual city sewer is 200 7876, which is basically 23.23. As you would indicate on the month end. But the important thing, though, for the public, though, it's really while we're we're talking things on a monthly basis, the 23.23, it's really the annual rate because we're multiplying it by 12. So so I'm paying 278 and then I will subsequently pay 280 795. But I think the key thing, though, and I think it's important. Is that, you know, by increasing it by 3%, as you indicate there. I think 3% is normal inflation, even though right now we're in an extremely low inflation period. But I think 3% is a reasonable rate. So technically, really not even ethnically actually increased. We're not increasing it in real inflation adjusted dollars. We're just it's the same money as increasing it. So we're always paying 278, but it's 278 expressed in future dollars. Right. So. I don't tell anyone that. So, yeah. As a council member, as he Ashcraft said, this is an important decision that we have to that we've made. And, you know, when I look at the rate at which we're increasing it, it's quite reasonable. We are right. I think most people right now are paying 278 or $23 a month, however you want to say it. And as we increase it from one year to the next using a 3% factor, I mean, that's a reasonable increase. So I want to thank you for bringing this. And I. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But I'm really. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's a quick question on the process and then another one on the sewer system overview. So. The number was like 19,500. So a majority of those 19,500 have to protest in order for this not to go into effect. Correct? 50% plus one. Okay. And then on this, this may be getting into the into the plan. And I apologize. I'm doing that. But so we are the hundred 28 miles minus the 13 that we've already replaced. I mean, how many miles are we going to replace with this new. This new plan and over how long of a time period. Was only 13 miles. In the last five years, the city has replaced probably about somewhere between 35 and 38% of its from original installation. The consent decree requires approximately three miles per year for the next 23 years. Okay, so it's a 23 year project. And this is this is on the property tax bill. It's not like what they do in Oakland where they slap it on the East Bay mud bill. It's stuff. It's dedicated sewer fund. We collect it through the county tax roll, but it's not a tax, but we collect it through county tax rules. So it's two and two payments, two installments per year. And then on the on the plan for the the 23 years, are we going to see that at a future meeting or. Yeah. So the city's near completion of what we're calling a sewer master plan. So we've conditioned assessed our entire system and we've ranked each pipes, essentially assigned a risk score that's based on the consequence and likelihood of failure. We'll be able to lay out which pipes are going to be replaced when during those next 23 years and then be able to coordinate other utility construction projects. Okay. I'll save my questions on that till I. Can elaborate on that. Bob on Public Works Director, essentially, we have to take. It and I'm sorry to interrupt. We have to do 2.6 miles per the consent decree. So the program is really three miles of sewer every single year for the next 23 years that we once we get the condition assessment, the finish up our CCTV, then we're going to rank the pipes well square the pipes. Leaving aside the progress and where we're going to hit first in the primary areas, that's the meat of the consent decree. There's some other ancillary things, but that's really the meat of the thing as far as the work that we have to do, because we transferred the private sewer or lateral ordinance over to the state. So the key is the three miles here. I just want to remind council I take every opportunity to remind everybody about this. The sewers in the city of Alameda are the city's largest asset at $202 million. So it's really an investment in our largest asset. Okay. This is biggest thing we own. The most expensive thing we own are the sewers. And one of my consideration in replacing pipe is we're replacing it. So there's going to be very likely a longer seismic lifetime. Okay. If we have an earthquake, clay tile pipe will not make it. But the type of pipe we're using that welded together as opposed to joints or things like that, that's going to have a much higher probability of survival. Oh, yeah. Well, just briefly, statewide, I was asking that question. I was at a East Bay broadband summit a couple of weeks ago, and one of the things they talked about was Digg once and also about building a broadband infrastructure. So, I mean, I don't know if three, three miles a year, over 23 years, I mean, who knows what technology will be in 23 years? But I was just wondering if that was something, you know, we would be interested in, in pursuing. But it doesn't seem like it's going to be feasible. It's kind of incremental and it's going to be again, it's going to be based upon the condition assessment of the pipe. So we might be jumping, we might be doing a block here and then moving over to the West End and doing another block over there. It's going to be really based upon. So we're going to be kind of moving around the island. Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah. And I think we need a motion to continue the meeting past 11 p.m.. But second. All those in favor. My motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Any other council member questions? Comments. Got to do this. All right. I did have some questions and I wanted to and also share on page. I believe it's on page eight of the report. It speaks to the history of the rate increases. And according to this report. It said that since 2010, sewer rates had increased by approximately 56% for the city. With the city completing its last rate study in 2010, which included annual rate increases of 14% per year for fiscal years 2011 to fiscal year 2013. So so that's a significantly higher increase that we're speaking to. Yes. In 2010, Red Oak was actually the consulting firm who did that. And at the time, the city was under an administrative order. But the amount of work that was going to be defined under our regulatory orders was not it wasn't defined at that point. So if you you go back to that 2010 rate study, it's actually based on a number of different scenarios, of projected scenarios of what they thought was going to be the workload under our regulatory requirements. The highest scenario that they did was two miles per year of pipeline replacement. Well, here we are now under consent decree and it actually ended up being three years. So hence there's that additional increase needed in this this go round. In addition to the fact that the 2012 sewer bond provided a lump sum of money, the majority of that's going to pump station renovation. And then obviously, we'll kind of soften the impact of this this 3% rate increase as we spend that down in the next couple of years. So what were the rate increases for fiscal year 2011 through 13? They were 14% per year for three years and then it was CPI for the last two OC. And then the CPI you shared earlier was approximately the same 3%. The CPI for those specific years. Do we have that? 2.4% in 2014 and 2.7% in 2015. Okay. So I'd like to share as much as we can with the community. So they're aware that back in 2011, 313 for those 11, 12, 13, those three years, it was a 14% increase per year. And then it was anywhere it was 2.4 and then 2.7% in years 14, 12, 14 and 15. So this is just a little bit higher than the last two years, but significantly less than the the prior three years. On page nine of the study shares that there's going to be a debt service reduction with the sentences that two of the SRF. But this is clean water. Revolving fund loans will be paid off in fiscal year 2018, which will reduce the annual debt service to payments of approximately 900,000 beginning in fiscal year 2019. So there so there will be less expenditures when we get to paying that off. And yet you're still thinking that we'll need the 3% at that point per annum increase. Well, so remember we have will have exhausted the 2012 sewer bond, which right now, you know, we have from when it was issued a three year period to exhaust those funds. So we're making use of those now. Okay. And then and I'm sorry, I don't seem to have the page number, but it says that there's a reduction, a drawdown on the reserves, too. Apparently, the study thinks that there should be a target number for the reserves and that the amount in the reserves has been above that, so that there would be what is best described as a moderate decrease in the amount of reserves. However, it's approximately 50% from 27.4 million to 15 million. And do we expect it then to stay at 15 million for future years once we get there? Are we continuing to draw down? Yeah the target is and it's specified it's a believe a year of capital, 60% of operating and a year of debt service. And that is the best management practices for maintaining a baseline operating fund. And the the 3% would be sufficient to maintain that 15 million. Correct. And again, we're only approving tonight of five years. So borrowing whilst projection is for 20 years. So there's financial stability for those 20 years. But tonight's resolution and the proposition to 18 only dictates that we can increase rates up for a five year period. And how many years before we reach the 15 million draw down? Where is that in this? That's the end of five year period. Okay. So at that point, we've drawn down to half of our reserves. But you're not continuing. Do you have your projection beyond that? We would have to come back in 2019 for this very same process. Okay. So my concern would be. So I'd like to see the numbers that say that in fact. After Year five, do we have to increase the rate significantly above the 3% to not continue drawing down because that just shows a great reduction. To me, a signal even was described as a moderate reduction and I would actually suggest that that's an inappropriate definition or choice because it goes from 27.4 million to 15 million, which is half, almost half of the reserves. So that's a significant drawdown. I don't interpret that as a moderate, and then that's within that five year period. So in the appendix of. Our report, we show all for the full 20 year period. And we show. Basically inflationary increases each year of the 20 years. And at that level of rate, the fund balance would continue to be at the minimum operating recommended target that we developed, which was the 60% of annual operating cost plus one year pipeline replacement expenditure, plus the annual debt service payments. So we have forecast over the 20 years and maintain that level of reserve. Fiscal year 2015 is a higher than normal reserve year because you do have all that bond funding still sitting in an account and you're legally required to spend that on projects. So that's a normal flow of funds to reduce that bond funding. The first two years, fiscal year 15 and 16 also have very high costs for the pump station replacements. So it's about 5.2, 5.3 million, and the remaining years don't have that. So it's a high capital expenditure in the first few years which will draw down funds and then will maintain a healthy level of funds. For the next 17 years. So is there somewhere within this document or that we're approving that provides that because this is my concern really is come five years, someone else will be standing in front of us with some new numbers. So where is the protection to the consumer here? Yeah, I don't think we'll legally per proposition to 18. We're not authorized to. Council's not authorized to commit the rate to anything beyond five years. So as much as I think this can lay out for in five years, when we do another rate study that will relook at this that can say, well, this was the plan at the time was to continue this 3%. But beyond that, I don't think there's anything legally we can do to bind the council in five years to a subsequent rate increase. So I wasn't speaking to that. I was speaking to the target of maintaining the reserves at the 15 million for that that that's clearly set but spoken to somewhere in the document because that's that's what you're saying. Correct. And we can can we can put that as like a financial policy related to the sewer fund. We could codify that as some administrative policy for our sewer fund. That that's how it operates. I should ask the attorney that. So that's but it would seem like that could be a policy. So I would appreciate that because that was a huge reduction in the reserves, however, that could come back. I want to be able to continue my discussion at this point. Please. Thank you. And finally, finally, when you did your comparative rates, the example for Piedmont was on a property that was 5000 to 10000 square footage, which is , I think, above our average. And did Piedmont have a rate for of residences that are below 5000. Because I think that is more apples to apples in Alameda. Most of our lots I don't think are 5000 to 10000. Yeah, there's a lower rate for Piedmont residents who are lower than that square footage that we could. So I think that should actually be substituted here so that we see what that rate is and that should what would be what we should be comparing. There are not very many lots in I think the average and maybe staff knows, but I would think the average lot is less than 5000. And so since Piedmont has that lower rate, I'd like to substitute that for the rate that's here. And then I notice also the rate for Oakland includes a wasteful of 4055 gallons per month. And did you know is that what the average is for Alameda? Waste the flow because that's. So that's. Yes. Because that's when you look at how you chose which numbers to use for our for comparison we had footnotes that spoke to Oakland's rate was based on this rate weighs for 4055 gallons and I don't know if that is the average. And again, I think it's important that we're comparing apples to apples on our comparative on the comparison. So each agency sets its typical residential rate based on the average flow or that service area. So each agency is a little bit different on how they define what a single family home is. So that's the most common rate charged for. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I don't know if that translates to Alameda, though. So each single family home, regardless, we don't actually if you're a single family home to be, we don't actually look at your water usage. It's assumed that you're going to use a certain amount and you charge the $23.23. I believe that the city of Oakland does it the same. It's an assumption of what's called an equivalent dwelling unit. So we assume that each equivalent dwelling unit is going to use a certain amount of water and that 23, 23 is a sign it's for commercial where we actually start getting into flow based rates, where we will get East Bay MUDs, water data and it is calculated based on that. So I think comparing a single family unit in Oakland to a single family unit in Alameda to a single family unit in Albany is apples to apples. However, in regards to Piedmont, it sounds like there is a lower rate that could be used, so I'd appreciate substituting that. Yeah, Piedmont whole structure is a little bit more unique than the rest. It's actually part of a tax over there, and I can't speak to the specifics of it, but certainly we can update the statistics. So it's more comparable to what we're presenting here for Alameda tonight. I appreciate that. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Um, I, I think the the salient point about what we're being asked to vote on tonight is really contained in the first sentence of the staff report. The city is required by state law and city policy to collect revenues sufficient to cover the costs of operating the sewer facilities. And because of this lawsuit that we've just come out of and the consent decree under which we're operating, we must fund these certain minimum improvements to the sewer facilities over the next 20 years. But we can only go out in five year increments legally under Prop 218 to do it. While I appreciate all the work that's gone into this, and I think you both did a very nice job. I'm satisfied with the information that's laid out in your tables and your charts. I'm less concerned about how Oakland or Piedmont does their billing, because I know that in Alameda, our pipes are of a certain vintage. They're old, and we've been doing a great job going around. You've probably seen the crews out in the street and we're, you know, using cameras and all this to see the condition. But we need to make sure that we're doing these repairs in a timely manner or we're going to end up in another lawsuit again and we're going to end up spending even more money on litigation costs and fines. So I think this is fairly straightforward, and I don't know that that any council decisions are really needed to say, you know, offer a different way of looking at the different rates in Piedmont. I'm not sure that the council as a whole is really suggesting that. So anyway. Oh, and did we do that? We did do the vote to go past 11. Okay. All right. Member Ashcraft, I appreciate the comment. One other unique factor for Alameda is how flat we are. We have 34 pump stations that are a significant capital investment that those that live in Oakland and others that have are blessed with gravity don't have to incur those costs. So I'd like to I'm sorry, I'd like to speak to member Ashcroft's comments. I raised the issue because there is a chart on page 17 in this presentation that does refer to Piedmont and with a footnote that the service charges for flat lots, size 5000 to 10000. If there is a dollar amount that is more accurate, that is more similar to Alameda, I think it is appropriate to substitute that so that we are being clear with our residents. And so so this point, Vice Mayor. I think people need to understand that the lawsuit and the consent decree were because our pipes were spilling sewage instead of sending it to the the treatment center. And we do have to do this. I think it's been pointed out that we have pump stations that are big ticket items that we've bonded for and we paying for in this early end, which accounts for the drop down of the fund balance is really not a reserve. It's the fund balance, correct? So with that being said, we have no choice regardless of what our comparables do. But to fund this project. So I move that we adopt the resolution as presented and get the process going so that we can have the hearings, so we can get public input, so that we can meet our requirements to provide sewer service and to meet the mandate of the consent decree. I second this in regards to discussion. So will this be this presentation will be shared with the public? Correct. So I would request that that charter in regards to Piedmont be modified. Where does the council where is the council on that? Are you making a motion? No. Well, I'd like to know you apparently have concerns about modifying the chart to be accurate. So I'm hoping that other council members are agreeable to making that modification. I can speak for myself. I know, I said. I think we have all the information we need before us in the charts, in the tables, in the footnotes. And I think we need to move forward. So I appreciate that. That's why I was asking if the other council members have a problem with that presentation being modified before it goes. So it's accurate for the residents. My come on that topic, my comment would be, you know, any additional information is not going to hurt. I think what Mayor Spencer is getting at is just make sure that we're characterizing this as accurately as possible. Okay. You know, get the additional information on Piedmont, from my perspective. But in terms of the larger picture, my perspective is also that. As you know, the 3% that you're programing coming for the next five years, that's a reasonable increase. The reality is that council and the public really bit the bullet in 2011, 2012 and 2013 by doing the 14% increase just between those 14, 14, 14, accumulative, 42% increase. But now we're doing over a five year period, cumulative 15%. My caution would only be that sometimes it sounds too good to be true. I mean, if someone had to bite the bullet at 14% before, you know. You don't have to. Don't feel like you have to soft pedal the information. And I know you don't. You're not. But no. Because if the if the increase has to be higher than 3% and let us know. But but if that's your level best that that you think that that's what it is then then okay then I could live with that. And I realized that, you know, part of what? What? Feeds into the 3% increase is the fact that we're drawing down on the reserve. Had we not had a reserve and the amount that we've have it would have had it would have increased annual increases would have been would have had to be more than 3%. So. But by the same token, I realize that that reserve, though, exists because. We've accumulated dollars for this purpose in which we have not expended well. So it's not a real reserve in the sense that, for example, when we talk about our general fund balance. So. But but I think, you know, the additional information that Mayor Spencer is is asking for, I think it's. Sure, you know, let's let's gather it. But by the same token, I do think, though, that what's been presented here is reasonable. Well, then, Brody. I guess I'm not convinced that there's something inaccurate in the original report, so. That's kind of where I am. And I think, you know, get back to the vice mayor's point again. You know, it's about the big picture. It's about something we're obligated to do. Let's not lose sight of that. And in and spend a lot of time arguing about whether, you know, one person's interpretation of what a certain rate is versus another person's interpretation. Well, I don't do sewer rate studies as a living, so I guess I have to put a lot of trust in. And the folks like you that do it. Vice Mayor. I just called for the question. All those in favor. I. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Six F recommendations approved joining in participating in the United States Department of Transportation's Mayor's Challenge for Safer People. Safer City.

Recommendation to Consider Approval of the Recommended Parking Enforcement Program Staffing Plan and Provide Direction to Staff on a Long-Term Parking Management Policy. (Public Works 224)

AlamedaCC_11052019_2019-7362

Yes. Okay. All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. All right. We move on to item six C. Recommendation to consider approval of the recommended parking enforcement program staffing plan and provide direction to staff on in long term parking management policy. Okay. I think this is the last item you're going to hear from from us on this is to hear from you. This is a return trip on parking enforcement. We were here a couple of months ago talking about parking enforcement. I won't repeat that presentation, but the Reader's Digest version was we came to tell you, we were very concerned about our parking enforcement program here in Alameda. It was not it's we felt I think we use the word broken and we were looking for your direction on ways. We presented four different ways to sort of move forward to fix it. You pointed us in the way that we felt. We got actually a very good direction from the council that night. We came back to the office the next day and thought about what you would all said, and it became very clear to us very quickly the way we need to go, which is in brief, a sort of the approach that our neighbors in Oakland and Berkeley have taken, which is you build a parking enforcement division through a combination of full time and part time city employees. What we're bringing you tonight is we're asking once again for a sort of a a vote, telling us that we're headed in the right direction. So what we're saying here tonight is we'd like to start building and improving that that that our parking enforcement staff we would like to add two full time parking enforcement officers to start . This is, as you remember from the last report, this is not sort of like and well, let me just say what we're recommending, two full time non sworn parking enforcement officers, continuation of the existing part time positions. But we want to increase those salaries to become competitive with the part time salaries that our neighboring cities are offering . And this is sort of the first step. What we want to do is we want to get started. We want to start building this. Program getting a little bit better. We want to start charging for parking at the ferry terminals. We want to start doing a better job collecting at the meters in the parking lots so that our plan is to be back in front of you on on just the enforcement thing. Probably in another year, we hope to be coming back because we are with you and saying, you know what? We're on the right road. This is working now. Let's keep building. You know, we think ultimately we're going to need more than this, but let's take one step at a time. So this is sort of an interim, you know, year to two year effort, but we will be most likely back in the future. Our goal, if we do this right as a city, we firmly believe that this can be a program that pays for itself. Hearing the Vision Zero discussion today just made me keep hearing, you know, thinking about this people double parking in their cars in front of school drop offs. You know, why are we not enforcing that? Yeah, we should be enforcing that. These are the kinds of people who can be helping our police department, enforcing those kinds of things. You have been and our public works department has been out there daylighting intersections. You know, it's frustrating. And the last couple of weeks I've seen at least two or three people just pulled up and parked right in the red zone, parked and walked away. Like, you know, if we're not going to ticket them, that's the we can paint all the curbs we want. It's not going to make a difference. So we really it's it's it's time to get going on this. The other goal of this program, which we are going to build with you, we want to keep coming back to you, tracking the revenues, tracking the expenses so we can build it to what we ultimately need over time is to also relieve. Right now, you've got sworn officers who are trying to on the side manage the parking management program. We also see I think they're also trying to manage the animal enforcement program. You need your officers out there enforcing speed limits and enforcing crazy driving activity. So we're trying to build a program over time that not only helps us do a better job enforcing parking, but also lets the police department start spending less time doing this kind of stuff and more time doing, you know, the types of things that sworn officers need to be doing. So that's where we're headed. We'd like your sort of endorsement of this approach. If you say yes, keep going. We will be back very shortly with the necessary budget amendments, job titles and those kinds of things that would be necessary with the department to to it, really effectuate it and get moving. We are racing against the clock. We want to be we want to be charging for parking and enforcing parking not only in Park City and Webster Street, but at the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal when it opens next summer. So we will be back to you in the very near future with more decisions about parking and parking enforcement around AMI to point. But that's going to be more on the operational side how to charge what to charge those kinds of decisions. But we got to get this enforcement sort of piece of the puzzle sort of moving and in place. So that's all I have to say, and I'm available to answer any questions. Liz Acord from Public Works is here. We foster also our parking and we anyway, we're here. Oh, and Nancy is that. She's right. You're very competent in resources. We know. And do we have any public speakers on this. Side of speaker? Okay. Comments, discussion. Councilmember Vella So I think that this is I like the direction that this is going. I would say that the double parking at school drop offs is part of it. But I also know and I'm not going to name the specific delivery company, but there are certain delivery companies out there that literally have somebody that their whole job is paying parking tickets. And that's because they're trying to make as many deliveries as possible in a day. And I see delivery drivers double parked and parked in red zones all the time. In fact, I saw us daylighting an intersection and the next day I saw a delivery vehicle in that exact spot with the bright red paint on the curb. So I do think that we need enhanced enforcement in this regard. I also think that cost recovery, there is a forward path to cost recovery. I also think that stolen vehicle there's stolen vehicle cost recovery programs, and there's also programs for, you know, rental car companies where they've got rental cars that have kind of stayed out beyond. Where there's different bounty programs to get reimbursement. And I think that there's a pathway forward. So I think that this is a good start and I'm ready to support this. Thank you. And he and Counselor Otis. Yeah, I remember that discussion we had. I didn't know if you guys would be able to formulate anything out of that, but I appreciate the fact that you did. Credit to your credit. Yes, indeed. So I appreciate this is a really good step. And, you know, I always pay the meter on Park Street or Webster Street, so I don't I'm going to keep doing it. I don't want a $30.40 hour ticket. So I'm going to I'll make a motion to approve this. Okay. And, you know, pending some other people's discussions. Any any other comments as councilor. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Odie, seconded by Councilmember decide on favor. I. I. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you for bringing that to us. Yeah. And so much more coherently than we gave it to you. Okay. Let's see where we are. Well, people you made up for lost time. Um, yeah. Okay. Item seven City Manager Communication. Thank you.

Final Passage of Ordinance Concerning the Establishment of an Annual General Adjustment, a Rent Registry, Banking, and a Petition Process for an Upward and Downward Adjustment of Rents (Community Development 265)

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7058

All right. So any council clarifying questions? Okay, with CNN, let's just get started on our public speakers and up to 3 minutes apiece, right? Yes. Yes. So we have five public speakers, so you can each have 3 minutes. Don't feel you have to take all 3 minutes. And when you hear your name called, get ready to come up. We'll keep things moving. Okay. Karen Miller, Marilyn Schumacher and Julianne Cristobal. Did we get another speaker? No, that was a different one there. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller and I own a six unit Victorian in Alameda. I'm here today to ask you to reconsider your modification to 3148 and accept the staff's recommendation of 100% of CPI as the maximum rental increase. I am not a fan of rent control, but I do recognize that we have a housing crisis and that temporary measures may need to be enacted. After hearing the last city council meeting that started at six talking about which everybody seemed to accept the cost of recommendations, this is not on my list, but everybody seemed to accept the course of recommendations when it comes to climate change, but not when it comes to rent control costs. A recommended CPI plus five. And you are very willing to accept their recommendations on cost except for on this item. First, I have to take the issue with data referenced in the ordinance from the 2017 American Community Survey, when your estimates, which indicates that at least 36% of tenants have lived in their units less than four years, and at least 71% of tenants have lived in their units less than nine years, thereby demonstrating in general tenants to not remain in their units for many years. With this data, how do you know if those tenants who have been in those units for less than four years aren't going to stay for ten? And the 71% of tenants, 71 who have lived in the units less than nine years, won't stay for 20. The estimates of the American Community five year survey, which I looked at, show that 15% of renters have been in their unit since 2015. 54% of renters have been in their units 5 to 10 years. 24% have been in their 10 to 20 years, 7% more than 20 years. How does this give landlords opportunities to reset their rents to the market? Two thirds of tenants have been with me for over eight years and I can tell you none of them are leaving. In regards to the CPI, if you look at the list of goods and services that CPI covers, that does not reflect, reflect at all the cost of maintaining a rental unit, which are primarily taxes, insurance, water, garbage and maintenance. It assumes that these costs are built in to rent. However, that assumption is false. If rents were tied to CPI, we wouldn't CPI. We would not have gotten the large increases that we have have in rent. The graph that I have given to all of you shows that since 2016 the highest CPI was a little over 4%. Will rents have just jumped considerably higher rent as a function of market, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with CPI. CPI is based on prices for food, clothing, shelter and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors and dentists, services, drugs and other goods and services that people buy for day to day. Living nowhere in the CPI are garbage insurance, maintenance, which are my costs to rent a property. The shelter component, which is what I understand you to have looked at as a percentage of CPI to make your decisions on the allowable rent increase. Thank you. Ms.. That was 3 minutes. That was not 3 minutes. Seriously. Okay. And our next speaker is Marilyn Schumacher. Yeah. We'll reset the clock. I will take less than 3 minutes. Oh, there's a challenge. My name is Marilyn Shoemaker. I own five units and live in one of them. It's a historic house. It's 1898. CPI does not cover most of the costs that owners occur that owners incur in a year. That that. That landlords incur in a year. It's amazing how much it costs to maintain these units, especially the older ones. One of my tenants has been with me for 23 years. I tell her she must have been 13 when we rented it to her. However, our regular monthly costs are. Garbage, water, insurance and taxes. They all add up. They're not covered by CPI. I ride my bike all over Alameda and I see units that need extensive work and I don't know where the owners are. I don't even know the owners, but they're about to crumble. Especially if we have another earthquake, which we had one like this morning. It's appalling, but they continue to be ignored. I don't like the idea of CPI. And I hope you think about this when you drive around Alameda. Or ride your bike. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Julian, Cristobal, then Zach Bones and Christopher Burch here. Okay. Hello? No. Okay. I wouldn't. Hi, my name is Jolene. Jolene and I would like to first start that. It has been four years in our fight for rent control and just cause my question is how longer if there is lack of affordable housing all rise on rent prices and the rental cap, there are bound to be big consequences that only complicate housing but would lead to a domino effect that would add up to other crises already prevalent locally and in the U.S., according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the Bay Area, housing protections, lack of affordable housing production, rising rents and lack of housing in job rich areas all have each contributed to the present displacement crisis . The population of Alameda being 1.6 million has an increase of 7370 3% since the 1960s. And with lack of housing affordability, where will these people go? This plays a huge role in displacement, and it can lead to less opportunities for education, educational resources, housing security, access to health care and green spaces. This is a right that every citizen should have access to and not a benefit that low land owners would take into account when allowing people to rent their apartments. This is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no rent control or no cap will take away from us. While several articles in research point out that rent control has led to further gentrification, which has also led to the rise of economic inequality, the fact is that the U.S. has been a home of economic inequality, and there are other motivating factors for this socio economic disparity. And the only way to protect people here in Alameda who are vulnerable, vulnerable to evictions and displacement and rising rent caused is through rent control. We asked the city council members to make the right decision of creating balance between tenants and land owners, the good and the bad, and to incentivize the city to bring more opportunities for the needy, low income populations and equal representation. Thank you for the passing rent control and please keep in all provisions that were decided during the July 2nd meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker. Thankfully. And then Christopher Sparks, you know. Okay. I counsel, I think last meeting was really constructive and I think the compromises that were reached were pretty fair, I think. 70% CPI is more than fair because I think with CPI it already bakes in cost of living increases. So matching wanted versus CPI is matching, it's double, it's doubling what the increase would be for rent increases. I would be happier without the banking and the pass through. But I think all the the the in the text around is a little confusing maybe for some renters to understand everything, but I think all the compromises in general are good. Pass this let's have real rent control and alameda and let's get this over with. It's been too long. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker Christopher very soon. Christopher I really my name is Christopher Samarasinghe. I'm with Spurs Realty Advisors. I'm a bear, a native in an apartment broker in the East Bay. I have no interest ownership interest in property in Alameda and I'm here to speak in favor of the free market in my clients. Some of them own property here and some of them are owned in jurisdictions that can follow in Alameda steps. If these motions become law, the biggest need for and the highest value to the city of Alameda in the bay area right now is high density. Housing tied to rent control adds another layer of complexity to any possible development, reducing the likelihood of future projects being considered financially feasible. This goes for market rate housing as well as affordable housing. By voting on these measures, the yes votes are effectively telling your constituents that if you are against any future development or at least your for making the process more difficult for the mom and pop owners who have been plugging away, renting out their nest egg, these measures will effectively cap their pension further. They never purchased these properties with the understanding that they'd be forced to accept only meager returns dictated by political affirmations. They will they will be forced into making a choice of using whatever adjustment is allowed for their own needs to pay for rising cost of living. That allowed the amount of an excuse me, or using the allowed amount to upgrade living conditions for their tenants, they'll be forced to choose. I understand that some unscrupulous owners and landlords have made some choices that are hurt people and there are other remedies that are already in place to deal with these issues. Punishing an entire group because of these actions of very few is a very reactive approach that will not end well. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Please consider these issues from both sides and strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed short term solutions for the long term problem. For these reasons, I'd urge you to reach No Vote No on these measures. Thank you. Thank you. So that was the end of our. One more speaker. Okay, we have one more. This is the six speakers. So your time goes down to 2 minutes. Is it when we get. No, it's after the sixth. Okay. We just have one more. Yeah. You've got. Well do we have. Yes we have a clip. Oh okay. The seven. Okay. The seventh one is 2 minutes but for the first six speakers you do get three. Although actually if we'd known there were seven, it would have all been two. But it's okay. Are Ashcroft and City Council. Thank you. This is the I'm Elaine de Colony. I'm the executive director of Everyone Home. So I want to slip in my appreciation for your adoption of the Everyone at Home plan to end homelessness. And one of the key tenants of the plan is that it takes public policy supporting people who already have their housing to stay in their housing. This motion does that. You adopted the plan. This action you would take tonight is consistent with joining in the efforts to protect renters in their home, to keep their housing, and to help get people off the street into housing with reasonable rents. So I commend you for this bold move. It is sometimes viewed as the third rail, but we now have more than two people becoming homeless. For every one, we can move off the street back into housing. If we don't stop the flow into homelessness, the problem will grow exponentially. So thank you for your bold policy move here and I encourage you to pass this motion. Thank you. Okay, we have one more speaker. Rosalinda Fortuna. Okay. And I am going to unless the council strenuously objects allow 3 minutes because some of my speakers didn't speak for their full 3 minutes. So. But usual admonition. Don't feel you have to take it. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I'm Rosalind de Fortuna and I am is a small mom and pop landowner. I wanted to ask the city council to honestly tell me where in the world is rent control work. So this is a. Comment, not a Q&A. Yes, I know, but I just wanted an honest opinion afterwards. If someone could come up with a place where rent control actually works. The main. Goal that I'm here for is when there is an earthquake, which is well overdue, that we as landlords will not be obligated to pay relocation fees to tenants because we are going to be already in financial stress with the problems that we'll have. And I believe that these 70% of the MTA is not adequate to help the landlords with maintaining the properties that we have. We should be at least consistent with Oakland's 88, which is like 88% of CPI. And ah, I think Alameda is just as nice as Oakland. I think everyone would agree with that. So if we can try to at least get this the HCA up, I would appreciate it. At least comparable to Oakland's 88%. Thank you. Thank you. And is that the last public speaker? Okay. I will now close public comment. Okay. Counsel, do we have any discussion. Of a quick question? A Councilman ODESZA Quick question. What is the specific CPI in this index that we're using in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a variety of CPI indices, particularly for the San Francisco Bay Area. What is the particular CPI index that we're using for this report before our audience? Because I, I didn't see a specific call out as to what index what within the BLS index. I like magic here is that. Good evening. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director and we are using the CPI, you for the San Francisco Bay Area and we are using the April to April CPI number. And that is because we want to be able to issue the annual general adjustment in time for everyone to do their adjustment July one as part of tied to the city's fiscal year and the registration and the fee payment. So we're using the April to April, so we then have time to send out the letter and notify landlords and tenants what the idea will be for the upcoming year. I'm concerned that we're not incredibly specific as to what the CPI we're using because it's completely possible that some other down the road, some other entity, some other city staff might want to use another CPI. Oh, that's San Francisco. So if if we don't have the technical name description, that particular website it comes from, and I'm just concerned that we'd be exposing ourselves to litigation in that sense. I believe the staff report from July 2nd referenced the April to April CPI, the San Francisco Bay Area CPI. You see, I believe it is in the staff report. And if need be, could it be slipped into the approval of this item or C tradition? So I think given that the staff report was clear, staff could probably promulgate a regulation that's consistent with the staff report, which is authorized by this ordinance to further ensure that it's clarity. I think you'd have to. Also miss part of what we have up here. I believe you've mentioned to me that you're going to be doing some educational opportunities for both landlords and tenants about this new measure. Or you were calling the rent. The Rent program staff will be doing workshops similar to what they did when we first launched the initial rent stabilization ordinance. So there will be opportunities for folks to get educated on the new ordinance. All right. Thank you. Did you have some okay. Councilmember Desai, your comments. Comments. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for pulling this item. You know, I just want to summarize by referencing some of the data that I presented over the course of the weeks leading up to this second reading several weeks ago, I pointed out how in the city of Alameda the amount of no cause evictions was far less than 1%. Probably it might have been point 5%, far less than 1%. Punch line. There is no justification for the stringent just cause language that we now are employing. No, no data supporting that. Several weeks ago, I pointed out data showing how year in, year out, the typical Alameda renter pays an affordable rent. That's not to say that that there are hardships in Alameda, but the typical Alameda renter, based upon year in, year out census data, pays an affordable rent. Now in terms of policy, what that suggests is not an overarching undoing of the rental market that we are doing on the cusp of doing tonight. What that what the data suggests is an incremental approach that's mediation based like we had in the previous the original 3148 ordinance. The data supports that. The data does not support the overarching things that we're doing this evening. And I guess I also want to come close to ending by saying I mean data really matters because when I was in grad school, I had an opportunity to analyze the effects of Berkeley's rent control and Santa monica's rent control and all of you know how several weeks ago I presented data that in those cities, when those cities adopted hard cap style rent control, along with just cause the amount of single family homes really went down and duplexes went down and it took Berkeley never recovered. But that data that wasn't just the that the the what the data said though and this especially goes out to the to the young Filipino Americans who have come out week in week out on this issue. To their credit, what the data also showed is that when Berkeley and Santa monica and many of these other cities had employed the Berkeley style rent control of hard caps and just cars. Who actually lost. Out. In Berkley, you saw a significant reduction in the African-American population in South Berkeley from 1980 to 1990. Because Berkeley's popular rent control was adopted in 1980. And so you can analyze the two data points. So I appreciate the fact that the young Americans of Filipino descent came out to speak passionately, not just for rent control, but for their friends and families. I get it. But in terms of policy, for whatever reason, and I can't explain it. Who ends up on the short end of the stick when it comes to. Berkeley style rent control really is are people of color. I mean, the joke has always been that, you know, rent control in Manhattan is all about rent control for the middle classes and the upper middle classes. It's not for. For the working poor. So that's my concern. And I just also want to end by saying that the type of rent control that we're adopting, in my opinion , was rejected by the citizens of Alameda when they overwhelmingly defeated M-1. And M-1 was an effort to impose the hard caps just cause type of rent control that you're seeing today. And at that same election, the Alameda INS had supported L1, which was the mediation based rent control, because I think Alameda INS clearly understood then and they understood now that there is no place for a heavy handed city hall to come down and begin controlling, taking over a part of our local economy, a part of our civic society. And that's what you're doing. By adopting the rent control that you're going to do tonight. On a final note, I want to say how disappointed I am in adopting this rent control with the absence of data supporting it as to why it should be adopted. Which leads me to believe that this isn't. This is all about just politics. But this kind of politics, there's going to be some real people who suffer. And the very people who will be young Americans who are passionate about it. Come back to me and come back to city hall in 11 years or 12 years. And I guarantee you, alameda, this is not going to not gentrify alameda. The record of rent control. Is it gentrified? The places were hard capped. Rent control are adopted. Think about the movie that's being played right now in San Fran about San Francisco, the last African-American in San Francisco. It's a movie right now. So think about that and think long and hard as to whether or not you benefit from this, because I do think that there was and is a viable opportunity in the mediation based rent control that had its deficiencies, no doubt. But that but those deficiencies which could have been ameliorated. So. I think this is a sad day because I see this as incredible government overreach and heavy handedly coming down on a part of our community. Thank you, Councilmember de SAC. Other Council comments. I want to just say a couple of things. We talked earlier about climate change. A lot of things have changed over the years. And back when we were in grad school in the 1980s, we that was before a law called Costa Hawkins went into effect, and that was in 1995 . And that's why rent control does not apply to any multifamily units or single family that were built after 1995. That was the compromise that the legislators in Sacramento made between the advocates who were saying some of the same things that we heard tonight. If you impose rent control, then people are just going to start building multi-family units. And, you know, I am aware because I'm on the policy committee of the CASA, the Legislative Policy Committee for the CASA Compact, that there is some talk in Sacramento about modifying Costa Hawkins or it may go back to the voters, but right now it's right where it was in 1995. So between the 1980s and 1995, I would say that legislators did recognize some of those problems and that solution was adopted. And then since you mentioned the movie The Last Black Man in San Francisco, it's a fine, independent movie. You should go see it. I do not believe that it supports opposing this measure. In fact, they have not. Okay. Remember my no applause rule, but I'm for a fine local insight if you're like me and you stay to watch the credits. Our former council, former Vice Mayor Frank Maher SC, you may know his twin sons are both filmmakers. One of them, Phillip is on was on the film crew of this film. So just a little plug, independent movie playing at the Almeida Theater. Go see it. Who wants to speak? Council. We flip a coin. Guys want to go first. Go ahead. Go. Okay. Councilmember Vella. I think that there's a difference. Well, when we look at data between causation and correlation, and I think that a lot is made tying certain things that might happen simultaneously and saying that one is the cause of the other. And I'm I would like to be wary of doing that, especially on this issue. But I also think that there has been a lot of studies that have been done recently. One of them was by the Haas Institute for Fair for a Fair and Inclusive Society in Berkeley, out of UC Berkeley. And the report, the policy brief was done in 2018 and it's called Opening the Door for Rent Control towards a comprehensive approach to protecting California's renters. And a lot of the things that they look at are kind of the reason that the council is going about enacting these changes to this existing ordinance. You know, among the things that they. Talk about our the inequitable impact of our housing crisis and how it housing affordability and and access to housing disproportionately affects seniors, low income families, people with disabilities and communities of color. They also note that one part of our housing crisis relative to renters and what's continuing to set rent set renters back are that there are continuing to be rising rents, but there are stagnating wages. And so, you know, I think that that's important when we look at the CPI. Some people are saying, well, we look at the CPI. Will a lot of employers make decisions about wage increases based off of the CPI and CPI? Q And so while not everyone is getting those increases, it is a point that that a lot of employers and employee groups, frankly, look at when when asking for different wage increases or setting different wage increases. And so I think part of what we're trying to do is be cognizant of how much of that increase is going towards one thing, whether it goes towards rental housing alone or to a number of other things that are increasing. The other thing that this study looks at is beyond the monetary impacts, but the human cost of housing instability and displacement. And that's something that, you know, when we supported the Everyone Home Plan, we were looking at and and the folks that did the research and wrote this are housing research analysts for the California Community Partnerships Program at the Haas Institute, the director of the California Community Partnership Program at the Haas Institute, and somebody who has a Ph.D. in regional and city planning from the University of California, Berkeley, and is the coauthor of Common Interest Communities Private Governments in the Public Interest. A lot of the reports and data that they cite are from all over, but they're from very reputable sources, including the Joint Center on Housing Studies from Harvard University, the California Housing Partnership Corporation, Urban Displacement Project at UC Berkeley, which also looks very specifically at the Bay Area, in particular Urban Habitat, Bay Area, Regional Health Inequities Initiative , Policy Link, among others, and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC. We were just talking about our Climate Action Plan, and this also goes to that. This is an ordinance. Part of what we're trying to do is update it. It can be updated later if things change. And one thing that I posit is there have been times that the CPI has been negative, meaning that. People. We've laid people off. People have actually, you know, it's actually dropped. And, you know, as we look forward, we still have a base, a minimum in this range. And so even if the CPI were to drop or to go to zero, there can be rent increases in those years. And so I think that that's something to also keep in mind. It's not this isn't intended to be punitive and it is trying to take into account a number of different things. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Just quickly, I can respect that council member De Zug has his own philosophy and opinion. Yeah, I think for every data point that he that he raises, there's another way to look at it. In Alameda, half the renters are paying more than 30% of their income. That is considered unaffordable. This ordinance is written to try to help those people. Councilmember De talks about his time in the late seventies and early eighties at UC Berkeley and the studies that he did. Many of the studies that were done in Berkeley on rent control at that time have been debunked in the in the school of business. There is now saying rent control is the thing that California needs to keep people in their homes. It is true. It's late night, early night. Okay, so you can begin to speak through the chair. No, it's fine. It's fine. No, it's not fine. I'm writing this meeting. I continue. Anyway. And, you know, we make policy. We make policy that affect people. Tonight, Councilmember de SAC voted against the Climate Action Plan for the city because it suggested we should consider whether multifamily housing that which is cheaper to build and live in might be a way to help climate. For 40 to 50 years, Councilmember Desai and the people that have supported him have fought housing at every single turn. It is the thing that has caused this crisis. And I don't think it's fair to then sit here and say, oh, this one thing that's being voted on, I don't like it, and you're not using data and I'm the policy guy. At the end of the day, this is a big comprehensive problem. It is 50 years in the making. Is this a perfect solution? No, it's not. I wish we weren't here having this conversation. I wish we had built enough housing in the Bay Area to allow the people who want to live here, to live here and, you know, live affordably and not have two and a half hour commutes in order to come and serve coffee to people who want to pay five bucks for a cup of coffee. And I love coffee, but I'd like I'd like to be served by people who live next door to me. I would like you know, I think it's really important if we're going to have this conversation to talk about the whole picture and to really talk about how this is a peace. And my hope is that at some point 20 years from now, when the Bay Area has hopefully recovered from this housing crisis, we can have a conversation about how to tweak this in another way so that it maintains affordable housing but is easier for people to address some of the concerns we've heard about tonight. So when ready, I'm ready to move approval of this document. But I did want. To thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do want to just point out a few things. First of all, Rosa, Linda, before I start, this is, I think, the best place to live in the Bay Area, if not the entire country. So we're better than any other place and there's no other place I'd rather live than right here. And I think a lot of people are that way. And on the back of the room there, we have that sign. Everyone belongs here. So I think we need to make policy decisions based on that value and based on that priority. And it's been a long five years. You know, this is about the time five years ago, I decided to run for council. And this was not an item that, you know, people were talking about. But yet I think it's the one thing that we spent the most time on in our council over the last five years. And I think it's pitted our community against each other. And it's sad to me to see how that happened. And I hope that now, you know, we have the just cause, you know, that was in so and it's past the referendum period. So I don't know why that's being discussed. We have this measure which hopefully will pass tonight. We have modifications to, you know, for some of the things that people in the audience had asked for, like the earthquake relocation, you know, we're going to have modifications come back. Mark Potter is going to bring those back in the fall. And I'm sorry that people think that we punish, but I think what we've done is protect. There was a tremendous amount of people at risk of being displaced, and we saw that happen. And I think I called it social cleansing because that's what it is. And John talked about it a little bit. And Malia talk about, I'm sorry if using your first name is a bit of an emotional issue. So they talk about it a little bit. I mean, the pressure we have on the lower wage earners in our society and our city and our area is just tremendous. And we felt as a body that we had to do something to protect people. People were not able to afford the double digit rent increases. And yet we put in our our controls. And the data I saw in in the Chronicle of that over the past year, Alameda is average 6.2% increase. So that's above five that's surely above CPI. So there's data here that shows even though we've we've tried to help, you know, it hasn't really filter down to benefit the most vulnerable. And I think that society is judged on how we take care of our most vulnerable, whether it's our children, whether it's our elders, whether it's, you know, those that that are just struggling to make ends meet. And I think that was our responsibility as a council, and that's what we did. You know, if we have people working, we also increase the minimum wage, which I think also helped. But if we have people working for ten or $11 an hour and they can't afford to live here, they're going to live out in Modesto and Antioch and Pittsburgh, and they're either going to drive contributing to greenhouse gas and global warming, you know, or they're just not going to work here anymore. And then how does that impact our businesses? So everything is all connected in my mind. And if we really want to stand by those two signs that are back there and the things that we are, you know, have happy, smiling photo opportunities on three or four times a year, then I think we have to vote those values. And that's what I plan on doing today. This has been I hope that now that our staff and our council is wrapping this up, we can have a time of healing. I think that because we have protections, I think our tenants are not going to be afraid to speak up when they need a maintenance problem. They're not going to be afraid to speak up when they have an issue. Because the fear of. Addictions is gone. You know, we're not going to have a summer house, 22, 23 anymore. That's never going to happen again in Alameda. We're not going to have a470 central ever again happen in alameda. You know those two things, we can sit here and say how sad it was, but if we just say how bad it was and we couldn't do anything and then do anything about it, then we have neglected our duty to you and we have neglected our duty to protect every resident of Alameda. So, I mean, I do hear the concern and the fears of the small property owners. I do hear the concerns and the fears of the owner occupied. And, you know, I'm willing to sit down and talk to anybody any time if they have ideas. You know, when Assemblymember Bonta ran for council, he said, I'll listen to any idea, doesn't have to come from me. But if it's a good idea, I'm going to listen to it. And I've tried to follow that advice and that guidance. If you have an idea that you think can help, by all means, talk to me. I'm open. I'll meet you for coffee. I love every single coffee shop in Alameda, and the more I can drink of it, the happier I am. So I think there's things we can do to improve the city. You know, it's it's something we put in there to help when there are huge maintenance issues, like a large roof or, you know, foundation things like that. But we also have to do it in a fair way. So we put that in and it's only been used once, and I think that application got kicked. So please bring me your ideas. I want to sit and listen to everybody and make sure that we protect everybody. And when I sit here and I say everyone belongs here, you can be damn sure that I mean it. And I stand for it. And that's a value I believe in. And I'm going to fight for it as long as I'm sitting up here. All right. So we've heard from all the council members and I think I heard motion. If not, I will move approval of the final rule. I mean. I didn't I was referring to you guys. We have a motion from by 3/2 a second from Councilmember Odie. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. Oppose the motion passes for two one. Thank you. Really? Okay. No, no, no. We want to get out of here the same night we started, remember? And we're still on consent calendar people. Okay, so then we move to our last consent calendar item, which is five P and I pulled this item because I have gotten some questions I'm going to ask our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to submit a renewal grant application, through the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for the 2020 Continuum of Care for Homeless Assistance Program; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and all necessary documents, subgrants, and any amendments changing the amount of the award or extending the grant term, with HUD to accept and expend grant funding in an estimated amount between $9,000,000 and $11,000,000, for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05122020_20-0412

Item 12. A report from Health and Human Services recommendation to submit a renewal grant application to HUD for the 2020 Continuum of Care for Homeless Assistance Program citywide. Do we want a quick report on this? Yes. Okay. Kelly Colby from Health and Human Services will give the report. Or I'm sorry. Theresa Chandler from our deputy city manager will give the report. Hi, this is Lisa Salmon. So we received this as a funding that we receive every year from HUD to renew our permanent supportive housing, transitional housing and supportive services for folks who are experiencing homelessness. But this grant, we have been awarded 9.3 million, which to date is the largest amount we've been awarded from her thus far. And so we're very excited because we're able to add one more permanent supportive housing project into the group. So that's where we are today and we're really excited to move forward with this project. And if it. Thank you. There's a motion by councilors in the house and the second by Councilor Richardson councilors. And they asked. Assumes that they have any comments. Very supportive and I'm glad to hear the great ministry said thank you. Councilor Richardson. Very supportive as well. Good work. Thank you. Got to rearrange, get a job, anything. Good to go. Okay. A roll call vote. District one. I district to a hundred. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. District six. I District seven. By District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. 13, please.

Recommendation to receive and file presentation of Public Service Announcement video funded by the Third Council District on the dangers and impacts of illegal fireworks.

LongBeachCC_06182019_19-0603

Councilmember Austin. Motion carries. And next up is 33. Item 33 is a communication from counsel and price recommendation to receive and file a public service announcement. Video on the dangers and impacts of illegal fireworks. Councilman Price. Do we have the video cued up? Okay. This is remember the Cal State Long Beach students had made three animations. We already saw the first one. This is the second one. So. Consider yourself publicly advised. Hello. My name is. Cooper, the fire dog. And today we're here at. The Long Beach. Animal Shelter to find out what animals do after the 4th of July. Hi, kids. Why are you two here today? I was thinking of it where there were the shiny lights and loud noises coming from the sky. I got scared and ran away. They never hugged. And then I fell and got it out. And now I'm here. Those things in the sky are fireworks. They appear every 4th of July. Fine. Well, tell fireworks it's not very nice to scare others. You could have gotten really hurt last night. If you didn't have. Your color, you. Might still be lost out there. Really like it? Gabby, it's my helmet. See. Cathy's human found her because she had a tag on bumper sticker. I lost my tag last night. Tell Murray Barkley. Your humans. Are on the way because you had a chip. With a tag or chip. The shelter can contact our humans to. Pick us up if we get lost. Yay! Contact your local animal shelter or pet store for more information before the 4th of July. Be prepared and keep your animals safe. Okay. That was a. Huge shout out to the Cal State Long Beach students who I don't think they're here tonight, but we're rolling out their pieces leading up to 4th of July to get everyone in the mood. But this was a project that we proudly funded, and I'm very excited about it. Thank you. That was that was so good. That was great. Are we sure? It was almost like an Outback video. It really was more about like than fireworks this year. Why are we showing that on Earth? I'll be okay. All the ones that the councilman is presenting here, get in the pipeline with Pete, with the fire department, everything. Yes, we should all. Are we doing them because we putting them on social media and stuff? Yes, that's good. All right. Thank you for doing that, Pat. That's really great. Is there any public comment on this? CNN members, please cast your votes. Do those cartoon characters have their SAG. Card because of price? Bush and Kerry's.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent to enter into a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public at the Jefferson Park lawn bowling facility.

SeattleCityCouncil_09102018_CB 119343

Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda Item to cancel Bill 119 343 relating to Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the superintendent to enter into a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public. At the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Facility, the committee recommends the bill pass. That's my words. Thank you. This council will authorize the Superintendent, Parks and Recreation to enter a management agreement with the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club for the purpose of renting rooms and teaching lawn bowling to the public at the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Facility. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native communities voted unanimously to support such action. And as I shared with you this morning, the Jefferson Park Lawn Bowling Club, along with Parks, did a phenomenal job in our public benefit section. We were really, really impressed. And we will now you be use that as a template for how public benefits should be outlined for community assets. And I also want to thank the community and the representative here today. We had a full house at our committee on Wednesday. And we want to take thank you and appreciate the time you all took to come down to city hall to provide public comment and let us know the history, the public benefits in the use and what you've done for the community up on Beacon Hill. Thank you. With that, the committee passed it out of committee unanimously. I think you can still do that. Thank you. Any further questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill? So on I make sure I. Herbold II. JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN All right. President Harrell All right. Seven in favor and unopposed. Bill pass and show the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.

Adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute License Agreements, and any necessary amendments, with wireless telecommunication providers and carriers, for the non-exclusive use of City-owned properties for wireless telecommunications facilities, for ten-year terms. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03132018_18-0222

Appreciate that. We did have a presentation, but I don't know that they're going to make it in time. And so we're going to move on with the rest, with the regular and rest of the agenda. And so I'm going to open up hearing number two, which is the small cell hearing. And I believe there is going to be actually a motion before we even begin, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes, I believe it's my understanding that we're still working out some details with our telecommunication partners. So I'd like to ask if we can hold this hearing over for two weeks. There's a there's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment? Only on holding over the motion, seeing? Not a please go to your house. I'm sorry. We're going to have to. We can't just hold it over two weeks. You'd have to completely re notice the hearing if you continue it for, you know, listen, you have to continue to a date certain. You need to open the hearing, continue to a date certain. You just can't say. Well, the hearing I've opened, I've opened the hearing, and I think there's a motion to reschedule the hearing. Then for April 3rd, which would be the next the first Tuesday in April. April 3rd. We'd actually like to request that be the next available April, April 3rd. We wouldn't be able to present on that date. Okay. So just the next available April, is that okay? Sure. Okay, great. Then that's the motion. There is no comment on moving the hearing. Please cast your votes. And for the record, that will be April 17th. Can. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Also, just to get it out of the way, there's another item that there's been a request to to postpone. And that was by, I believe, Councilmember Andrews. That is item 25, I believe. And so if I'm going to bring up item 25, there is a motion and hopefully a second to postpone 25 to a

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Lara offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employees Stephanie Serrata and Dillon Tedesco in City Council.

BostonCC_01262022_2022-0209

And see Wareham. Yes, Mr. President. Do I get number 020 wage has passed. Docket number 0209. Councilor Flynn for Councilor Laura. Madam Clerk, please take a roll call vote. Thank you. Docket number 0209. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. So Baker. Yes. Councilor Bach. Yes. Councilor Bach is Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yeah. Mr. Edwards. Yes. Counselor Edwards. Do you want to be drafted? 0208. Correct, yes. Thank you so much. Counselor Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Council Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Council clarity. Yes. So clarity. Yes. Counsel Flynn. Yes. Counsel Senior Counsel. Lara. Best counsel, Larry, of Council of Louisiana. Yes. Louisiana. Yes. Counsel me here. Yes. Counsel me here. Counselor Murphy. Yes. Don't do Murphy as an Council of war. Yes. Civil war? Yes. Mr. President. Target number 20209 has passed unanimously. Docket number 0210. Council of Flynn. Council A murphy.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring as surplus certain real property interests in Block 1, Joseph R. McLaughlin’s Water Front Addition to The City of Seattle; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the City Light Department to grant a utility easement to King County; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05152017_CB 118954

The Report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 118954. An ordinance relating to the City Light Department declaring as surplus certain real property interests in BLOCK one Joseph R McLaughlin's waterfront. In addition to the city of Seattle authorizing the general manager and chief executive officer of the City Light Department to grant a utility easement to King County and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the Council bill pass. Council members who want. Thank you, President Harrell. This is a routine easement ordinance that grants a utility easement to King County to construct and operate and maintain a drainage pipe from the Georgetown Weather Treatment and station to the South Michigan street outfall. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends Council pass this bill. Gather any further questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Burgess, Gonzalez Johnson Suarez by O'Brien. I want I am President Harrell sues me back to Aden favor and unopposed. Bill passenger assignment. Please read the part of the Human Services and Public Health Committee.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents, and any needed subsequent amendments, with the U.S. Department of Labor to receive up to $1,000,000 in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to implement the Pathways to Justice Careers for Youth Program, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019; and Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grants Fund (SR 150) in the Economic and Property Development Department (EP) by $1,000,000, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03142017_17-0179

I'm going to skip the next item to serve councilman mangos here. So let me go to item eight. Okay. That's one. Item. It's a report from Economic and Property Development recommendation to execute all documents necessary. With the U.S. Department of Labor to receive up to 1 million in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds to implement the Pathways to Justice Careers for youth programs citywide. It's a motion in a second. Vice Mayor Richardson, any comments? Just quickly, this is for the past program and it's one of the final grants come. Out of the Obama administration. We're really proud of this. Good work to all the partners. Thanks. Thank you. Stretch those dollars out. Councilmember Pearce. Just congratulations on all the work you've done on path, so keep it up. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Thank you, ma'am, because, you know, I like to say that this is a wonderful opportunity for, you know, the Long Beach youth. And I'm very grateful for the hard work staff that allowed the city to secure these funds. You know, I've always said that a job would stop a bullet. And this is a program like these that keeps our youth off the street, engage them in a learning opportunity. Thank you again for bringing this forward. Thank you. Any public comment? Seeing nonmembers, please cast your votes. Motion carries item nine and then we will go back to item seven.

Recommendation to request City Manager to evaluate the feasibility of working with Get Help, a California Public Benefit Corporation, or a similar service, to develop City of Long Beach specific mobile and web-based applications for City staff and City of Long Beach residents who work with or interact with those experiencing homelessness and/or addiction or other mental health issues and report back within 60 days. The tool would provide updated real-time data on bed availability for shelters, rehab, detox, medical detox, and other types of public, private, and non-profit beds. The mobile and web-based applications would provide additional information to City of Long Beach employees and residents about services such as food pantries, showers, or locations to get ID vouchers.

LongBeachCC_08202019_19-0769

Thank you very much. And with that, if I can just please ask the council to join us as we take a photo. So let's give them all a round of applause again. Well, thank you. We are moving on to our next item that's going to be item 16, which is an item by Councilwoman Price. So if we can go to do that item. Item 16 is communications from Councilwoman Price Council member Pearce, Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to require city manager to evaluate the feasibility of working with get help to develop City of Long Beach specific mobile web based applicant applications for city staff and Long Beach residents who work with or interact with those experiencing homelessness and report back within 60 days. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I can invite Dr. Tony Greco and former Councilman Mitch Englander to the podium. What I'd like to do is to have these two gentlemen give us an overview of this particular app and how it could be used. And then I'll save my comments for after they finish talking. But I did hear about, you know, we have residents all the time come up with come to us with solutions of, you know, how can we connect people better with services. And when I saw an article in the paper about this app and its use in the city of L.A., that's when our office reached out to Dr. Greco. So I thank you for being here. I'm going to turn it over to you. Great. Thank you very much. Honorable mayor, councilmembers and Councilmember Price, thanks for reaching out as well. I will say, though, that Los Angeles is number one. As a former L.A. city councilmember, we were number one. We are number one in homelessness. Make no mistake. I don't think anybody can argue with that. That's not to go for that title. Yes. Yes. Well, you've achieved it. And and you're doing a lot here. And I can I congratulate each and every one of you for what you're doing to to tackle this epidemic and this moral dilemma of our lifetime. And so the reason I'm here is as a councilmember and the chair of Public Safety and president pro tem of the L.A. City Council was certainly something that I was personally dealing with every single day. In fact, I myself as a child was homeless. And so this is near and dear to me. And while everybody in Los Angeles at the time, a few years ago, when I was looking at what options and what opportunities and what tools do we have, everyone was talking about housing, and that's critically important. Make no mistake, we have a tremendous crisis and housing shortage and rents are way too high and it's very difficult. And so many people who are housed are right on the edge of homelessness themselves. But what are the tools and the different obstacles and issues and ways to get people help? It didn't exist. And in fact, when I graduated from the Los Angeles Police Academy, I was given a book, a resource directory. By the time I was given, that resource directory had already been ten years old out of print. This was some 16 years ago, and I haven't gotten an update ever since. And so I looked at what's out there in the space, and I tried to create an app myself, an app that would be geo coded. When you stop somebody on the street, when you're trying to help somebody, whether it's a first responder, a clergy member, a teacher, a nurse, and they need resources. They need a domestic violence shelter. They need a homeless shelter. They need a food bank. They need a work source center. And to know what's around you close by that's open and available with all the information didn't exist. So I reached out to everybody I knew and it wasn't there. So I created it myself and it failed miserably. I worked on it, put my own funds into it, and spent years on it. Didn't work. Not to my delight. And so I scoured the universe and what was out there. And I met with Google. I met with big tech companies, could not find anything we were looking for that would actually have in real time geocoding what's there to help people. It didn't exist. And so in talking everywhere about this, somebody introduced me to Dr. Greco, who actually created the very thing that I was looking for. And it has been piloted with the Los Angeles Police Department and many others that love it, that have said that it's one of the most valuable tools on their tool belt, the ability in real time to get people information and help, particularly when dealing with the three P's, their personal belongings, their partners and their pets. A lot of people are service resistant, but it's just because you have a moment in time to get their information, to help them, to give them the resources, to give them a referral before you lose them. And so you have to capture that moment, particularly if they have mental health issues or drug addiction. They need help. And it's not just always a shelter bed, but it's also a shelter bed. And knowing what beds are available in real time, where close by. So with that, I want to thank you very much, Councilwoman, for looking into this for Long Beach, being on the cutting edge and and trying to help as many people as you possibly can all the time. You've been setting the example for other cities that I've certainly looked to as well. So I truly appreciate it with that. Dr. Greco. Thank you. I am Dr. Tony Greco, and it's an honor and privilege to be here today. Thank you. I'm a licensed clinical. Psychologist by trade. I didn't start out that way. My parents. Actually met in a 12 step meeting and. My mom didn't stay sober. At the time. And my dad was dealing with mental illness. And what I what I tell people a lot when I'm telling my story is that I've been trying to get people into treatment in some way or another since I was seven years old. So I was intimately familiar with how difficult and challenging it was and also intimately familiar with what happens when people don't get help. And as a result of my my parents. Own issues with addiction and mental illness. I myself was homeless at 15 and didn't. Get help myself until I was 17 years old. And that was only by the grace of. Many people. And so since 17 I've been trying to get that my whole life has been dedicated to trying to help people both in recovery, family members of those involved. And I've known how. Difficult it was in that moment that Mitch was talking about, that moment when somebody wants help and how difficult it is. When all you've got are a couple either people that you can call or outdated phone lists or anything like that and that really. Set the direction in my life. Right. That's why I got a doctorate in psychology was I figured they're the ones, right? The the licensed professionals, the doctors, they're the ones that no other way. Around the system. They're the ones that that know the secret handshake or whatever that is. And what I discovered is that not only did it not make it any. Easier to get people help, but now it made it harder because I had more people asking and even less resources. And that was the foundation for me. Founding Get Help was to be able to create resources and give people that that in that window, in that moment of time when when they need help to give people like . Myself, psychologists, therapists, social workers, you know, I did my internship and worked in the county facilities and and to give all of us the tools. That we needed so that in that moment of time, we'd be able to get help for people who needed it, because that's that moment and that's when people do. End up homeless as a result of not. Being able to find a resource that they need. And sometimes it's not shelter, sometimes it's detox, sometimes it's it's a warm meal, you know, or a shower or something. And that's enough to give them hope to go on to the next day. Right. And then the next day is when they say, maybe I'll try that mental health facility. And so that's really been the. Foundation of get help is for us to be able to provide resources. To the professionals, the first responders, the people that are out in the field on the front line, and make sure that that data is accurate and up to date and can give people exactly what they need in that moment when it can make the difference between life and death. So thank you for letting. Me be here. Thank you to both of you. So I'm just going to make a few comments on this, and I know my colleagues want to speak as well. Thank you to the residents who are here tonight and support as and those who have written our office and filed comments and also emailed me over the last week. And of course, to Dr. Greco and Councilman Englander for being here tonight. Looking at more efficient approaches to homelessness is an incredibly important to this city and to cities throughout the state. What I'm proposing tonight is the creation through the help of partners to create an app that provides real time services and bed availabilities for services to the homeless. If we can put these types of services in the hands of our city, teams that work directly with the homeless population as well as our first responders, like police and fire, we can really improve the efficiency of getting people into the services they need. As someone who routinely goes on outreach ride alongs, both in the city of Long Beach and throughout Orange County, with the Orange County Community Officers Group, throughout the 33 agencies, and as a prosecutor who often staffs and also manages the collaborative courts, including our drug court and homeless court programs, I've seen firsthand how important outreach can be in building trust and credibility with people suffering from homelessness. The amount of time and repeated contacts that are necessary to build those relationships is essential as we work to get people off the streets. Our outreach done out of the Multi-Service Center and by our police and fire department is incredible. However, our outreach teams would absolutely benefit from having real time updated information for bed availabilities where they can immediately route someone or transport someone to. Sometimes that window where someone has a moment of clarity can be brief. And if we're lucky enough to have an outreach officer reach out at exactly that moment, we cannot miss the opportunity because the officer had to call around looking for somewhere that would admit the homeless individual at that exact moment or risk the individual losing faith in the system or in the officer because they weren't able to follow through quickly enough. I've been on so many ride alongs where individuals have said that they want help, they want to go to detox, but that they were not ready at that moment or we didn't have a bed for them at that moment and they've asked us to come back and when we've gone back, the person's been gone. This technology based solutions means that we can quickly and effectively allow our officers and outreach teams to access information they need in real time in order to give the people the services that they need immediately. City cities across the country are looking at moving forward with creative, technology based approaches to homelessness, and this is one of them . Los Angeles is currently undergoing a pilot program that they are proposing to extend because of how successful and useful this app has been for their outreach teams and first responders. Apps like this not only help get people the help they need, but get them used to the idea of accepting services, trusting and building credibility with first responders . They may not be ready to accept detox treatment today, but they may be ready to accept shelter. Or maybe they're not ready for shelter, but they're ready for a food bank. Or maybe they're not ready for shelter, but they simply want assistance or an opportunity to talk with others who are going through a similar thing. Having access to what is available at that moment is critical for our first responders and for the homeless population in the city of Long Beach. I ask my colleagues to support this item, but more importantly, I ask my colleagues to support a commitment by this Council to to direct resources at providing help for the homeless so that they can be given the opportunity to get the treatment they need at the moment that they decide they need that help. And although it's a different topic and not part of this particular item, I do believe that having services 24 hours, seven days a week available for our homeless population and our outreach officers to be able to contact them seven days of the week is an important priority for the city, given what we're hearing from our constituents as a priority for them as well. So I think I thank the presenters and the members of the city who have reached out to us and I thank my councils in advance for their support, my council colleagues . Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I definitely signed on to this item because I know how challenging it can be to create an app like this. In 2016, we had nearly 100 people do a day of service. They did a hackathon to try to create an app very similar to this. It is difficult to find the right technology, particularly in places when we have HIPA and we have privacy concerns. And so when you have a vulnerable population like our homeless population, we have to think creatively. We have to think outside. Of the box. And so taking what's worked and building on that, I think is an exciting opportunity for all of us. I think that our entire city has said over and over that dealing with homelessness as a public health issue and not as any other type of issue is their priority. And so while I love the item, as is, I know that there's been some ideas around expanding not just where are their beds, where are their basic services, where are their socks, where are their clothes, where are things that they can pick up if they're not ready for those services? But maybe we connect them with geo and the socks that they're doing and the homeless services around creating jobs to create those socks. And so I look forward to seeing what staff brings back. I hope that this is an app like many other apps, so we can have a phase one, phase two and phase three where it just gets better with each development. So I wholeheartedly support this item and I encourage our community groups. I know there are some here in the room that have participated in that hackathon to try to create that app. I hope that our city staff will work with Long Beach organizations as well to kind of see what's already worked and what they've had a trial and error on. And I can work with staff afterwards to connect you with those groups. So thank you very much, Councilwoman, for bringing this forward item. Thank you, County Councilman Austin. Thank you. I'm going to say less because I think my colleague, Suzy Price, council member, probably said most of what needed to be said. I think our presentation was excellent and I am fully in support of this item. I think this Get Help app is very, very intriguing as we are working as a city to create more bed space and create more resources, we need tools to help us manage our resources and be smarter and more efficient with everything that we're doing. I just had a question regarding the capabilities or capacity. This this is not or is this just limited to public resources? Or or can we we look to engage our faith based organizations who are doing work around the homelessness issues, nonprofits and other private partners. So I can answer that question. So if the city chooses to go forward and identifies the funding to start a pilot, then we'll work with the app developer to define our parameters. What can be included and what I would be recommending be included is nonprofits as well as government based resources, not just in Long Beach, but within the region. Because, for example, we have very few medical detox beds, but there are cities within the region that have medical detox beds, and we don't sometimes know immediately if there's a bed available. So this would allow us to go within the region, even outside of the county. So if there's a bed in lossL or there's a bed in SEAL Beach, then we would be able to transport, help somebody get services there through transportation. This is much better and this is an advancement on anything that we have today in terms of tools. And so this is a great start and I'm fully support. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Susie Price for bringing this forward. I think this is an excellent opportunity for the city to really get engaged in dealing in and confronting homelessness. One of the biggest. Progress that we can make is having opportunities for people experiencing homelessness or mental health issues or drug or detox issues is admitting that there's a problem. That's the first step as it was a process goes. And a lot of times all they want is not a handout, but a hand up. And this is application would be able to provide that with them in the sense that it's simple. They come to somebody and says, you know, I need help. Where do I go? This application, I think, would be very beneficial in providing that kind of assistance. So I'm glad that this brought forward looking forward to the city, to the cities, evaluating this and looking into it and hopefully that we can get this on board as quickly as possible, because as we know, every day we talk, there's another homeless person on the street. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. Thank you. I remember the first day that I was assigned to the Lakewood Station after I got out of the sheriff's academy and we went into a homeless camp. And I will tell you that in a region as big as Long Beach, I mean, we are a large city and an officer may be on overtime on the east side, but usually works downtown and they might not know those resources. And so I feel like this app is a phenomenal opportunity to really put the technology in our hands. I would also say that in some ways it would be great if it could plug into another resource or app that is already available to the officers. There's already so many different technologies they're working with on a daily basis. I hope that we're mindful of the amount of connectivity that they have and how that all fits together, because it can be cumbersome to our new recruits, especially who are out there on the field every day. Thank you to Councilman Price for bringing this forward. It is a a critical component of what we can do, but also highly recommend as we work through this and get some cost outs what the long term commitments are and. Finding a way to ensure that, as we talked about, it can scale and grow over time to the needs of the community. And perhaps that we could then have other cities or other agencies adopt in and help us pay for those costs. So. Great work and thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And so in looking at this item, I think it's very well written, all the references and you know, as you know, as I'm out on other boards and commissions and it's gag, folks, pay attention to what Long Beach is doing around the homelessness issue. And particularly around the last homeless count. Folks were asking, what's Long Beach doing differently? And I think what we're doing differently is continuing to innovate and continuing to focus on this issue and really lock arms and support it. And so, Councilwoman Price, I think this is a great step in the right direction. I also want to want to just lift up what Councilwoman Mongo just said. I know that we're you know, our firefighters move into different applications. And so there's ongoing conversations within the health department. So the more we can think about integration, you know, one comprehensive system, the better off our our whole collaborative system will be. The last thing is, I know that, and I would just hope that this is sort of there's a level of sort of privacy we work out with outreach workers. And I wouldn't want to see this link in any way to like go Long Beach. Right. So I wouldn't want any residents taking photos of incoming encampments or or anything like that. And I know that's not the intention here, but I think as we lift it up that the people who use this are professionals. Right? These are people who can actually help people in need. And I think that's important to call out. But this has my support. I think it's a very well thought out item and I look forward to supporting it. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. And, you know, I also would like to thank my colleague, you know, Councilman Price, for bringing this to the, you know, item forward, because the fact that Long Beach, you know, is in the middle of a one of the homeless crisis that we need to use every tool at our disposal to help try to solve this problem. You know, using technology to identify solutions is an innovative way to enable our hard team match up with the homeless, which is available spots to help them return to society. You know, I'm urging my colleagues to join us in supporting of this item. And thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you very much. Colleagues, I just wanted to end with a few comments. First of all, while I appreciate and respect the thanks, it's not thanks to me. Every single person on this council has been working really hard for the past four years to find solutions that are impacting all of our communities. So this is just part of a larger team effort and a larger discussion. I will say to Councilman Austin, I forgot to include that private providers can also be included in this system. So hospitals and, you know, other types of treatment, rehab centers. The problem with those is that they may not all accept, you know, they may have different insurance requirements and things. So we want to make sure that that those who don't have the means are able to get into those resources, but that can be included. I also say that, gosh, about three weeks ago, four weeks ago, I was invited to be the keynote speaker and my day job as a prosecutor at the Orange County Community Officers Meeting. They modeled a program in Orange County similar to our quality of life officers. Here, there's 33 police agencies in Orange County. Every police agency now has a quality of life officer. They don't call them quality of life officers. They call them community officers, and they have an association of community officers. So I invited our Quality of Life team and our East Division commander to go to the meeting. And there was a there was over 100 people in the room and they were all talking about the same things that I read on next door and that same things that I hear at my community meetings. And I had to take a pause for a moment. I was standing in front of the group giving them a presentation about different misdemeanor offenses that we often see in quality of life type situations with our transient population. And I took a pause as I was looking out this entire room filled with police officers, and I said, you know, they didn't know this about me. I said in my other hat, I'm a councilwoman in a city, and I go to a lot of community meetings. And I have to tell you, one of the most common things I hear at community meetings from my residents is why is this only a problem in Long Beach and not a problem in Orange County? And they all started laughing. You can ask Commander O'Dowd, because the same exact issues we have here, in fact, the Newport Beach officers were there. I said in my my city, my residents are always telling me this isn't a problem. In Newport Beach, they said, actually, our homeless count revealed we have 67 while 67, compared to the population they have in Newport Beach, would be proportional to the population. We have given that we have almost 500,000 residents. So it was really interesting. They had the same issues that we do with encampments at the railroads because, you know, the railroads run through all through Orange County and a lot of the same issues in terms of enforcement. So, you know, I was really happy to see that some of the things that were doing, they were looking to. Learn from they. Many of them didn't have standing, no trespass orders like we have here for our business corridors. They asked us to send ours to them so they can model it after that. So it was very and I've invited many, many residents. Anytime you want to go to one of those meetings with me there once a month, I'm happy to take you with me. But I think an app like this is honestly a game changer for the city of Long Beach. In the area of homelessness, there are so many different aspects to homelessness. But if we can't get people connected to services when they're ready for services, they will lose faith in the system and our outreach efforts will not be as effective. So thank you, colleagues, for all of your comments and thank you to all of you for your ongoing efforts on this issue. It's not about this item or me or anybody. It's all of us working together to find a common, common solutions for this problem that we're all facing. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilwoman. I'm going to go to public comment. I have eight speakers. I want to ask the first four to come up Luke Cardenas, Katie, Della, Donna, Wil Cullen and Marco Pizzo. You four can please come forward. And please begin. Luke Cardenas. Hi. Good evening. My name is Luke Cardenas, the Louis Vuitton Apostle. A special messenger of the Louis Vuitton kingdom. I am here to advocate. For the recommendation of the new. Digital app that would allow police. And fire personnel real time data on what beds are available at various shelters to better assist the homeless. This is a progressive step to reduce human suffering, and I urge council members to search your hearts and indeed your souls and approve this recommendation. We are watching the gap grow between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. With such wealth available, it is morally apprehensively that in this, the 21st century, we are stepping over bodies in the streets and having to smell human waste throughout the city. We need more public showers to clean those on the streets and more safe and clean shelters to house them. In Palm Springs, for example. There is a water truck that. Drives around with portable showers for the homeless. As well as a clothing exchange program where the homeless trade their clothing to be washed and then redistributed. We need more creative. Solutions like this. Taking care of the least of us isn't merely the moral thing to do. According to police officers I've spoken to. It would help the businesses that currently suffer. From the blight the homeless individuals can bring. Caring for the needy also reduces crime. Desperation fuels crimes against property. Imagine a city where we. Can walk around safer not. Having to smell human waste and not having to step over bodies. I urge you to please. Approve this recommendation. Take this. Proper step to help those. In need and let us continue to reduce human suffering. Let us solve the manmade problem of homelessness. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. May the universe be abundant to you all. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Katie, Della, Donna, Naples, Neighborhood Watch. Thank you, Susie Price for bringing this recommendation forward. I'm all for it. I would mirror everything you say, but I don't want to waste time. One point I want to bring up is it's not just about the detox beds and the rehab beds, which we know were limited. It's really just a bed. Sometimes at 10:00 at night when an officer approaches someone, he can't offer them a bed. If he doesn't know that the Salvation Army has one more. Or Catholic Charities has one more. So I think it's important that all the officers have this on their phone so they can access it and get anyone to bed when they need it. And I also think it's important that we interface with all of the homeless shelters and get some sort of system organized so that we can allow people in the door at any time because people need beds at 9:00 at night and 10:00, not just till four or 5:00 in the afternoon. So I would hope that when they develop the app, they consider that and consider negotiating with these homeless shelters and what we can do to get their doors to be open whenever an officer needs it. So thank you very much. I hope you all vote for it. Thank you so much. Next speaker I am Marco Pizzo. I'm from the Bluff Park Historic District and I wanted to just thank you all for considering this great idea and for Suzy Price to Councilwoman Price to bring this forward. I just wanted to show my support. I wrote any comment. I didn't know if it went through, but I just wanted to say that I do support this application and I think it's a great idea in being on the forefront of homelessness, which I know we're always trying to do. So thank you very much for your consideration and I hope you all vote for this. Thank you. Thank you. Marco is the next four speakers. Jeff, Jeff Malin, Joe Ganim, Matt Simmons, Anthony Kennedy. Please come forward. In that order. Mr. MALLABY first and then Mr. Garnham. Good evening, counsel, and thank you for this proposal. Councilwoman Pryce. I am Jeff. I'm in also the third district Councilwoman Price's district in the Bluff Park historic district. And I. I think I wholly support this proposal. I will just say briefly, as a as a person in health care, myself, as a pediatrician, myself, I am looking at it from the perspective of of those people that are actually trying to get services for the homeless people, the people that need detox, that kind of thing. I can speak from my own perspective. Many years ago, when our system at Kaiser Permanente was not as connected as it was, it would be very difficult for me to call around and find beds for my pediatric patients that needed hospitalization. I think something like this and our system has evolved as well with personnel and technology. I think something like this moves that bar and makes the lives of all of us much better. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. Thank you so much next week. Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. It's a pleasure to be here. Your new surroundings. I'm Joe Ganim. I spent nearly four years on the Homeless Services Advisory Committee as a commissioner. I was also on the Continuum of Care Board, and I was a board member for the Long Beach Coalition for the Homeless. I'm very excited about this because to me this could be very well the beginning of the end of homelessness. And I don't say that lightly because quite honestly, what you're talking about now is finally putting all the disparate parts together where they can be accessed by the very people that are needing those services. The Health Department does an outstanding job, and they have won awards nationally on the work that they've done. They have a computerized system, the HMAS, that provides them with critical data, but it's not available to everybody. Your app that you're talking about developing can link those services. In addition to that, there are very simple things that occur, which I can see this later. I don't want to get away from your original purpose, but I believe you'll find that agencies, nonprofits, churches and so forth that are would be eventually participating in some way. Some of them will have resources that other ones need. I recall attending a commission meeting one day when the chair came rushing out of the parking lot running in, and he was running late and from the time he had left where he was to the time he'd come to the mission meeting, somebody called him to say, Hey , I've got 12 crates of crates of apples and I don't know what to do with them. And he had found he knew other people and he'd contacted. But had he not been able to do that personally, those 12 crates of apples would have rotted. And so this is what we're doing. We have tremendous resources. By linking them together with this app, I think you will be able to do some amazing things. I personally am a believer or a strong believer in technology. My wife of 42 years has to tolerate living with two other women, Alexa and Siri. But but it also has its benefits. And so I think by by finally linking up all these available resources in this community that have heretofore not really always talked to each other, it's not because they're mad. They just know what the other one was doing. You're finally bringing the what what I think of as a potential into homelessness in Long Beach. And I congratulate all of you for participating. I think you're about to approve this. So I'm going to get off of here so you can do that. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hello, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Matt Simmons. I am president of Semtech Solutions, and I applaud this initiative to bring the tech into the hands of the people. They're trying to do this good work. The reason why I am at the podium is I do want to ask and encourage that the community look to put this out for public comment and for a bid because there are other technologies out there and the bid process itself will help flush out some of the challenges that have not yet been surfaced. The data integration required to link up the app with Service Point Your homeless management information system is significant. If you want real time information to be exchanged to be in the hands of the people that need it the most, there is a process that needs to happen. Well, Sky, the vendor for service point their capacity to share data back with any app is limited and so I would encourage fleshing that out. Resource directories are out there and birth is a common one you can look at. We have an app, it's also out there called Show the Way. It's on the App Store and Google Play and it's meant to be put in the hands of outreach workers. And it's not just a resource directory. So I just mentioned it. I competition can breed innovation. May the best man woman company win because in the end we all win by helping the people that need it the most. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And our last speaker, please. Hello. City councilman and honorable mayor. My name is tonight Ken Faye from Sixth District. Uh, I want to, um, first say that I want to thank the, uh, Councilwoman Woman Price for bringing this, uh, agenda item up. And I think that this is a great opportunity. Uh, to. Uh, have another tool in our toolbox of solutions to help with the homelessness and housing crisis that we're currently facing right now. Um, I, I, uh, signed up to comment specifically on some concerns that I have in regards to, um, uh, Texas, uh, as we just heard in the previous texts, uh, maybe excitement and uh, possibly the , the future of privatization of services like this. Um, it's, it's a little bit concerning. Um, because this program is something similar to this program was tried out at San Diego County where they also, um, uh, did a lot of connection with uh, uh, law enforcement in regards to like uh, uh, thermal. Imagery to, to, they use the data points that they got. From these similar apps to then do drone. Uh, flyovers. To then, uh, calculate thermal technology to verify the point. I think it's called point in. That's a look it up. It's called like a point in play. It's the HUD requirement for proving that someone is homeless. Look it up later. But the. Point that I have is that it's. Uh. It's a little worrying to see, uh. Uh, a digital solution to an analog problem come up. Um, from, for me, in my personal opinion, the great solution to this crisis that we're living through is, you know, housing, building more shelters, building more affordable housing, building more options for people to live in. For me the cities to get involved in this looking towards the right honorable city attorney. There are concerns regards to possible liability concerns here because, you know, I don't know, this is just a pilot program, but I don't know to the extent of what get. Help will do with. The data that that the acquiring in the process of this. You know, this is a pilot program and this is a public benefit corporation that could just as easily go from being a nonprofit nonprofit into a for profit. And if we as a city allow allocate any kind of city funds to partner with this organization, there should be some serious security guidelines with regards to the data points that are acquired during the. The year of this program. That's all I would like to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes public comment. Before we go, we're going to go to a vote. I want to just make a couple of comments. I think that when I was on the council, one of the apps that really kind of changed the way we do business was the lobby, John. And I remember bringing that forward and working with Mr. Modica and other members of the team to try to kind of rethink the way we did services for residents. And without question, the Golden Beach app has changed the way public works and our code enforcement and our clean teams work today because of the work of our city staff and the way the public has embraced that, I think I mean, there are tens of thousands of people that use the Golden Beach app, and we have opened and closed tens of thousands of cases, probably close to 100,000 cases by now at this point, I imagine. And so when I saw this, I really was very supportive and really thought this was a great approach. I've heard of other types of technology kind of applications, but, you know, this had not been brought to this body before. I want to thank Councilwoman Pryce. I think this is a great opportunity for the city to engage in using technology to help solve a very real and serious challenge. It is the single biggest challenge we have in front of us today is is helping folks get into housing, get mental help, the mental health care they need, and provide residents with an opportunity to help us all solve this challenge together. And so I think this is a great idea and very supportive. And I want to thank Councilwoman Pryce and those that support this item as well. And with that will go to a vote. Mushing carries.

A proclamation honoring Denver Urban Gardens. This item was approved for late filing by Council President Clark.

DenverCityCouncil_10142019_19-1112

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We also do have a late filing this evening. Councilwoman Ortega will need a motion to suspend the rules of council to allow for the introduction of a late filing. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure I have the actual filing number. It looks like it's 19 dash one one, one, two. All right. You have the motion in front of you that we need. Looking for it on page. Okay. Mr. President, I move for the rules of procedure to be suspended to allow for the introduction of Proclamation 19 dash 111 to honoring Denver Urban Gardens, which would move forward on the consent calendar. Thank you, councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of council councilwoman ortega. Thank you. I this is a proclamation that i was asked to do for Denver Urban Gardens that I will be presenting on Thursday at their dinner. Unfortunately, there was some miscommunication between our office and theirs, and we didn't get the information until today. So that's the reason for the late filing. Thank you, Councilwoman. I appreciate everyone's support because this does require unanimous support. Yes, I was just to remind everyone that in order for this to be for the late filing to be allowed, it will need unanimous approval for this motion. So see no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. Hi, Black Eye CdeBaca. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon, i. I. Cashman. I can teach. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 111 to maybe introduce. So, Madam Secretary, will you please read the proclamation title into the record? A proclamation honoring Denver Urban Gardens. Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right, councilmembers. This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilwoman Black, will you please make the motions for us this evening?

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of LBC Restaurant Group, LLC, dba Jade Restaurant, at 6380 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite A, for Entertainment with Dancing. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_11192019_19-1153

By the way, for the record, it's district eight. And that may. Hearing out of number 13, and this will require an oath. Item 13 Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Jade Restaurant at 6380 is Pacific Coast Highway Suite A for Entertainment with Dancing District three. This item required an oath. Please raise your right hand. You in each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Its co-owner. Emily Armstrong and Brett Jacobs from Financial. Management will be presenting. Their report. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for entertainment with dancing for LBC Restaurant Group LLC doing business as Jade Restaurant located at 6380 East Pacific Coast Highway Suite A operating as a restaurant with alcohol in Council District three. All of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided their recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I stand ready to answer any questions Council may have, and that concludes staff's report. I'm so impressed. Mayor and thank you to our city staff for the presentation on this item, and thank you for taking the time to talk through this item with me yesterday. I'm glad to see that this hearing is before us and I look forward to this location continuing to be a great addition to the district. I want to focus on a few things here in terms of the restrictions that are being placed on this particular condition. First of all, it's my understanding that the type of permit that is being would be granted by action tonight would be the same as that which was given to Forbidden City, which was the restaurant that operated at this location prior to Jade's establishment as Jade at this location. This location is as very close to residents, specifically the Marina Pacifica residential community and as well as Bay Harbor. And I want to make sure that we're protecting the quality of life of the residents while giving this business an opportunity to be successful. It's my understanding that one of the conditions for this permit will require them to have to primarily stay a bona fide restaurant or eatery, and that they would not be able to transition into a nightclub or disco type of model. Is that correct? That's correct. Condition number four states that and then more specifically in the industrial conditions condition. Number two also states that they can not turn into a nightclub. It's to maintain a restaurant use. Okay. And it's also my understanding from this and other restaurants that have come across this council for consideration of an entertainment permit, that as a restaurant, it would also not allow for live entertainment or music or dancing on the patio at any time. Is that correct? That's also correct. There's also an additional condition. Number three, that specifically states live entertainment cannot happen or any dancing on the patio at any time. Okay. The other concern that have that I have and that residents have reached out to our office about is that, you know, obviously we know that sound can carry a long distance. So it's important to make sure that during the night hours the residents are not negatively affected by noise or the conditions that we're passing tonight. Also require that sound from the building should not be audible from 50 feet away in any direction. That's also correct. It's condition number five. And it also stipulates that all doors and windows must be closed during the hours of entertainment. Okay. And finally, I noticed that one of the conditions in here is that the permutation shall not hire promoters with the intent to advertise, promote or hold any entertainment activities consistent with nightclub entertainment. That is that also a condition that's part of this. Correct? That's also a condition. Okay, great. I know the business owner is here. I've had the pleasure of going to Forbidden City in the past. I've also had the opportunity to go to Jade and we wish them the best. And I know that they will be very responsive to any calls for service that we can get so that we can try to avoid any violations of the conditions. Any formal findings of violations of the conditions. So we'll continue to operate in a collaborative way with the business owner to ensure that there is peace and enjoyment of the residential properties in the area and not that that's not affected by this business. So thank you. I have nothing further on this. On this hearing. I sure I know that you stood up. I see you on the speaker's list, sir. I know you are. You're the business. Are you the business owner? Okay. But you didn't sign up to speak. Is that because you wanted to speak? So I know it's your first time. So in the future, please sign up to speak. Do you have any comments? Okay. I don't control Ms.. Christianson. Nope. So, Mr. Cert, come forward and just state your name, please, for the record. Good evening. My name is Rami Matar and I'm thank you for allowing me to voice my concern about the permit. And thank you. Council woman Miss Price, I think you addressed a lot of my concerns. Coming here, I. All I saw was just the request to entertainment. I am the closest resident in Marina Pacifica. I live exactly. 120 feet. Away from. From the press, from the restaurant. And I have an undercurrent of operation. There has been noise and I've complained at least a couple of times and I think the complied with my with the noise complain. However, I when I received the permit application, I was very concerned that. I and I didn't know if it is going to turn into a nightclub. Or they just wanted a way to legitimize the current operation, which I think include karaoke night or or some band. Again, I'm not here to, you know, like object to their business. I wish them success, but my well-being and my investment is also very important. And I trust the city in protecting my investments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And sir, if you can just hang tight for a moment before leaving, I'm going to have a staff member come out and give you our information and we'll also take yours. So if you ever have situations come up, you can also contact us so that we can also work with the business owner. Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for coming down. Thank you. There is a motion in a second. Please cast your votes.

Receive Report on the Mastick Senior Center 2014 Annual Report. (Recreation and Parks Department 5195)

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1632

Six A receiver report on the Mastic Senior Center 2014 Annual Report. To present this evening. We told you we'd be back. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And City Council and staff. I'm Jackie Kraus, recreation manager with the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department. And I'm Ron Lemos and my second term as president of the Master. Domestic Senior Center opened its doors on July 1980. So we're going into our 35th year. It's a former elementary school. And. There's 30,000 square feet of fun. At Mastic. The property also has two apartments that occupy the former principal's office. So we have a studio and a two bedroom apartment. And there's also a double bungalow behind us, which is used as a preschool. I'm supposed to read the mission. Talking to the microphone, because then we'll all be able to hear you. Think it's supposed to speak to the mission. But before I do that, I want to simply thank most of you. Can you hear me all right? That if you stand directly in front of it. Sorry. Sounds really loud from my point of view. I want to thank all of you that came to our volunteer recognition dinner a couple of weeks, lunch a couple of weeks ago. It was a very special event. More than 280 volunteers were recognized for thousands of hours, as you'll be hearing. But it was particularly warming to have them new members, particularly new members and a couple of the older members of council there. So thank you for doing that. The mission of the Mastic Senior Center is to provide a well-rounded education, social and recreation program for adults 50 years of age and older. So 50 years of age and older. Remember our vision statement is that the mastic? I see the look on your face. Mastic Senior Center's vision is to offer a variety of quality programs and services in the areas of health, education and recreation to our seniors and to the community. Bring a microphone, Jacqui. You've got and you've got a song. Here we go. Yeah. Okay. So don't need it by the end of the presentation. So senior served during in 2014, 148,520 visits to the senior center. So those are seniors, but there are also family, friends, neighbors, anybody seeking services to support somebody that they love or care about during that time. Our membership was 3401. As of April, the end of April this year, our membership is at 3434. So the the center is growing. The membership grows. During 2014, we've served 630 folks in tech service. We provided transit or travel and trip opportunities for 1012 people. So each month we do. A monthly trip where. Folks can travel outside of Alameda, but we also do extended travel and we partner with collect tours. And so some of those trips for 2014 included a trip to the Tournament of Roses Parade, the French Riviera and New York City Islands of New England and Portugal. And then we do fundraising at the senior center and. And back in 1980. I meant to say earlier that the city realized that they could not solely support Mastic Senior Center, and the senior community realized that they couldn't solely support Mastic Senior Center. So we are a very wonderful partnership. So we do fundraising through the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board. So 6173 residents 18 years of age and older came out to play bingo, whereas 12,875 sales happened in the thrift shop. So if you think that there was many lookie loos, every time you go to a store, you don't always make a purchase. It's quite vibrant. At our location. Our demographics are really quite interesting. About 41% of the number of members that Jackie just mentioned are of the boomer generation from 50 to 69, which means if your math is good, that close to 50% or 49% of our members are between the ages of 70 and 80 plus. And believe me, if you come over and spend any part of a morning or an afternoon over there, you will see very active seniors. And if you've never seen pickleball played, come over. So knowing that we were in the midst of a baby boom, we continually reevaluate our program to try to keep everybody happy, if possible and when possible, so that we are serving the 72, 80 plus crowd, but also trying new activities to bring in the 50 plus crowd. So Support Services Mastic Senior Center. The city of Alameda receives a grant through the area agency on Aging of around $25,000 per year. And we also bring awareness to the programs that the county supports. So some of those are highlighted, one being the health insurance counseling program. So four times a. Month we have a rep from a volunteer actually from the High CAPP office that comes out to provide information on insurance counseling. So even if you have a medical bill that you're having troubles with it and you just can't follow the tracking of following through and calling to try to resolve the bill. If you feel that it's incorrect, the high cap counselor can help you with that. And also through the county is legal assistance for seniors. So they do have limited services that they can provide, but yet they do come out to the center and then the transportation services through Measure B and Measure B funds. We have the East Bay Paratransit services. We help with applications. We have the Mr. Tip program, which provides rides help ride home from the medical appointments, the premium taxi program, and then the shuttle that circulates that community on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which is open to all residents. However, we try to provide seating to seniors or the disabled individuals first, but in addition, we offer consumer presentations. So that's an opportunity to come out to learn about some of these topics in more detail. And not only do we provide educational opportunities, we also do fun things like we do. We do laughter, yoga. We're going to do something in October where we focus on beauty. So there's we try to serve our interest. We have a nice gentleman in our community, a retired dentist who comes out and provides dental consultation. He volunteers his time. That way you can get a second opinion for free and a podiatrist within our community that comes out to provide consultation as well. The tax preparation assistance. I'm always most pleased with that. In 2014 we served 630 folks. And with that we provided refunds in the amount of glasses work. And they don't work. I have $323,652 and also taxes do of 85,962. But what's really, I think moving is that people saved $80,850 because the average cost to have your tax prepared and this is an an inexpensive fee is $150. So that money saved and stayed in somebody's pocket. And then in 2014, we were able to collaborate and partner with Alameda Family Services, which is really huge for us because we've always experienced. Individuals that need case management services and we are not mere recreation, so we're not really skilled or staffed to provide case management services. And we have over the years provided information and referral to some of these other county or city entities. But we cannot follow the case through. And Alameda Family Services has been able to really help those individuals and, you know, specifically seniors. And you don't often hear of shelters that provide shelter for homeless seniors. So it's a unique area and it's something that has really helped staff and really help those that we serve. So that's been. A real bonus for us. In addition to all excuse me, in addition to all these big things, we also focus on food security among our population, which, as you all know, particularly in Alameda County, is a very, very serious issue. We address that through a reasonably priced lunch offered every day to individuals 60 and older. That provides an opportunity both for a nutritional meal, but also the terribly important aspect of socialization as well. An opportunity to be with other people for part of the day and be with other people over a meal is an ideal way of doing it. We have served almost 6700 lunches last year. We have also been in the participated in the process of delivering something in excess of £30,000 of food. We put out bread and all kinds of other food packages and parcels. We even have an organic garden that is growing rapidly and we have put out close to 3200 bags of organic greens and vegetables that people can pick up on their own on a monday. And believe me, they put out 110 bags out and they're gone in 15 minutes. Each bag contains one serving of a salad or green. So we do a lot on small items as well as the big items. So the members of Mastic are phone microphones. Thank you. They then ask the members of Mastic are the role models for healthy active living. 23,064 attended fitness classes now that there is some duplication there. But that does show you that folks value our program and they value it enough that they continue to participate in the program. So whether it's fitness three days a week, yoga twice a week, Pilates dance, you name it, we offer every type of dance class. 24,842 participate in intellectual classes. So we're fortunate enough to offer computer classes, foreign language, and that we offer English as a second language. American Sign Language German Conversation Group. French Conversation. Spanish and Italian. Current events. Ceramics. Stained glass. We're really fortunate. And then 17,242 participated in social interaction. So that could be coming into play bridge, sitting together and putting a puzzle together and special events that we offer at the center. Okay. Yes, it is. So funding. So as mentioned prior the recreation department matchsticks a division of and they provide 85% of the funding for the center. However, the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board, through their fundraising avenues provide 15% of the budget. And so this past year, we generated $169,710 through fundraising and donations. $23,134 went into capital projects at that included getting wi fi up and running. Finally, it was quite a feat at Mastec because the building is built like a fort. Our walls are very solid and so to get the signals to transmit and we removed the dry rot at belly banned decorative molding from the exterior of the social hall and replaced the overhang over the social hall. We went around and painted all the railings. We worked with a professional landscape. Firm to come up with. A drought tolerant landscape plan moving forward. And we've also explored purchasing stationery, fitness equipment to go in outdoors. We also are working on adding a bocce ball court and a putting green for our members to use. And we've been working with color consultants because the surplus that was 78,683 will be rolled into painting the exterior as well as repairing the dry rod. For the building. The center is managed essentially by the senior center advisory board. It's a 15 member board. We have ten active committees. So there's a lot of volunteer time put in the management of the facility and the management of the programing under Jackie's supervision. The board also manages and operates and sets strategy and goals for two primary fundraising programs, our bingo program, which generates about 40 $800 a month for Saturdays a month, we provide bingo to 100 plus people and our thrift shop, which is open two days a week and provides approximately 70 $200 a month in profit. And again, all of these are run by volunteers. We've done a direct letter campaign and we're talking about other strategies going forward to look at raising additional dollars. And the key reason for these additional dollars is to maintain what we like to think of as our asset. But indeed, it's your asset that we're maintaining with you. And we have done that to the tune of just slightly over $1,000,000 in the last 20 years. And we're putting a good deal more into painting and repairing. So if you come and visit the center, you'll see it's an amazingly well-maintained building given its age and the heavy use it gets. And a lot of that has to do with what the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board is able to raise and manage as capital investment for you and the community. The volunteers, as I mentioned in my thank you to you for coming to the recognition luncheon a couple of weeks ago are, of course, the heart of the Mastic Senior Center program. They serve as board members. They manage the front desk, they serve lunch, they teach classes. They do tax preparation at no fee. They coordinate and assist with the thrift shop and the bingo, both of which take an enormous number of people to manage effectively and well and safely. We have over 200 volunteers who have put in just under 25000 hours of volunteer time at a savings of just under $500,000 in labor costs. And that's 12 full time staff equivalents. So that's 12 employees essentially on your payroll based on the work and the activity we're trying to do to generate support for the seniors in the community. You want to do this one? I mean, anywhere. Oops. Too fast. We're almost done. One more page, maybe. Well, think again. Oh. Different. So this is the. This was the one time on a recent master's survey we sent out. We've done several surveys, actually. We're beginning to acquire a great deal of information about how people come to the Mastic Senior Center and what they need from the senior center. And we've developed a fairly strong program of surveying, and we looked at the AARP database of 8000 names and we sent out a survey and 90% of the respondents, 90% of the AARP audience. Are familiar with the Mastic Senior Center 90%. That's an astonishing piece of marketing and public relations. 94% of the respondents would recommend Mastic Senior Center to a friend or a family member. Most of that awareness and attention was generated through the activity guide, obviously, but also simply by driving by the Mastic Senior Center. And I guess the last point I want to make is we have, as you heard at the very beginning, just under 3500 members. That's 5% of your population and they all vote. Thank you so much for supporting the work of Mastec, for supporting the seniors and the community, and for your attention and interest to our work. Thank you. I also wanted to add that on Wednesday, May 27th, we are doing a walk for older Americans month, so we'll be walking two and a half miles this year. We thought we would just come down Santa Clara to city hall, visit the rec office and head on back that from 10 to 2. We're partnering with Alameda Elder Communities and we are doing. A. Kind of a fair we'll have all kinds of different classes offered at 30 minute intervals and different community members talking about different services that they offer to the senior senior community. So I invite you all to come out and join us on Wednesday, the 27th. And don't you have a fashion show come in? We have a fashion show coming up next Thursday, and we have several. Models here with. Us now. So we still have tickets available. They're $20. They support the center, but it's next Thursday. Doors open at 11. Thank you. Thank you. Member comments. I just want to say that sounds fantastic. As Carlos Carlos Santana used to say, Mastic is fantastic. Remember, Audie. Just real briefly, thank you for the presentation and thank you for all the work. I mean, Mastic is really one of the finest community assets we have. And I appreciate all the work that the staff has done and all the volunteers. So thanks very much. And I'd like to add that you also have a notary, Mr. Brunetti and that's another important service to many of us that you can get there. We have a motion to receive the report. A move that con. All those in favor by unanimously passes. Thank you. Six P.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Beeson, Brecht, Chen, Crosson, Fresonke, Judd, Marsall, McElfresh (two properties), Metzler and De Llaguno, and Rasmussen properties in Skagit County, Washington, and the Ring Family Limited Partnership property in Snohomish County, all for salmonid habitat protection purposes; declaring certain real property rights surplus and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purposes, and ratifying the grants of Deeds of Right to the State of Washington on the Beeson, Brecht, Chen, Fresonke, Judd, Marblemount LLC, McElfresh properties, and Rasmussen for salmon recovery and conservation purposes; placing said lands under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120146

Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 120146 relating to the City Life Department accepting statutory warranty deeds. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you. Colleagues, I'll address this as chair of that committee. Council 4120146. Accepts the deeds for several parcels of land already purchased by Seattle City life. As part of our obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The city has committed to contribute to the conservation of important salmon and trout habitat in the Skagit watersheds. The city's funding is frequently combined with grant funding to increase the positive impact acceptance of these deeds as a formal step in the process. Our committee unanimously recommended approval. Are there any comments on the bill? Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of a bill? LEWIS Hi. MORALES This was Heather. I so want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbals. Yes. But as I and Council President Pro Tem Petersen. I eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. The last item from Transportation Utilities Committee. Will a clerk please read item 17 into the record? Agenda Item 17 four file 314451. Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The committee recommends that all be granted as conditions.

A RESOLUTION regarding a voter-proposed Initiative Measure concerning public participation in government, including creation of a publicly-financed election campaign program and regulation of campaign donations and lobbying; authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed Initiative to appear on the November 3, 2015 election ballot and the local voters' pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections' Director to place the proposed initiative on the November 3, 2015 election ballot; providing for the publication of such initiative; and repealing Resolution 31600.

SeattleCityCouncil_07202015_Res 31601

To bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Oops, we did that already. We're off the hook on that. That's good. Finally, item item number seven, please read item number seven. Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item seven Resolution 31601 regarding a voter proposed initiative measure concerning participation in government, including creation of a publicly financed election campaign program and regulation of campaign donations and lobbying. Authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative to appear on the November 3rd, 2015 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed initiative on November 3rd, 2015 election ballot providing for the publication of such initiative and repealing Resolution 31600 introduced July 20th, 2015. Thank you. This is basically repeating an action we took last week to send the Honest Elections Initiative to the November ballot. The clerks discovered a minor error in the title of that resolution last week. So that's been corrected and we're repeating the action. This will have no effect materially. The initiative will still appear on the November election ballot. Are there any questions or comments? All those in favor of adopting Resolution 31601 vote? I opposed Vote No go. The resolution is adopted eight in favor, one opposed. Is there any other business to come before the city council? Yes. Councilmember Rasmussen, thank you. I request to be excused from the council meetings on August the third and August the 10th. Second. It's moved in. Second under Councilmember Rasmussen. Be excused August three and August ten. All in favor. Vote I oppose. Vote no. You are excused. Any other business? Councilmember O'Brien. It's 10 minutes to three. What time would you like to start? The select committee was started. 255, if that's all right. Okay, so you can all start your watches. We get 4 minutes. 255, 5 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 4 minutes. So the city council will be adjourned and we will reconvene as the Select Committee on Affordable Housing in 4 minutes.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3395 Brighton Boulevard and 3333 Brighton Boulevard in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 3333 and 3395 Brighton Boulevard from PUD-G#7, UO-2 to C-MX-8, IO-1, DO-7 and C-MX-8, IO-1, DO-7 with waivers (planned development to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-24-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11042019_19-0964

Council is reconvened we have four 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're 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. 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 Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 964 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 Dash 964 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council 964 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Council. I'm Brandon Shaver with CPD presenting an official map amendment 433, 33 and 3395 Bratton Boulevard. The request is to rezone from PD 702 to CMCs eight, A01, D7 and CMCs eight. I own DEO seven with waivers. The subject property is located in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. Again, the request is for Cemex eight, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a maximum height of eight stories. The applicant is also proposing to include A1, a height, incentive overlay and d07a design overlay, which I will speak to in a few slides. The property is approximately 4.7 acres with current industrial and vacant land uses. The purpose of the rezoning with the overlays is to allow for additional height as an incentive in exchange for commitments to benefits, including affordable housing and improved design outcomes. The current zoning is Puti G7 you two. That is the billboard use overlay and the surrounding the subject property. There are a mix of industrial and urban center mixed use zone districts ranging from 5 to 12 storeys in maximum height. Most of these include the incentive in design overlays that were legislatively mapped in 2017, as the property has customized zoning in the form of a beauty. The overlays were not added legislatively, and then to the northwest of the subject property, you'll notice OSA zoning, which is the future River North Park, currently under construction. This PD was established in 2013 with three specific goals. The first was to allow brewing and distilling uses for great divide. These will be carried forward through waivers. The other goals speaking to height and building form standards will no longer be necessary as the design overlay can be applied. Current land use is on the site, including industrial and vacant adjacent to the subject property, their mix of industrial office, commercial retail and multi-unit residential uses. The photos to the right of this slide give you a sense of the building, form and scale in the area. The subject property is on the bottom right and a new office building across 35th Street is on the upper right. Again, this request is for Cemex eight Urban Center neighborhood context mixed use, maximum height of eight stories and up to 110 feet. This zone district has higher build to and transparency requirements as well as street level active use requirements. The zoning is the same as the zoning that's allowed by the current PD, which is based on CMC. The H1 or incentive overlay one allows for incentive heights at this location of up to 12 stories or 150 feet in height and requires affordable housing at a rate four times greater than the typical requirement and other community benefits when the buildings exceed face heights. The river north design overlay d of seven increases building form standards for the base CM Zone District, including a 16 foot minimum street level height and increased transparency while requiring street level nonresidential active uses . The proposed waivers for the sites are for that northern parcel of the subject property where great divide is in operation. These waivers allow for general manufacturing fabrication and assembly use as well as limited outdoor storage. This follows CPD's policy of using waivers as a bridge to a future text amendment. You'll see the Blueprint Blueprint. Denver calls for an evaluation of commercial mixed use zone districts such as the CM eight to expand the allowance for hand-crafted manufacturing and maker spaces where compatible the waivers preserve and carry forward the existing title from the Putty. Additionally, in this case, the waivers can be used to implement Blueprint Denver's goals on this site before CPD evaluates all commercial mixed use zone districts and authors, a testament to the Denver zoning code speaking to the process, informational notice was sent out in November of last year. At this point, the applicant went through a zoned out amendment process and revised the rezoning application. CPD received the revised application in late July and sent notice for planning board on August 19th. Planning Board voted in favor 620 to move this application forward to City Council and then speaking to the public comment as a present, we have received nine letters of support. One from the R.A., which is the Rhino Arts District. Two from nearby business owners. And six letters of support from surrounding property owners. Now on to the criteria. There are a number of plans that impact the subject property. So please bear with me as I walk through them and remember that you can find greater detail in the staff report. The proposed rezoning is consistent with Plan 2040 as it relates to a number of goals and strategies focused on increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use areas. Building on a network of well connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors. Encouraging quality infill and focusing housing growth by transit stations. In Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as having a neighborhood context of urban center. These contexts contain high intensity, residential and significant employment areas. These areas typically contain a substantial mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity. The future place as identified in Blueprint is a community corridor. These places also have a wide mix of uses, a wide customer base and buildings sited in a distinct linear pattern along the street also have no are future street types with 35th Street identified as local and Brighton Boulevard as a mixed use arterial. The proposed rezoning is located within Blueprint Denver's growth strategy for community centers and corridors. We expect these areas to take on 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment by 2040. Overall, this request is consistent with Blueprint Denver policies and strategies, as the plan recommends increasing affordable housing in parts of the city with access to transit. The proposed incentive overlay will incentivize affordable housing in exchange for increased height. In accordance with Blueprint Denver. Another policy speaks to the need for better design outcomes to ensure active and pedestrian friendly environments along high profile corridors. The proposed design overlay seven will result in exceptional design outcomes consistent with the design vision that was articulated in the 30th and Blake Station area plan process and in accordance with Blueprint Denver . Therefore, the proposed rezoning from a paddy zone district to a standard Denver zoning code district with an incentive and design overlay is consistent with Blueprint Denver's recommendations. On to housing and inclusive. Denver This was adopted in 2018, and while it was not adopted as a supplement to the comprehensive plan, it can be considered an adopted plan for this MAP Amendment review criterion when relevant. This plan includes citywide guidance for using Blueprint, Denver and other partnerships to reduce regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing and supporting mixed income communities. Some of its recommendations can be applied to individual map ments that propose incentive overlays. In this case, the following goals on the screen are applicable. And the River North Plan from 2003 a full a few of the goals and strategies still to be accomplished include rezoning portions of the area to mixed use zone districts. While this has been accomplished generally on an area wide basis, the subject property was not included in the Legislative Map amendment because of the existing PUD zoning designation. Other goals in this plan include promoting economic activity in the neighborhood and creating a variety of housing options, including affordable housing. The proposed TMX eight zone district, combined with the incentive and design overlays, is consistent with the recommendations in this plan, as it will allow for a mix of residential office and retail uses in a pedestrian friendly form that contributes to the urban fabric of the district. The proposed MAP amendment is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Illyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan, as it will allow for a variety of housing options and will offer the opportunity for increasing the employment base in the area. In the 30th and Blake Stationery plan. The subject property falls within CBRE, AC, which is mixed use, residential infill and redevelopment. The recommendation for this up area is to increase the populations of residents living near transit through the adaptive reuse of existing buildings or construction of new residential buildings along Brighton Boulevard, creating a residential base around the 36th Street and Brighton node and continuing southwest along Brighton Boulevard towards Senado Market. While the specific building heights reflected in this plan were modified by the 30th and Blake Station area height amendments. This plan does state that maximum building heights should be higher than building height southeast of the railroad tracks. Therefore, the request for a mixed use zone district with greater intensity is consistent with the station area plan. In September of 2016, the 30th and Blake Stationery Height Amendments was adopted and this updated each of the three smaller area plans previously mentioned. The recommendations in the Building Heights Amendment plan aim to make it clear highlight a clear vision for building height, respond to changing conditions and public investment affecting the station area and surrounding NBCC area, and support appropriate and desired growth patterns, including building form standards and mixed income housing opportunities associated with greater density and height within the overall station area. The subject property is mapped as having a base height of eight storeys with a maximum incentive height of 12 storeys. So as part of ongoing efforts to implement the 30th and Blakes stationary height amendments, text and map amendments to the zoning code were implemented, creating the incentive and design overlay zone districts. The proposed map amounted to either one will result in the maximum incentive height of 12 storeys applied to the site. Therefore, the proposed rezoning to CMC's eight A01 D of seven is consistent with the 30th and Blake stationary height amendments and all of the adopted plans as amended. Steph also finds the requested zoning rezoning meets the next two criteria, as it will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further public health, safety and welfare through incentivizing affordable housing and ensuring enhanced design outcomes as advanced by the two overlays for the discussion of these criteria can be found in the staff report. This application describes two change conditions that are justifying circumstances for the rezoning. The first references nearby development and redevelopment throughout the Brighton Boulevard corridor and the station area. Additionally, city, a city adopted plan since the time of the previous rezoning, justifies this rezoning as the PDE was adopted in 2013 and the Height Amendments were adopted in 2016 , which crucial regulatory tools needed to achieve the vision for the area. This plan is a change condition because it was adopted after the current zoning was put in place and the subject property is wanting to include the overlay already mapped on the majority of surrounding properties. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood contexts that exist in the surrounding area and with the CMC's 801.7 Purpose and Intent statements, which can be found in greater detail in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria are met. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening, so we're going to jump right in. First up is Kristy Greer. Good evening. My name is Kirstie Greer. I'm here representing Mcwhinney, a co applicant and the subject rezoning request. I'm a Denver resident residing in District one. Mcwhinney is a real estate and development company based in Colorado with 160 associates employed along the front range. As a member of the Union Station Alliance, Mcwhinney helped oversee the $54 million redevelopment of Denver Union Station in 2014. Mcwhinney also developed Lotos New Dairy BLOCK Micro District, a progressive experience of local shopping, dining and drinking in a historic downtown block. Mcwhinney has been passionate about Denver and developing exceptional real estate here for decades. More recent for us is a growing love of the Rhino neighborhood. We're especially excited about the opportunity at 3333 Brighton Boulevard, the subject of the rezone application before you for a number of reasons. First, we found an incredible partner and great divide. Much like Mcwhinney, they're a local company with deep roots in the city of Denver, and they're an important member of the rhino community. Second, we're an enthusiastic participant in the 30th and Blake incentive height overlay area. We recently purchased land at 38th and Blake with plans for a development that will utilize height incentives through the provision of onsite affordable housing. Mcwhinney, like the city of Denver, likes to do dense urban, exciting projects near transit and in the path of growth. The request to bring the great divide land into conformance with the surrounding zoning is a necessary step in realizing the potential for high density development and affordable housing. Despite the need for a rezoning, we see the site as a straightforward candidate for development. It's currently vacant. It's at the center of a long list of future and current development projects. It's adjacent to a future public park and situated in the path of the major improvements made on Brighton Boulevard and is within a ten minute walk to a major transit station. Lastly, we've learned that there is community sought support for exceptional placemaking in Reno CBD and others with the city of Denver have recognized the need for density in this plan area and guided us toward a free zone. Our community outreach has resulted so far and positive feedback for the possibilities that the reason could provide, especially with a retail focused placemaking developer like Mcwhinney. At this point, we do not have plans meaningfully developed for the site. Our current vision would include a vibrant neighborhood serving ground floor retail district for at least the full length of Right and Boulevard. There could be components of both housing and office, but with the zoning uncertain, the use, height and density have have remained unresolved. I would like to thank CPD and Dito, who have helped to answer the important questions raised by members of Luti in the meeting of September 24th. We hope that CPD and Dino's efforts in conjunction with the response letter we wrote dated October 30th. Two men, two members of council, have served to answer the questions raised. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, Brian Dunn. Good evening. My name is Brian Dunn. I'm a Denver resident living living in District eight, and I'm the owner of Great Divide Brewing. We're here tonight requesting that the subject property on Brian Boulevard be rezone to CMC D seven in A-1 and with waivers on the existing brewery and taproom to allow the continued use of brewing which make our site a mixed use hub of employment and neighborhood activity. In 1994, I started a great divide at 22nd in Arapahoe in the Ballpark neighborhood. In 2012, we searched all over the Denver metro area for additional real estate to expand the brewery. Despite the fact that a neighboring community offered to give us five acres. For free. Or dramatically reduced price. And despite the fact that real estate along Brighton Boulevard was more expensive than any of the other options we looked at, I felt strongly that I wanted to keep great divide in Denver. Ultimately, we decided to purchase approximately 5.1 acres at 35th and Brighton, and we went under contract on the land in the summer of 2013. Our intent was to build a production facility and to create a taproom that would serve as a central place for the local community to gather, socialize and enjoy our beer. When we investigated purchasing the site with the intent to redevelop it, CPD directed us to pursue a PD zoning designation. This zoning designation was intended to allow the brewing of beer on site without allowing the type of large scale industrial brewing that was disallowed and disfavored by CPD for the Reno neighborhood. The PD was also. The PD also allowed us to build our taproom. The party was approved. In 2013 and we opened for. Business in July of 2015. We were one of the first new businesses to invest and Rhino Brighton Boulevard looked a lot different in 2013, looked a lot different in 2013 than it does now. We initially built on half of the 5.1 acre site and we built what the business needed the most a packaging facility to count our beer warehouse offices and a taproom. All along, our intent was to build out the balance of the site into a full brewing facility with a large restaurant and tasting room. However, today we are choosing to sell the vacant land to Mcwhinney because of their successful track record at Union Station and Dairy BLOCK. The craft brewing business is very competitive and we no. Longer need to build. A large brewing facility on the adjacent parking lot. The location of the department dynamic mixed use project next door will drive traffic to Reno and the brewery and help retain our strong employee base, some of whom live in District nine. Our property was not able to be included in the 2018 legislative rezoning based on the fact that it was zoned as APD, which was in fact done at the direction and request of CPD. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Blair Lectern fills. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Blair Elect and I'm a Denver resident residing in District four. I'm here this evening is outside counsel to Mcwhinney in connection with acquisition and rezoning of the subject property. On behalf of the applicant, I'd like to thank CPD for their guidance in helping us. Prepare our application and navigate. The approval process set forth in the zoning code. Our request for rezoning approval is based on the fact that the rezoning not only meets but exceeds all of the criteria for MAP amendments set forth in the Denver zoning code. Facts which are detailed not only in the letter from me on behalf of the applicant, dated August 28, 2019, and provided to each of you by Brandon Shaver via email on November 1st, but also discussed in the staff report presented by CPD this evening. One of the key criteria for rezoning approval is the existence of justifying circumstances as discussed in the zoning code and in detail by Brandon this evening. A justifying circumstance exists when, since the date of the approval of the existing zoning, there has been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is actually in the public interest. Specifically, the types of changes contemplated by the zoning code include the city's adoption of a plan or change or changing conditions in a particular area. Both of the foregoing justifying circumstances apply to our application. The primary justifying circumstance is City Council's 2016 adoption of the 38th and Blake Stationary Hyde Amendments and the associated legislative rezoning of the majority of the nearby properties and rhino great divide was not. Asked to opt in to. The City Council approved 2018 legislative rezoning, which impacted much of the rhino area and implemented the vision in the 38th and Blake Station area. Hyde Amendments tonight great divide in Mcwhinney are asking that the subject property be zoned to conform to the 38 and Blake Station area height amendments. So that is not only consistent with the adopted plan guidance but also treated in the same manner as the other neighboring properties which were able to opt into the 2018 legislative rezoning. Our letter of August 28th, 2019, as well as CPD's staff report, addresses the change in changing conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, which also justify your approval of this evening's rezoning. So I won't address those conditions in detail in these remarks. It is important to note two other benefits to the city if council approves the rezoning this evening. First, in addition to implementing the A01 overlay, which allows for increased height in exchange for compliance with increased affordable housing requirements. The rezoning also imposes the DE seven design overlay on the subject property. This design overlay provides for enhanced design review over and above the requirements set forth in the existing PDD for any development or redevelopment occurring on the property. Secondly, approval of tonight's rezoning will reduce the total amount of customized zoning in the city and in the Reno neighborhood. It will decrease the footprint of the waivers associated with great divides. Existing brewing use. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Brian Lucky's. Good evening. My name is Brian six and I'm here representing the Great Divide as the senior director of finance as well as a board member of the Rhino Business Improvement District. As you're aware, in 2013, we received support to rezone the property to allow for our specific use and were given a loan from the city's Office of Economic Development to help acquire the property. Since then, we've created jobs, activated ground floor retail, partnered with the city and neighborhood to carry out the vision of rhino, increase the property and sales tax base of the parcel. We purchased and redeveloped and participated in numerous charitable charitable efforts supporting local causes and organizations. I say this to reemphasize the fact that Great Divide has been a great member of the community and committed to the neighborhoods where we reside. Part of the request in front of you this evening is to approve waivers that would continue to support our ability to operate as a regional craft brewery and tasting room. The loan reference was part of oldest CDBG program, where businesses are provided funds to help close the project's financing gap and was approved by City Council in 2013. In this case, we were able to use loan proceeds to help acquire land and as a result, expand our operation and create additional jobs in Denver. The loan has a repayment obligation and great divide as remitted monthly P.A. payments since the loan funded and it revolves those funds right back out into the community for the benefit of other small businesses, low income housing projects and local nonprofits. We will be using a portion of net sale proceeds from the sales transaction with Mcwhinney to pay down the loan balance like the principal and interest payments. The proceeds received by OED will be people back out in the community to spur economic development, create and create additional jobs. As active members of the community engaged in public outreach efforts to properly inform the neighborhood of this red zone request. After numerous meetings, presentations and conversations with residents, businesses and property owners alike, we received nothing but support. To date, there has been zero opposition and I believe that is directly correlated with the fact that we are only asking for zoning considerations that our neighboring property owners have already been granted via past legislative action. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Good evening, Council. President Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense, Positive Action for Social Change, Unity Party of Colorado and Universal African People's Organization. Denver Chapter. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. And I ran for city council where large almost 15,000 votes with no money on the surface. This sounds like an awesome idea. I remember coming to these meetings last year about a promenade and rhino. Now two US natives that were born and raised here. This is not Rhino, this is East Denver, this is the Eastside. But just for context, we will go with this Rhino North River district. It sounds like you're trying to put another Cherry Creek along Brighton Boulevard. So really, who is that to benefit? Because currently we have unhoused neighbors camping right on our gas, caught in fear of being swept. So who is going to really benefit from this business? Developers, transplants, people that just got here, those that can actually afford to live here. Where is the guarantee that there's actually going to be affordable housing here? Previous meetings about this overlay, the lowest I heard was 60%. And my area median income recommendations between 60 to 80% and my level. So I want to know for sure, if you pass this tonight and you do decide to build affordable housing on the sites , what the AMA level for that is actually going to be and not between 30 to 60 or 40 to 80, but actually 0 to 36. We can do better and the priority should be housing, but yet it seems to be more commerce and tourism. So I would like somebody to please answer my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next time, Bolduc. Good evening, counsel. My name is Table Doc. My husband and I moved our motorcycle shop to Walnut Street in 1999. In addition, I am one of the founding members of the Rhino Bid and a property owner on Walnut Street. I've also sat through many of the zoning overlay to me overlay meetings. I am certain that the new zoning was not meant to punish a longstanding business like great divide. I think that like most zoning issues, we aren't always able to take into consideration all of the potential problems that might arise when we pass an overlay. I believe, unfortunately great divide has been caught in this crossroads between what was then and what is now. Great Divide has been an integral player in the growth on both Brighton Boulevard and the Rhino Arts District. Their presence has enticed others to follow suit and start businesses on this once empty corridor. They also employ several people, contribute to the community and pay substantial taxes. They simply are asking to remain as a business and a neighbor, just like they stepped up and worked with the city to open a business in an underdeveloped neighborhood. I urge the city to step up and work with them as they are only asking for something. They already have to keep their business going and the ability to sell their excess property under the new zoning provisions. I don't see how by allowing this sale and allowing the new owners to take advantage of the new overlay that they can do anything but add to the vibrancy of the community. As a city, we keep a performing business and we add density to an ever growing Denver population. Voting for this is a win win for everyone involved. Thank you. Next up, Jordan Bark. Hi. My name's Jordan BLOCK. I'm a District nine resident and neighborhood Kol. I'm also a professional urban designer, so I'm sort of speaking as a resident and a professional. I was asked by a friend from the applicant Mcwhinney if I would consider doing this. And you know, I wouldn't consider it unless I saw the project. So I did. I sat down, saw this project, and I was really enthusiastic about what I saw. I traveled through the Brighton corridor all the time. I travel through Denver all the time. I'm a Denver native. I know what the city is and what's come from. And one thing that is extremely disheartening for me to see is all the corridors are supposed to be live, community based corridors that are just lined with apartment buildings or other uses that have nothing that is public facing. I was really surprised with the level of commitment that Mcwhinney was willing to make towards active use, especially retail on Brighton. But also from what I saw in the drawings I saw was active uses and maybe some retail on the park, which I think is something that you would not get a commitment from from most developers. I think that committing to these things and ensuring that not just right now that we have a good sort of public space or public facing amenities on these corridors, but ensuring that we have them as long as these buildings are up, which is generations potentially is really important. And on top of that, I think the affordable housing that's coming in the form of the overlay incentive that they're opting to take is really important. I do agree with Mr. Parris that there's obviously larger problems to be solved in the corridor and the community in general, and this might not make a huge dent overall, but it is, I think, something that a developer like Mcwhinney has shown that they're willing to commit to and actually do on projects like the one even closer to me at 38th and and Blake right by the station and another project around the city. So I want to speak as a professional that I think that's really important to have good quality developers, local developers, commit to good projects and corridors that really need sort of the future foundation for good placemaking and public realm. And I think that this project represents that. So I was happy to come in and speak in favor of it. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council on this item council and Central? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. So you'll have to forgive me. I have a lot of questions tonight, so I will just start with the CPD. And so in 2010 when this got re zoned to the PD it currently is what was the current zoned zoning on this parcel. And the city was written in 2013. 2013. And I am not sure what the zoning was before the beauty was written. So according to the application that I found online in August of 2013, it was SIM Ex eight zone district. So we took a cmcs zoned district and turned it into a PD that has CRM CMCs eight underlining for the forms. Is that correct? That's correct. Correct. Hearing that. So in that application in 2013, part of it is the justifying circumstances are the land and its surrounding environments have changed and changing to a degree. So basically a change in circumstance. And then tonight we're also using that same justification. So can you explain how in 2013 to 2019 they were using the same justifying circumstance? Sure. So I think that it's important to note that that's only a one piece of change or change of condition that's listed in this application. I think that what we are more hang our hat on is the city adopted plan and that since the current zoning went into place in 2013, the city wrote a plan that said that we need incentive in design overlays for affordable housing and now this property is wanting to take advantage of those. So that's sort of the justifying circumstance. Okay. So then I also have a question that why everyone keeps talking about the fact that this wasn't able to be part of the legislative rezoning that Councilman Brooks did. I've looked at other things. I have other examples. How come a PWD cannot be part of a legislative rezoning? I'm not sure if it's that. It just can't be included in the legislative over zoning, but I think that it does add to the complexity. So for that reason, when it was done as a blanketed approach, none of the areas that had custom zoning were able to opt into that legislative mapping. So none of the areas that had customized zoning opted into that. Two, are you sure about that? Yes. And you can see in the map that there's a lot of surrounding properties that still have customized zoning that do not include the overlays. Do those other customized earnings have a new pad? Because this this pad's pretty new. The other ones were like the old zoned district. Is this one of the fewer new pads or are there newer pads in that area that didn't opt in? I think. Are they old zone districts? Yeah, this is probably one of those few newer pads. Okay. Code pads, real time. So I have a question for the property owner. When Councilman Brooks was working on the overlay, did he I know he did robust outreach in this neighborhood. Did he come to you and offer you to be part of the legislative rezoning process? No, not that I recall. Do you remember getting out, having outreach done in that neighborhood? I know you guys were involved in Reno in Overlay, so none of you were at any of those meetings and asked to opt in? I wasn't personally, but Brian could probably speak to that better than I can. You know, I was just knowledgeable as a board member from the bid, so I was never at any of the outreach meetings, but no one specifically came to us and asked us to opt in. And you didn't. Given that you were at those meetings, you didn't ask to opt into the affordable housing incentive overlay or anything? Not at that time. As a brewery, we had no aspiration or. Okay. So then I have another question for you. So in your testimony, you talk about the OED and how it was a bill to help you close on the land. But actually, it's a community block grant that you got. And in that was it was contingent upon the rezoning of this parcel. Do you remember that part of the OED loan that OED actually led the process for you to have to rezone into a customized zone district? I do not know. The the loan was completely separate from the rezoning. Yes. So it was adopted the same night as the rezoning, according to the Denver. You know, you can go online and you look so in that loan doc that you all signed, it says specifically that it's contingent that you have to get the customized zoning to get the land. So you all did that the same night. So you also said that you got the loan to help buy the land. But actually, according to your loan documents, it says that you had to create 29 new permanent low income jobs. So do you still have those 29 low, permanent income jobs? And can you talk to me about what entry level they are, how they're paid, and what kind of position that they go to? Sure. The use of funds was to acquire land. There was a requirement of the loan agreement to create jobs, and we did create 29 jobs. I don't know the exact percentage, but at least if at least 51% were made available to low to moderate income residents. So jobs such as packaging tax. Brewer's logistics. And to the east I. How long do people that the average person work for you and can you just tell me a little bit more about your business since the city helped incentivize your business to go along Brighton Boulevard? Sure. Our turnover, much like any business, exists, but I'd. I'd say that ours isn't all that great for those jobs specifically. A lot of them are still there. Some are. Some are brand new. They moved on and we rehired and backfilled those positions. Okay, Brandon, CPD, I have one more question for you. So in that 2013 application for this, one of the justifying circumstances to go to a PD was that the city is anticipating updates to the Denver zoning code to allow for brewery operations to expand and reinvest themselves within the city and county of Denver. And now I hear once again CPD using waivers to me a business where it's at. So my question and I know this is probably way bigger than everyone has a boss, right? And everyone has a plan and everyone has ideas. But for me that the fact that this was called out in a PWD in the city doesn't do pwds in 2013 and it's 2019 and we still haven't talked about that text amendment and we're using waivers which is customized rezoning again. So this is the exact same parcel that has to type of customizing rezoning. Can you talk to me about the waivers and the and that what blueprint Denver calls out and the waivers for this particular parcel, this corridor? And then could you talk to me also about where these waivers also could use for us in Denver? Because it is in my correct in my understanding that a waiver is a bridge to a forthcoming text amendment. You're correct. I'll try to break that down first. I think it's important to note that the original PD from 2013 was established not only for those uses that we're going to carry for with the waivers, but it was also for heightened design standards and building form standards. So that's why the PD was necessary in 2013. Moving forward to current date and the use of waivers is justified because Blueprint Denver says that we need to look at all of our commercial mixed zoned districts and allow for the kind of manufacturing and handcrafted use. And so I don't think that this is the only place in the city that we are looking to explore expanding these kinds of uses. I think that there are other places in the city where we want heightened building forms and but to allow for that makerspace as well. So do you mean the high end building forms? So the use for the maker and craft space are those usually in industrial zone districts and they're not in CM Exon district. So what you're what I hear you saying and tell me if I'm right or wrong is that you're trying to marry forms but uses in an industrial zone district. So we get form standards that would be in an industrial zone district. Is that what I hear? You're absolutely correct. Okay. So I have one more question for the the property owner. So. Often times rezonings are contingent or sales of land are contingent upon the rezoning so the sale won't go through. It's usually written up in the agreement. If the rezoning doesn't go through. So tonight, if this rezoning were to go to fail, would you would mcwhinney still purchase the land? Blair, which involves counsel to mcwhinney. So there is a condition to closing in the purchase agreement that. Provides that. If the rezoning is not approved, final and appealed and unavailable, mcwhinney has the right to terminate the contract. Okay. Thank you. And I have one more question. So sorry. I just lost my chair. Uh, I'll. I'll defer, and then I'll come back up. Thank you. Counsel Kelso, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a couple of questions about the waivers. Was there. I guess I'm a little bit confused because it seems like there wasn't a specific project or you said that there was not a specific project, but then you mentioned that there you had seen a design for a project. Is there a project or is there not a project at this time? So there's no project fully designed. What Jordan Bloch and I talked through was what I mentioned in my speech, which was the retail component where retail developers were committed to doing retail. So we talk through what our vision could be for Brighton Boulevard and what our vision could be for the forthcoming festival way that fronts the Rhino Park. Okay. That's that's pretty much the extent of it. Got it. And so what what is not the quote unquote project is the affordable housing piece that would potentially be right on top of. Right. As I said, you know, it's a big investment and a big commitment to develop plans for one of these projects. So until the zoning is figured out, we've sort of held off on that part of it. Okay. So. I totally understand why you're saying that's great. It makes perfect sense to me. But then why are you applying for a waiver requiring no parking when you don't know what affordable housing options you're going to provide that would then you don't know whether you would need parking or not. Am I can you can you just explain? Sure. You know, the proposed waivers are only for the existing great divide site. So if they were to sell a portion of the land to make money, the waivers do not run with that parcel just with the great divide. Pursell. Okay. So that's it. So it will separate at that point and got it. So there would be parking required for the separate site if the if this rezoning were to be approved? That's correct. Great. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm here to tell the owner. I know we don't. We're talking about affordable housing. But that only comes into play if you go for the height that's available in the plan as an option. How certain should we be. That affordable housing might be a part of this? So as I said in my speech, we definitely believe in density. We want to do a dense project here. While there's no guarantee we'll take advantage of the incentive height overlay and provide additional and provide affordable housing. That would be our plan. Okay. So it's just maybe, maybe, maybe not. Right. Okay. It's difficult to say with the uncertainty of the reason, as I said, and our inability to develop plans, we have every intention of taking advantage of the height overlay. But again, there's no guarantee. Sure. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. My question is for someone from the current ownership. Can you tell me if the loan has been paid off? That was obtained from Hawaii to purchase the land. Brian can do with that. As a as. A finance guy, I do know we pay it every month. So to date, we've paid 387,000 of principal and interest approximately, along with a $10,000 loan processing fee. And as a next Office of Economic Development employee, we hardly ever charge the loan processing fees. We got charged and we gladly paid. So that's 397,000. In addition, we have spoke with OED and we will be, if this goes through, will be adding another $350,000 loan pay down. So all in would be 747,000 on $1,000,000 loan taken out in 2013. So you would still have an outstanding balance. We would after paying your 350,000 from the sale. So I know typically when the city has been involved and I know this particularly to be more prevalent when we have nonprofits who are involved in purchasing land with city funding, they expect it all to be paid back at the time of a sale, or they expect affordable housing to continue where it's a nonprofit that's done housing. And it appears to me that we're using city money to create a windfall opportunity by selling part of the land that was originally acquired for this particular business. And when when you're able to sell it at a higher rate, it makes it harder to get affordable housing at a lower EMI scale because the next person coming in and acquiring it is paying a higher value for the land. So I guess I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about the the actual commitment of what is being proposed to go there. And I know when you go to the planning department, they probably tell you you don't have to tell city council any of this stuff because they're just dealing with the form of what your , you know, the scale and the form of what you're you're asking for. But. It's hard for us to know what you know, what the community's going to be dealing with. And I know in this area, as we have seen it completely, you know, it's almost completely built out where we have seen particularly housing. And in part of the issue is that we're not mandating the the amount of parking that might otherwise be required because you've got to tod stops close to this area but yet all up and down the the Arkansas coast Arkansas court next to the South Platte River, you've got cars bumper to bumper. And I don't know if those are employees, if those are tenants from the housing. And and so I'm struggling with how we address that balance of of what is needed. So I don't know if any of you want to speak to how the need for parking for the business is going to be sufficient. I've been to the facility many times for various functions and that lot kind of fills up if you have a bigger a bigger event. So do you feel like that in any way, shape or form is going to compromise the the kinds of. Events you might be able to attract if you don't have the kind of parking with with the other part of the land being developed on. Well, let me first just say that in regards to the loan and the pay down, yes, there will be a balance, but there will also be a deed of trust still out with the city. So their remaining balance will be securitized against our existing facility, which is the 65,000 square foot property. So they will still have a deed of trust. They're doing a partial release in exchange for a pay down of the loan. And again, those funds are able to then get Revolv back out into the community as other CDBG business loans, grants to nonprofits and loans or grants to low income housing projects as far as the parking . You know, obviously, we have a great partner, Mcwhinney, and we're going to work together to understand what their phasing of their project might look like. But for the foreseeable future, there still will be vacant land that could be used. Yes, it's it's owned by them. But I believe that we have the ability to find other parking in the in the district and in the neighborhood, for instance, office space that uses their parking lot during the day, but not in the evening when most of our events would occur. Go ahead. And then I just have one last question for CPD. Sure. Councilman Ortega, I just wanted to address to two issues that you raised. First, with respect to the amounts of affordable housing, my my colleague Kirsty mentioned this earlier, but as you know, Mcwhinney hasn't really sort of figured out the full development program for the site. They're looking at retail, they're looking at residential, they're looking at office, and they're trying to see what is most viable in connection with affordable housing. They will comply with the law that's in effect at the time that they are pursuing their SGP approval and their building permit approvals. And so if they elect to build up to the incentive height, they will of course also comply with the incentive overlay requirements. I did want to call out that Mcwhinney, as Kirsty mentioned recently, acquired some property at 30th and Blake they are intending to build up to the incentive height on that particular property and in fact have agreed to provide affordable housing units above and beyond what is actually required by the city under the incentive overlay. And as it relates to parking, I think it's somewhat of a similar answer in the sense that they will have to evaluate the program and understand what their ultimate users are and how that interfaces with the neighborhood and how, you know, the parking analysis will work in terms of the dose of an overlay and what is required. So that's a little bit of a TBD, but obviously we're sensitive to parking and need, you know, need to build a project that works for our end users, tenants, etc.. So one last question for CPD. So assuming that this all goes through, they sell it, mcwhinney buys it and they're going to max out the the density of what they could do on the site. Who determines what the EMI scales are for affordability on the project? Ditto controls oped housing stability, Department of Housing Stability now and then as host. And do we have anything that is standardized or is it all done on a case by case basis? Please. I don't see. Our partners from host here tonight. So yeah so. I'm kind of part of a community planning in development. The incentive overlay in order to take advantage of it, you are required to follow the Chapter 27 housing. Rules as they relate to the incentive overlay those rules required. Then Dito now the Department of Housing. Instability to adopt a rules and regulations that set forth how. You comply with that and provide plans for how you can what level affordability as you can achieve and you're required to achieve and all the rest. So they are set forth both in chapter 27 and in rules and regs adopted by now. Host So do we have those rules and regs in place? Mr. President. Councilor. And can I send a lifeline? Looks like she has an answer to the question. You are jumping? Yeah. The way the ordinance was adopted, the default and my level is currently 80% of am I. What happens is that if you do, there's there's two there's three options. Under the standard ordinance rate, you pay the fee you build on site, or you do a build alternative plan, which can include a different number of units or a different set of images. And so there is the potential to negotiate an agreement to provide a different set of images. And for example, that's the plan that was used at River Mile, where the developer decided to do a difference, entered into a negotiation with the city to negotiate different levels. But if you take the automatic trade, the height for the affordability, then it will be at 80% of AMI. There are some, some, some, some, some ways that they can talk about bedroom sizes and army levels and alternatives. But but I will just say to I don't know if you want to speak to the study, but there is a CPD hosted study that's going out right now to examine whether or not those army levels should change or the build formula should change. And so that's for the base zoning as well as for future incentive overlays. So there's I don't know that we can say for sure in the future that it will always be this level because the study is intended to look at that. So I don't know if confirm if. That's right. Sure. Yeah, no, that's right. So the zoning just refers to the housing is the housing is easier to change over time and react and respond. So what I would agree with what was said earlier, they'll be was. They'll be held to whatever requirements are in place at the time. That they develop. And when is that study expected to be completed? Any idea? 18 months. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman and Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. This question is. For. The owner. It sounds like we have some processes that are going on right now. We're waiting for a potential text amendment. We've got the the incentive overlay study going on. And you guys don't have a plan yet and a sale hasn't happened yet. So there sounds like there's some things going on with you all, too. What is the rush? Why not create the plan and then come back to zoning? Why not have the transaction completed? Figure out your plan and come back to us with your plan. Sure. Thank you for your question, Councilman CdeBaca. I think that the issue is that in order for Mcwhinney to develop a plan, they have to engage engineers, architects, etc. And there's a great deal of cost associated with coming up with those plans. And they don't want to develop the plans until they know sort of what the base zoning is, so they know what they're designing to. So I'm really concerned about this one because I love Union Station, but it's not a place that we can go all the time because it's very expensive. The placemaking element of it was not designed to be affordable, and I don't recall when I was doing my research. Any other projects that you've done affordable housing on? And so I'm, I'm hearing 38 them. Blake But that's not complete yet, right? It's not. So 38 and Blake, they are in the process of getting an approved site development plan. They're very close and they'll move forward to with the balance of the process, which I believe is building permits and whatnot. But the site development plan and the BAP that we're working out with DOE requires us to build a certain number of residential units on that particular project. And as I mentioned, Mcwhinney has voluntarily elected to build affordable units in excess of the number required by the city to get the incentive high. And are you guys going to go all the use the whole incentive, or do you plan to use part of the incentive because that drastically changes how many units we get that are affordable. And the affordable is at the 80%. Are you talking about this 34th thing? Yeah. Brighten the. Subject? No. Well, what are you guys doing on Blake? Because that's a great indicator of what you'll do here. Yeah, I can say. Yeah. So our current plans that are in for review for STP contemplate 17 stories. So that's taking full advantage of the height overlay and the design overlay. The BAP form calculates your number of affordable housing units based on gross square foot. So the bigger your building, the more affordable units you have to provide. So we made the building as big as we could and the the BAP form which is generated by DITO and given to us and we fill it out and it tells you your number of units was based on that. And how many units is that. The form calculated? 19. Out of how many total? 348. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. When I first looked at this, I thought, this is a slam dunk. There's no one against it. And yet here we are still talking about it. So I am I am starting to be concerned, frankly, and just the the lack of a plan for immediate development. I think you have a reasonable explanation. But I also that there you're using public funds and not fully repaying the public funds. And then I've been looking up the actual location where the great divide is. Would I have someone from the Great Divide come forward for a second? How wide are your sidewalks on Brighton in front of the Great Divide? Whatever the city made us there asks us to do well and remember. And we go ahead. We go. Yeah. That was part of the area where the Brighton Boulevard capital investment took place. And so we put in a temporary condition because we were ahead of that construction. But the city allowed us to do that because knowing that construction was right on our heels to build that out. And that was part of the capital improvement project along Brighton Boulevard that both the city and the property owners as part of the General Improvement District supported financially. So there are sections and immediately in front of great divide where there are those columns, those decorative columns where the sidewalk is narrower than four feet wide. Is that correct? I don't know exactly, but it is narrower. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So I actually was part of a an article that was in one of the local publications. There's someone here in the room who edited that article. And that area actually isn't four feet wide. And now I'm concerned that Dito is using public funds. We had a public improvement project and we didn't follow ADA standards. I, I just assumed that that was privately funded. So now I have concerns about what are we doing with this new development that's, that's backed by a great divide. So I'm not sure exactly where I want to go with this, but but I you know, if if we don't know exactly what we plan to do with the neighboring section, I just I just want to understand, you know, are are we working with an organization that will. Follow the rules and make sure that I mean, we wanted Britain to be a corridor that's accessible for everyone. And and so I'm somewhat frustrated with Britain because it is not accessible for pedestrians and I use a wheelchair for my body. That's a pretty important mobility feature for me. Just. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval, did you still a question? I did. I found it. Sorry about that, Councilman. Mr. President. So to the owner or mcwhinney whoever couldn't take this one, why are both parcels being re zoned? Why was not? Why is the brewery not just staying in the party and the other part going to see Max? Because we were instructed to do it this way by CPD. The CPD gives you told you that you had to rezone both properties. Yes. Can I ask Brandon? That is that is so this is not to take us back a couple weeks ago with this seems like a consistent thing that CPD keeps pushing property owners into zoned districts. And in my six and a half years here, I have not heard CPD do that. So did you guys recommend that they had to do this? Is it like based on parcel size, acreage size? Like what was why? Oh, I don't know if I would say that CPD directed them to that. It is CPD's practice to limit the use of custom zoning. So where we saw an opportunity to take away APD and replace it with waivers that were specific to that site and then resume the other piece to a standard zoned district, I think that was the thinking on our behalf. Tried to get at a customized zoned zoning. So the only I have one question following up, but there still is customized zoning with the with the waivers. Right. So we're not eliminating all customized zoning on this property. There still will be customized zoning because of the waivers. There's customized zoning that would move forward to allow great divide to continue its current operation. Yes. Okay. That's it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 964 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman said about you, this one's in your district. Did you want to comment first? CHAIR Thank you, Mr. President. I am very concerned about this one, and I've been concerned since you all came to committee. I don't think that this is an appropriate shift, especially without a plan. I think that the sale of the parcel that was used or that was bought with city dollars feels inappropriate. It doesn't feel different than profiting off of a subsidized home. And so I am not supportive of this tonight and I hope my colleagues will follow. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So this one is a little bit close to home because I used to work for Councilman Monteiro and I worked on this Peabody, so I knew the justifying circumstances. In 2013, I saw more agencies working together to get this property, this catalytic property on Brighton Boulevard, and that we needed to advance the Brighton Boulevard with the DCC. So we had in DCC, we had already we had Parks and Rec, we had public works and we had CPD at the table. And in six and a half years I have never had that many agencies talking about a rezoning. So for me, I don't feel like there's enough justifying circumstances that the landscape has changed enough to justify going back to a zone district that was formed in 2010. So when the city and county of Denver updated our whole entire zoning, we had the opportunity. It was a five year robust process. There was tons of outreach and there are parcels in northwest Denver that do not have updated zoning that are called Chapter 59, part of the old zoning. And in northwest Denver, I have had the need to use customized zoning to save some of our historic properties and historic structures. And we have not been allowed to use customary zoning. We've had properties in northwest Denver that needed OED dollars to make sure that we had robust commercial zones. And we have not have been granted OED dollars. We have not been granted OED dollars based upon contingent upon a rezoning. So for me, this one seems like there's a lot of city investment, which there is if you look at buy in Boulevard and the mayor's budget since the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was started, this area has received more capital improvement and more money than any other area in Denver. And I'm thankful for that. I think it's redeveloped. I don't agree with. Everything. But tonight, I just do not feel that this rezoning meets the criteria that you all are basing it on. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that there are a lot of balls up in the air. We don't have a specific project in mind right now. It looks like we're thinking about doing some rezoning as well. And just to be consistent with if we're if we want to make sure that we, you know, with our budget discussion earlier tonight, if we're going to have I mean, if we're going to think things through before we greenlight things, I think this is a number another opportunity for us to think things through. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this. It does meet the. Criteria, and. It is not within. Our law that you really you provide us with the plan. And I understand why you don't have one without having the zoning redone. It's a priority for this council and for our administration that we get more affordable housing, which is why we have these incentive overlays, especially in this area. And I see Chris Nevitt back there, our Tweedy director, and I know it's it's very important to him and the people he works with in CPD and our DITO Department that we get affordable housing in this area. So I'm excited about the sense of overlay. I know the city spent a lot of resources creating that and I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Seeing no other comments this evening. I'll just add that I agree with Councilwoman Black that this application has met the legal criteria for rezoning. I think some more discussion and the discussion that we continue having is about what we're presented in front of us when we're making these decisions. And I think that warrants us continuing to look at how that can be different. But it is not right now. And I think as demonstrated in the staff report, this meets the legal criteria for a rezoning. So I will be supporting it tonight. Madam Secretary. Raquel CdeBaca. No Black. Eye. When I. Gillmor I. Herndon High. Hines Ney. Cashman High. Kenny Ortega Reluctantly. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Tourists? No. Mr. President. Right. Madam Secretary, please close voting and notes results in 12. Go. Eight eyes, five. Nest, eight eyes, five needs constable 964 has passed. Desmond Flynn, will you please put Counsel Bill 1967 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 967 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Recommendation to Accept Additional Information and Renderings Requested by City Council regarding the Design Concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way. (Transportation 91402)

AlamedaCC_07182017_2017-4371

Of all those in favor I motion cares unanimously. Thank you. So five oh was pulled and now five Q We have a speaker. Jim Strelow five Q. But it's the recommendation to accept additional information and renderings requested by City Council regarding the design concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way. You can go ahead and speak on it. Thank you. Honorable mayor, city council to a sentence of alameda that we're talking about, the section of atlantic avenue between webster and constitution way. And the main objection I have is the one going eastbound that currently there are two lanes going from Webster becomes three lanes when it gets up to constitution way. That's the existing model with a right hand turn on on the light if you want to. You'll now be taking away practically one full lane. So it'll be a single lane between Webster going up to halfway block and then there'll be a single lane was a left hand turn only lane. The problem is also as is that that single lane that's either going straight or right hand turn on to constitution way you've somehow created a no right hand turn on red. So therefore all it will take is about four or five vehicles not being able to make the normal right hand turn that they can now off of Atlantic Avenue. That will back up to mid block and then that will block people from getting into the left hand turn lane. So therefore, the delay that the consultants gave of the all they're only be about a couple of seconds delay with the new design as already submitted that it will become to about 2 to 3 minutes for somebody wanting to make a left hand turn because they won't be able to get into the left hand turn lane that they'll be blocked because of the backup from cars not being able to make a right hand turn on the Constitution. Now, you folks want to add a mid-block crossing, which will Diana further create a jam so that maybe only four or five cars will come from Webster to Mid-Block and then cars won't even be able to make the left hand turn from Webster Street onto Atlantic or even come from Alameda Point straight going onto Atlantic Avenue. They'll probably even have to wait out an entire cycle or two of traffic lights at Webster and Atlantic and from mayor up auto. So therefore adding in this mid-block just adds to the problem that's already existing because of the no right hand turn designation off of it, off of Atlantic on to Constitution. So doing this mid-block is just making it that much worse. And I really dislike the the, the concept the consultants estimates of the delay only being a few seconds when it will actually come minutes. Thank you. These are only speaker on this staff. Could you clarify what this agenda item is? Because it came to us before. In regards to the merits. At that time, member Ashcraft and myself requested better drawings and we do have them. However, at that point there was, I believe, a vote on the merits that she and I both voted no on because. This was approved by council with a request to bring back the drawings. Option two And I do remember the discussion about the Mid-Block crossing and we heard from folks because that's where Independence Plaza is. And we had almost the requisite number of pedestrian collisions, pedestrians being hit by cars. Not quite. We were like one or two shy, as if we want to wait to get that 12th pedestrian hit and then we'll add the crossing. And then we learned that remember that people were actually driving across the street from Independence Plaza. But so your question, though, I think that I really wanted to get to the vote of you raised discussion on the merits, the substance of the whether or not to have the crosswalk, the impact of the different no right turn on, read those things. I believe that discussion was already determined by council at the prior hearing and at that time two of us. My recollection is actually opposed because to have it come back we would have better drawings, but three decided to go ahead on the merits. So at this point, my understanding we're not we're just being asked to accept these drawings and this additional information. But the council is already so. City Manager Yes, that's true. It was, yes. But Rochelle Wheeler might be able to explain the rationale of the bicycle going through and that they would be driving or. Right. As a vehicle or in the bike lane. And and just so the audience and council can follow along with this, be in your presentation, Miss Wheeler. That's exhibit seven. Yeah. If you wanted to bring that up, we can just show the overview. But that's the, the, the section that I believe the city manager is referring to is the section west of the driveway. You have multiple. Exhibits in your packet. The first exhibit one, which we can bring up on the screen. But that's that's the one with the overview on it. But so the yeah, the section to the west of the driveway includes a two way separated bicycle lanes, which means the bicyclists will be separate from the auto travel lanes. And to address the speaker's comments, there will be and that is the only section of that block that will have any auto lane reduction going from three lanes to two lanes. One of those so this will be. Eastbound Atlantic at Constitution. There will be a. Left turn only lane and a through and a right turn lane. So. Give us just a moment to catch up. Yeah. Can you also. All visual that this is the exhibit one that's in your packet. Sure. So we're there. I'm happy to answer other questions or to do a full presentation. So at this point, I think it'd be appropriate to just answer other questions or provide whatever information a summary that you think is appropriate. I did want to ask about so the issue of the no right turn on red. Is this some of this could be considered work. Staff would be reviewing it and seeing if it's working or not. And then there could be modifications definitely as it's implemented. So if something like that occurs, we are always open to feedback from the community. You can email, staff and counsel and we can always reconsider. That's correct. And so in the as I said, in the a. Point or grade, I know that council can't see the pointer. But this in this section here between the the driveway to Starbucks and Constitution, this is where the separated. Bicycle lanes will basically use the existing travel lane that's there. That's a right. Turn only lane. And that's. Because we do not have adequate width to include them in that in that section. Of the of the block. It is it's not quite accurate to say that there is no right turns allowed. Right turns would be allowed. Perhaps what's being mentioned is that if. There is a car that wants to go straight here blocking that right turn, it's true that if you are one or two cars. Behind and wanted to make a right, you would not be. Able to make a right until there was a green light at this intersection. We did fully study this. We did a multimodal level of service analysis to see what would happen with this configuration exactly as you see it here with the Mid-Block crossing. And we found that obviously it would drastically improve conditions for people walking and biking. And there are some small delays for motorists, including. A 1/2 delay through the intersection in the morning. About seven and a half seconds through in the afternoon, there would be some additional queuing of cars both in the morning and the evening. But there is sufficient capacity for that additional queuing. And if in the future there are. Problems that. Show up here, we could come in and do a retrofit and remove the median there at that intersection and add back a third lane there. So if a car wants to get to the housing authority coming down Atlantic from Webster, well, they'll be able to make a left turn to get in there. How do they get there? Yeah, we we did look at that because that was raised at the last meeting. And our recommendation. Is not to allow left turns into that driveway because there's already. So much complexity in the middle of that block with the added mid-block and the turns in and out of the driveway into Starbucks. So we are looking at the possibility of allowing a U-turn at Constitucion so that cars that are traveling eastbound could make a U-turn. And then go into the housing authority driveway. But that has to be studied further. So that is being looked at because currently if you're trying to get to the housing authority from the other side of Webster, you can't make a left. So you actually have to go down quite a few blocks to turn into some parking lot, turn back around or. Circle the whole. Right block. I appreciate you looking into that as it's accessible from both sides of town. Member matter. I would like. To move acceptance of the drawings. Second, I think Mr. Odey did. There is second all those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now we're on five. Why? And I think that's the last one. Right. You've covered the rest of them. Okay. Five. Why? I had failed because I had voted no last time, so I wanted to have the opportunity to vote no one more time. So five Why is final passage of ordinance amending the Disposition and development agreement between Alameda Point Partners LLC and the City of Alameda for site at Alameda Point?

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $621, offset by the Third Council District One-Time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to Friends of Belmont Shore for their community concert; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $621 to offset by a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_06142022_22-0647

Thank you. Let's handle fund transfer items 23 to 27. Item 23 Communication from Councilman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the City Manager Department by $621 to provide a contribution to Friends of Belmont Shore for their community concert. Item 24 Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the City Manager Department by $2,250 to provide a donation to Cavalry School Foundation to support the I Dig Long Beach number two care closet LBC to support assisting people experiencing homelessness and three Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association to support their annual summer concert at Pan-Am Park. 25 A communication from Councilwoman Sara recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the City Manager Department by 3500 to support the LGBTQ center of Long Beach. Item 26 Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a donation to Partners of Parks in support of the Long Beach Juneteenth celebration. An Item 27 Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund group in the City Manager Department by 2500 to provide a donation to Carlo Creative LLC. That concludes the fund transfers. Thank you. Is there any public comment? No public comment on these items. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Motion is carried eight zero. Thank you. Now we'll take care of public comment.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the Cannabis Equity Program; direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to allow shared-use cannabis manufacturing in Long Beach; and, direct staff from the City Manager Department to prepare a feasibility analysis on licensing and regulating non-storefront (delivery-only) cannabis retail facilities in Long Beach. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01052021_21-0017

Thank you. And we have two items left, 16 and 17. So we'll do item 16. Or from city manager recommendation to receive and file a report on the cannabis equity program. Direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to allow shared use cannabis manufacturing and direct staff to prepare a feasibility analysis on licensing and regulating delivery only cannabis retail facilities citywide. Thank you, Mr. Moto culture in this. Over to you. Look, I know we have a very large cap presentation, so obviously we want to get through this presentation. Let's just do it expeditiously and I'll turn it over to you. Sir. I will turn it over to Kevin Jackson, RW City Manager and AJ Callery, our assistant to the city manager, to go through the presentation. Thank you. Tom J. Cleary will conduct a presentation. Thank you. Again, my name is Jake Cleary. I work for the Office of Cannabis Oversight and the City Manager's Office. On July 7th, 2020, the City Council directed staff to explore ways to strengthen the cannabis social equity program and expand equitable ownership opportunities. In Long Beach on August 5th, 2020, staff released a memorandum in response to City Council's request. The memorandum identified three policy options for the City Council to improve cannabis business ownership opportunities in the city. On December 1st, 2020, staff presented these policy options to the Economic Development and Finance Committee. The committee then voted to refer two of those three options to the City Council for consideration. In this presentation, I will go through those options referred by the Committee before turning it back to the City Council for Input and Policy Direction. Before discussing policy options, I'd first like to provide some background on the cannabis equity program. The program was first adopted by the City Council in July 2018 as part of the Adult Use Cannabis Ordinance. The purpose of the program is to promote opportunity in the industry for individuals negatively impacted by the prior criminalization of cannabis. Numerous studies have shown that before legalization, low income minority groups were disproportionately arrested and convicted for cannabis offenses. Despite similar cannabis usage rates, one of the great challenges of cannabis legalization is the fact that low income minority owned businesses have been significantly underrepresented in the newly regulated cannabis market. Recognizing this trend, the city council voted to create a cannabis equity program. To qualify for the program, an individual must have a family income below 80% of the area. Median income, which is about $90,000 for a family of four, have a net worth below $250,000 and satisfy at least one of three criteria having to do with residency , arrest, history or unemployment status. Program benefits include access to application workshops hosted by city staff fee waivers and expedited application approvals. In addition, the city was awarded funds from the state of California to provide direct grants to equity applicants. A portion of those funds will also be used to build a technical assistance program. It is important to note, however, that these benefits by no means guarantee a license as currently designed. These benefits are meant to act as an incentive for equity applicants to move through the licensing process. And as it turns out, those incentives have not been enough to push the vast majority of equity applicants through the licensing process. To date, the city has issued one license to an equity owned business, with a total of five pending business license applications from equity applicants. By comparison, the city has had 79 residents qualify for the program. The main reason for the discrepancy between interest and success within the program is the significant barriers that exist to business ownership in the cannabis industry. Those barriers include access to capital, access to Green Zone, real estate, access to banking, construction and equipment costs, access to professional services, restrictions on the license types currently available in the city. The fact that those license types operated operate within a saturated and competitive marketplace. And finally, a restrictive statewide regulatory system. To be blunt, most of these factors are beyond the city's control. Collectively, these barriers highlight the fundamental challenge of cannabis equity programs, not just in Long Beach, but really across the state and country. That is, that the cannabis industry is fundamentally one of the more challenging industries to promote equitable small business ownership. To demonstrate this point, I have prepared a sample list of startup costs for a cannabis manufacturing facility. These costs are at the lower end of the spectrum for what it would take to build a manufacturing business and can easily grow into the millions of dollars depending on the scale of operation. Specifically, startup costs include lease payments for a minimum of one year while the facility is built out. Construction machinery installation which can include extraction infusion printing and packaging equipment. Initial cannabis inventory. Staffing costs prior to opening. Professional services, including brokers, attorneys and architects. And other startup costs, including security equipment, vehicles, insurance marketing and other expenses. The city has received funds from the state to help with these costs, but grant funds are only enough to cover a portion of the expenses you see on the slide. In light of these significant barriers to entry into the market, staff works to identify three policy options for the City Council to consider for strengthening equity ownership opportunities in Long Beach. The options identified include shared use, manufacturing, delivery, only retail and additional dispensary licenses. These three business types represent more realistic pathways to cannabis business ownership for individuals with limited resources by offering licenses with a lower startup cost, reduced facility footprint, fewer technical requirements, and a less saturated marketplace. However, it is important to emphasize once more that these options do not guarantee success for equity applicants, and that significant challenges remain for anyone seeking to enter the competitive cannabis market. The first option is to allow cannabis shared use manufacturing in the city, also known as Type S licenses. Shared use manufacturers were first authorized by the California Department of Public Health in 2018, but is currently prohibited in Long Beach per the municipal code. Type S licenses allow multiple businesses to produce cannabis products within a single facility. The closest comparison to this would be a shared commercial kitchen where multiple businesses are able to rent space to produce food products for consumers. It should be noted that Long Beach already licenses cannabis manufacturers locally, with 25 businesses currently operating in the city under this business type. Under existing regulations, however, these businesses must operate out of separate facilities, which can require hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to build. This has had the effect of restricting access to the license types to individuals with significant startup capital. The advantage of type s licenses is that it provides small businesses the opportunity to manufacture cannabis products without necessarily having to invest 100% of the startup costs within the facility. Businesses can either partner together to build a shared space, or they can rent space within an existing license facility. One disadvantage to this license type is the fact that initial investment to build a new shared use facility can still be significant. Cities that currently license shared use manufacturing include Sacramento, Santa Ana and Oakland, as well as the county of Santa Cruz. This slide shows some of the recent examples of shared use facilities currently under development in two of those jurisdictions. The second option is to issue licenses for delivery only retail, also known as non storefront retailers. Delivery only retailers are authorized to conduct cannabis sales exclusively by delivery. They must remain closed to the public at all times and therefore expected to have less impact on neighborhoods than do storefront retailers. This is not a new concept. Long Beach already allows its existing storefront retailers to deliver cannabis to residents in the city. However, many of these businesses choose not to deliver, given their primary focus on storefront sales. As a result, delivery only licenses represent an opportunity for equity owned businesses to participate in the regulated cannabis market. Cities that currently licensed delivery only retail include the cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Sacramento. The city of Los Angeles also recently announced that they will begin accepting applications for delivery only licenses. The third option is to make available more dispensary licenses in Long Beach for equity applicants. Dispensaries are businesses that sell cannabis goods to customers on site within licensed business premises. This third option is not part of the recommendation before the city council tonight. Instead, the Economic Development and Finance Committee requested staff to return to the committee in six months for further discussion on this topic. The city of Sacramento is one example of a jurisdiction that voted to move forward with ten additional dispensary licenses after initially approving 30 dispensary licenses. However, Sacramento is still in the initial phases of implementing this new program, and therefore more time will be needed to report back on results. To summarize, there are two recommendations before the city council today has referred by the Economic Development and Finance Committee. Recommendation number one is to direct the city attorney's office, city attorney's office to prepare an ordinance to allow for shared use manufacturing in Long Beach. Recommendation number two is to direct staff to prepare a feasibility analysis for licensing and regulating non storefront, also known as delivery only cannabis retail facilities, and refer those findings to the City Council for Input and Policy Direction. That concludes my presentation and I am available for questions. Thank you very much. Let me first do any public comment that we have and then we'll go to the Council. Our first speaker is Carlos Zepeda. Carlos Zepeda. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Peter. And I have been verified as a social equity applicant in the city of Long Beach since 2018. The Times are half measures regarding the kind of social equity program in the city of Long Beach should be over. We should be leading the way, in example, for other California. Cities to. Follow. Originally, when the City of Long Beach created and implemented the licensing process for recreational cannabis, there was very little consideration of social equity applicants. The Lobby social equity program from July 2018 through July 2020 was halfhearted, to say the least. The current social equity program has made some improvements, but there's still significant progress that needs to be made. Recognize the errors in the social IP program thus far and dedicate the time and energy to resolve these issues. The City of Long Beach said that the city ordinance that would give priority to already existing social equity applicants to apply for delivery licenses by the city of Los Angeles is currently trying to do. This will allow us the opportunity to create generational wealth and equity in the cannabis industry for those who have been in the program for several years. My older brother rest in peace and my uncle both spent time in jail for selling the same plant that's creating. Additional wealth. For current cannabis operators. I think it's very safe to assume that a majority, majority of the current cannabis operators in the city of Long Beach have not been directly affected by the war on drugs. Again, creating and implementing a city ordinance that will allow social equity applicants an opportunity to obtain delivery licenses as part of the solution . To this problem. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jade S. Jade S. Hello. Hello. City Council members. My name is page three Marseille. I'm just wanting to talk a little bit about the way that this current system is set up such that social equity applicants do not have an opportunity to obtain licenses that allow them to sell direct to consumers. If delivery licenses are awarded, then social equity applicants will not have to rely on the relationships with non social equity applicants to sell our product and in this way it provides. Social equity and applicants. A fair chance of success by allowing them to apply for either dispensary or delivery licenses. We should really learn from other social equity programs that have failed in the past, such as the City of Los Angeles, that had numerous issues with social equity applicants in which they were taken advantage of by non social equity applicants. Non social equity applicants who happen to be dispensary owners have control over the market right now and can determine both prices and make deals that eat into the profit margins of social equity applicants. If Long Beach can allow for social equity, applicants have licenses that are both currently available in addition to dispensary delivery licenses that will really give us a chance to truly compete and gain equity in the cannabis market. After all, it's not just about getting socially equitable and started, but it's also about allowing an operative to succeed in the long term. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the council. I have a motion by Vice Mayor Richardson and a second by Councilwoman Allen. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Just a little bit of background on this discussion. You know, after unrest in our city and in alignment with the discussions, the framework for reconciliation, community meeting process, we made a we made a recommendation at City Council to go and take a look at this program to see how we can targeted and look for additional opportunities for ownership and to hone the program that we have that we have in place. Staff conducted a high level study submitted a memo. That memo came to our economic development committee where we had a great deal of discussion on this and public comment and forwarded these three recommendations to the City Council. And I say three because we recommended to move forward with an ordinance on shared use. Secondly, two, to go ahead and take the next step, next step of study on delivery, to prepare, put us in a position to create an ordinance for delivery industry. And then thirdly, it wasn't just to not move forward, but rather we want to send the right signal here that there is there are more immediate opportunities right now with fair use and delivery and delivery only, and to create an immediate economic impact. And then once that's done well, we'll look at the next phase, which could be defense, but that's not what we're doing today. So. That's right. So we're. So it wasn't a recommendation to not move forward. The recommendation was we want to start with these and staff recommend that the advise that these two were the most based and ready to go. So that went to the Economic Development Committee and that is now here before us at city council. And I want to move this recommendation now to give a little bit further direction. It's important to understand the landscape of this equity discussion. Not many jurisdictions have gotten this right. It's a difficult thing to land. It's a nail. But jurisdictions that continue to work at it make progress. For example, they just highlighted Sacramento is continuing to work at it and other jurisdictions continue to work on it. I want staff to feel comfortable. You know, cannabis historically has been a hey hesitate at every step of direction from the council. I think when you're creating an industry, you really want to give staff some creativity and some flexibility, you know, to meet with industry and, you know, work out the kinks and come back as needed to the city council when they need additional direction. And so within within my motion, I want to really express that sentiment. And I've talked with I've expressed the sentiment of staff and with the city manager, and they understand that the sentiment here is that this should be a living, breathing process and as needed, bring it back to the City Council for Refinement. And that's my hope of what we can accomplish here today is move forward these two and leave some flexibility. The last thing I'll say is. You know, regulation of an industry can actually create industry and create demand and create, you know, create opportunity and where our economy is going to transition. Right now, we're in a transitioning economy. And, you know, with with you know, if we look at regulations related to air quality, other things, an entire sort of industry of new technology and and supply chain and all these things come out of regulation at time. And we're in a moment right now where there is an opportunity to create new industry with delivery only. Let's make sure that we target that to have as great of an impact as possible on moving the needle on equity. We know that. We know that we have a k-shaped recovery, meaning most folks of middle income, high income. They're going to they're already on the path to recovery. But folks there in a very low income sector, they are continuing to show low unemployment rates and they're continuing to decline. They have not turned around yet. That's a k-shaped recovery. That is the fact. And we have and this is one of many tools that we have to align with our recovery strategy. So that's it. That's my motion. And I look forward to hearing from the health. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. Yeah. Thank you for that. And I think this proposal is just a great way to, you know, expand business ownership opportunities to individuals in the city that have been disenfranchized by prior cannabis laws. And I want to congratulate Carlos, who was one of our first speakers on the approval to the program. I am super excited for you regarding the delivery only cannabis business feasibility study. I do look forward to seeing those findings. I feel like this is a great way to grow the industry without council action on more storefronts, which I believe right now are capped at around 32. And I do believe that also that a lot of the delivery that's happening currently in the city is from the illicit market. So regulating and sanctioning this may curtail some of those activities. One of the things I want to ask, I know in the presentation I saw that you're recommending that the delivery industry be cap the uncapped . And I don't truly I don't understand that. It seems like to me that it's better to be capped. You know, too many businesses that are doing delivery only may hurt the folks that we are helping getting you know, get into the industry. And this is, like you said, this is a very challenging industry to get into. So I am concerned with over saturating the market and I want to see all these folks who are getting into this thrive. So just a couple of questions that I have is, first of all, how large is the state grant? That we have to assist equity applicants. How much do we have left and do you know how much has been exhausted? And then my second question is how many applicants have applied for that? And the reason I'm asking that question and how many get through, because if we have, you know, 100 Apple kids and only ones getting through, then perhaps we need to go back and reexamine our process for getting these approved. And then also another question that just came up as I was watching your presentation is you said that a portion of the fees could be covered. And depending on how much grant money we have, is there an opportunity to cover all of those fees? So those are my questions. Thank you for for those questions. So to answer your first question. The state awarded us two grant funds, one through the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the other through the governor's office called Cannabis. The BTC grant was for approximately $960,000. The Go Bears Award was for $2.6 million. Of that amounts, approximately 580,000 has been granted out to equity applicants to date. We continue to have grant funds available, and our hope is that by expanding access to new business opportunities, we'll be able to utilize all of the grant funds. However, if throughout grant implementation, it turns out that we're not on pace to use all the grant funds. We will work with equity applicants to determine if there are other ways or new milestones that we can come up with to allocate all the funds within the deadline that the state created. In terms of the number of equity applicants that have applied and received funds, I do not have that number in front of me right now. So we will have to follow up with you on on that statistic for your third question. Four for fees. We are currently waiving all fees for equity applicants. So that includes application fees, administrative use permit or conditional use permit fees, building plant check fees, inspection fees. They are all currently waived using the grant funds that were awarded by the state. Thank you. All right. So the mayor stepped away. So the next speaker is council member Sarah. So I want to thank the Economic Development and Finance Committee and staff for bringing this up for the committee for bringing foreign staff on the work on this. And given the historic criminalization of cannabis, the consequences have been devastating on communities, low income communities of color, which is why I strongly support this cannabis social equity program. I think that it largely impacts a lot of the residents in my district. You know how, however, though, I think the criteria needs to to be targeted specifically to low income disadvantaged communities. And so I do agree with the qualifying factors are criteria of having a family income below 80% of the area median income and have a were a net worth below $250,000. And to satisfy at least one of the following, which is lived in a limited census tract for a minimum of three years, where at least 51% of current residents have a household income at or below 80% of the am-I, and also was arrested or convicted for a crime relating to the sales possession. Use our cultivation of cannabis in Long Beach prior to November eight, 2016 that would have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a citation under California law. And and but but I would like to, if you will, take this, Vice Mayor Richardson, since you made the motion to remove, is a Long Beach resident currently receiving unemployment benefits . Thank you, Councilmember. Is that all your comment? Or did you have additional comment? No, that is it. I'll say that. That is it. Thank you. I think it. I certainly think it makes sense. I mean, that was staff's original recommendation. And it doesn't mean that someone who's unemployed can't receive a job or apply for a job in the industry, that those jobs or establish a new business within the industry, you know, but people can still apply. But that wouldn't count toward equity credit unless you meet those criteria. So I think what you're describing makes sense given sort of the intent of the program. So absolutely that is accepted. Next is council members and they have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm having trouble with my meeting. And I'm meeting today. Please excuse me. But I think I think that, first of all, I just wanted to say thank you to the staff and thank you to Jay for your great presentation to me. I think that, you know, this is very important going forward, especially in this industry and especially in these times. But I think Councilmember Sara just asked my question that I had. So thank you council member for for beating me to it. I just wanted to to get a little bit more clarification. I know that. You know, this industry is very new. So I know that, you know, we're still working everything out. And I think that this is a really great way to do that. I know that there was a specific mention about, you know, about how these requirements, the requirements are towards people who have been criminalized in the past. So I'm really happy to see that we're taking that into consideration. So that was actually that was my question to get a little bit more clarification on that. So Councilmember Sorrell actually posed the question and it was answered by Steph, but I just also wanted to say thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Price. Thank you. So I want to thank staff for the presentation. Just a few comments. I know that when we were talking about the brick and mortar operations several years ago, one of the concerns that came up when I think I think I was mentioning the idea of the not having brick and mortar at first phasing into it with a delivery only model. And the concern at that time was that there would be no enforcement mechanism in place to distinguish between licensed Long Beach businesses and those that might be servicing through weed maps and other third party connecting entities. So we've had several years of best practices now, so. A-J Could you maybe speak to that a little bit? Are there different enforcement mechanisms that are now available or operational models that are available that can help alleviate the concern of the illicit market? Taking over the delivery model. Of the illicit delivery market continues to be a challenge. It is incredibly difficult to enforce against. It's a challenge that nearly every city in the state faces. We do have an enforcement program. It's a tax task force model. It's a complaint driven model. It's one that relies on staff from business licensing, code enforcement, health departments, city attorney's office, fire department. We have enforce against illegal delivery businesses, but it has been and continues to be a Whac-A-Mole approach where they they pop up at various locations. That part of what drives the illicit market, though, however, is a lack of access to the legal market. So one effective approach to dealing with the illegal delivery services is to provide consumers at least access to a legal source and allowing for licensed legal delivery services because it gives consumers a choice and it gives them a choice to purchase tested products, regulated products, more reliable cannabis products. And it actually ends up being an effective enforcement program. Implicitly by allowing for illegal delivery services. Yeah, I can. I could see that. I wonder, and I know it's not the perfect analogy, but looking at how we're working with our short term rental, know the third party sites that are posting the availability of registered short term rentals. Is there some way that we can work with the third party vendors like We Maps and others so that there's like a registration number or something available for these delivery businesses where the consumer can know that they're a licensed entity in the city? Yes, the state has begun requiring that we maps. And so you will find more businesses on that site that have state licenses referenced on their pages. We also have a city website that includes a map of all of our legal dispensaries in the city, and we've been surprised to see how many hits that website gets. A lot of people use that as a resource to determine where to to purchase cannabis. We can continue to update that site. Should the city council ultimately decide to allow for legal delivery services to identify the legal services in the city as well? But it's also something that is going to take time for consumers to fully shift to the legal market. And so it is these incremental steps that we're taking are helpful, but they're not going to fully address the problem, which will will be a longer fix. Yeah, no, I agree. So I know that you guys are going to do a feasibility study and come back. So perhaps you can include in there some sort of a marketing program to encourage residents to utilize our city data resources regarding the established businesses, because I think consumer protections in terms of the product and the safety of the product is a pretty critical thing right now. And I think that consumer protection angle and how we can market that could be something that we could really invest in as a city. So if hopefully when you come back of the study, it can include that that marketing component for a site to legitimate businesses, that would be good. And then the other question that I had. What's really about the issue is, oh, no, it's not a question, it's a comment. I agree with Vice Mayor Richardson that we should encourage staff to have creativity. But I think it's creativity within the policies that we'd set. Right. So from a policy standpoint, we want staff to have tremendous creativity in coming up with ways that we can implement our policies in creative ways. But we do have, you know, nine representatives on people who may not all agree with staff at any time on certain policies. And since all of our residents deserve to be heard, we want to make sure that we're showcasing a lot of the policy considerations at council and talking through those ideas together with staff in a public setting. So with that, I want to thank staff for this excellent report. And I think the the efficiencies that can be found in joint use facilities is a fantastic opportunity to get people to enter the market. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Councilman Austin. Thank you very much. And I appreciate all of your comments and questions thus far. Obviously, I am a big supporter of US social equity with cannabis in our city. We've been working toward this and on this for quite some time and and we still have work to go. A lot of work to do. I just wanted to focus on the intent of the policies we're looking to create here. And I just need a little bit more clarification from staff, certainly in general in spirit, I support the direction that we're headed in. But I want to just ensure that that we are we are. And as Councilmember Cheryl mentioned, we are impacting the targeted groups that we want to target with what these policies. And so so first out, how do we ensure that or I guess, question number one is shared use manufacturing. Is that permitted in the city of Long Beach now? Charges. Manufacturing is currently prohibited in the city due to our premises requirements, which restrict one licensee from operating in a given premises. Okay, I understand the ideal of expanding, but how do we ensure that these shared use manufacturing facilities are not just expanding the businesses of existing operators as opposed to expanding opportunity for for equity targets? So the recommendation to allow for the license type would expand opportunities for anyone so both equity and non-equity business owners. That's something, however, that we would seek direction from City Council. On if you wanted to restrict licenses in any way. Well, I mean, I guess I guess I need to know what we we need to study and understand what our options are to actually ensure that we are delivering a policy. And carrying out its full intent. Right. Because I don't want the unintended consequence to be, oh, well, the big guy just came in and took advantage of our policy and now they're manufacturing and they've got storefronts and deliveries going on and they're saturating the market. Right. The ideal is to give the individuals with the least amount of advantage, some advantage. And I don't see that here. And so council, with all due respect, I think we we have work to do still. If we want to make this policy work the way we want it to work. And to the point earlier stated, I think it's I support more expanding dispensary options if that means expanding opportunities. And I think Steph actually mentioned earlier by expanding opportunities, we do have a have a greater impact in reducing being the illicit market in our city. And so, you know, the I guess the the conversation about cannabis equity has always been about are we looking to create, you know, equity jobs or equity ownership or both? And I think we need to be on both jobs and ownership. And but we need to put some some assurances in to the policy. And I'm not exactly sure how that how we do that right now. I would love for, you know, before any sort of, you know, anything comes back, the staff be able to provide some some recommendations or some best practices in which we can can can put that into any sort of policy moving forward. Thank you. The next speaker is council member. Thank you. I have several questions. We did hear this before. The Development Finance Committee, of which I at the time was vice chair. And several questions did come up at that time. And I had not been able to form all of my questions because so much that was learned at that time. I'm disappointed that the commitment to an additional meeting in December didn't take place, but I know we were all very busy and and COVID and the holidays and all of those things. But I do have several questions, so I apologize if I have to reach you after the 5 minutes. I want to echo the comments from Councilmember Sotto and Austin that we really are looking to help the communities that were most impacted by this. And so and I think that paired with the comments from Councilwoman Allen related to wanting these businesses to be successful really leads me to believe that this ordinance could be most valuable if we picked a certain number of licenses in each category and restricted it to equity candidates only. I think that the fact that there was $3.86 million available in grants and only 560,000 have been utilized to date demonstrates that there is funding available to get these equity candidates to the front of the line. And so I would hope that the maker of the motion would consider restricting the ordinance at this time to be for equity candidates. Then what we can do is we can see what barriers are still there, despite the available funding of $3.3 million, and then kind of work backwards and say, okay, now that we have X number of shared use manufacturing and we have X number of delivery, then we can say, okay. Let's talk to those businesses that are equity candidates and are being successful and figure out if they are just flooded with demand or if the demand that they have is just enough to keep them in a profitable status. Because, like Councilman Allen said, we don't want to have 70 of these businesses, equity candidates putting their lifeblood into it. But then the market being so saturated by individuals who do this all up and down the state that they're not successful and then those businesses don't have a fighting chance. So I have a series of questions that go to that. Can the grant funds be used for lease payment, construction costs and purchases of vehicles and equipment for equity candidates? Yes. The grant funds can be used for that purpose. Great. You mentioned that there were lots of hits to our legal cannabis business web page. What is lots to you in terms of number of hits per month? I don't have a statistic for how many per month, but the number of hits was in the thousands. The last time that we checked, I would need to go back to I give you an exact number. Is it thousands of individuals or thousands of hits to the site and was cumulative? It was cumulative. I rechecked months ago, so I would need to revisit it for an update. It wasn't unique individuals. It was based off of total hits to the website. Yes. So that concerns me when I look at website statistics and the number of individuals who are purchasing cannabis in our city. I've talked to cannabis business owners. We have certain business owners that I've spoken with since our meeting about enough because I asked specifically, Hey, you're a really successful cannabis business in our city and you don't do delivery. Why is that? And he kind of talked to the fact that the profitability of the delivery market is so difficult because of the additional costs related to insurance. And we're not just talking about one time set up costs that the grant can work with, but the ongoing costs and risks of a delivery business are just higher. And so I also I mean, he even said it so far as that Amazon has a a small business incubator that an individual could go to and start their own delivery business for Amazon. And he said that the numbers in his perspective would be significantly more profitable. However, I recognize that you have to be passionate about what you do, and if individuals are passionate about the cannabis industry and they want to get into it, we do want them to have a pathway to being successful. And to do that, we I feel like it sounds like phase one of this plan should really be to reserve those licenses for equity candidates and that we should see what the market bears. A Jay is weed maps a licensed business in our city. And no weed maps is not a licensed cannabis business. I don't understand the intricacies of it, but they don't touch the cannabis plant in any way, so they're more of a marketing company. Do they have any license in our city? Not that I'm aware of. Does Airbnb or any of those types of platforms have a license in our city now that we have, or will they be required to have a license in our city? Now that we've changed the short term rental market. Christopher Coons is going to answer that question. Great. So if council. Council member. It's not a license like a business license, but we do have a written agreement with Airbnb and other platforms regarding the sharing of tax information and lodging information, and that's part of our short term rentals regulation program. If your 5 minutes are up. Thank you. I will you. Thank you. Have anyone else queued up so you don't remember? Oh, wonderful things. If you think you can get it done the next few minutes, I'll just suspend the rule and just finish your question. Great. Thank you. AJ Do you believe that Weed Maps is the number one tool utilized for finding. Cannabis related businesses? I don't think I'm in a position to comment on that. I have read a number of articles that point to weed maps as one of the larger marketing firms in this industry. But I don't know if they're the largest or if people use other means now of finding cannabis businesses in the state. Perhaps we should, similar to how we reached out and had a partnership with Airbnb. Perhaps we should reach out to weed maps and discuss with them the importance of only including licensed businesses on their platform and what we could do to. Work with them to to focus the efforts into our license businesses. That might be able to support these businesses. Let me see my last few questions on. So I guess if if this is really focused towards social equity. AJ What is the limit per applicant? For utilization of the grants. Is there a limit? Is it 200,000? Currently the total amount available per equity applicants for reaching all of the milestones in the application process is approximately $250,000. And what do we believe the start up costs of a. Non storefront delivery. Business would be. You had that chart. Yeah. The the chart that we showed in the presentation was for manufacturing facility. The total cost can range, but we tried to identify something on the lower range of the spectrum for a manufacturer, and that was about $500,000. We were using that as an example for how, even with the significant resources that we've received from the States, there are still major hurdles for equity applicants that include access to capital. To see a project through delivery only services have much less capital requirements. They're able to have a much smaller footprint and therefore a lower square footage space for their business. They have fewer, fewer technical requirements. The construction that's required within the facility is much less. I don't have an exact figure for you today, but we do believe that the grants that are currently available would be enough for equity applicants to go through the process to secure a delivery only license as opposed to the current licenses that we have available. So I guess I would say that there's $3.3 million left approximately based on your assessment. I'm going to do a quick math problem here on my calculator. Divide it by 250,000. That would be 13 additional licenses. So I would request the maker of the motion to. Start the program with authorization of the staff recommendation for first items one into shared use manufacturing licenses and. Non storefront delivery licenses for, let's say, 15 equity applicants. At least then the equity applicants will have a head start in the process and not have to compete. It also provides you'd mentioned that of the 32 licenses in the city, only one of them is an approved equity applicant. And so technically, unless we restricted these licenses, there would be potentially a 31 additional non equity applicants at the front of the line to do the shared manufacturing licenses. Now I recognize that multiple businesses are often owned by one entity and so they might not have a need for putting manufacturing onsite at all of their facilities. But I would say that if we want to be true to what we say is our intention, then I would ask the maker of the motion to approve the recommendation with the modification reserving. Phase one for equity candidates up to 19 license. What did I say? What was the number? Only 13. So up to 15 licenses. So I have two things I wanna respond to. But before I do, I want to make sure we have everything, all your comments, and I'll respond when you're done as your last week. I'll just respond to it before anything else. I did have one other thing. I'm going through my work. I went through my notes and I don't see what that last comment was, so hopefully I already got it. If not, I'll kill again. Thanks. Okay, great. Okay, so just a few things. So there's been a number of members who who expressed some of the common themes. The point here when the committee recommendations come forward is to get feedback from the whole council, and that's what's taking place tonight. So Sorrel, Alan, Austin and Mongo all expressed interest in starting this with equity candidates only, and I support that in terms of the cap. I want to ask staff to respond about is a cap legally of a legal considerations on a cap. If that we need to know about. We we do have concerns for how we would administer a cap and determine who has access to a license and who does not. We went through a process like that for dispensaries in the medical ordinance, and there were some challenges associated with that and maintaining the overall integrity of that program. Having said that, though, if the City Council is interested in having staff explore a cap within the framework of delivery only, we're more than happy to include that in our feasibility analysis and look at other models that other jurisdictions have followed and identify the pros and cons to the various approaches for for shared use manufacturing. The challenge is that cannabis at this point in the state of California is a borderless market. So any attempt to restrict the number of licenses in one city doesn't have that necessarily the effect that was anticipated, because manufacturers can locate in other cities that may or may not have a cap and that product can go across borders very easily. So we're also happy to explore that as a policy option if the city council wants to pursue a cap for that license type as well. However, we would need some time to to consider it because that was not included or considered for this recommendation. So we would need to discuss internally within our policy group and also with the city attorney's office to determine if there are any legal concerns or other concerns associated with it, specifically in regards to shared use. Okay. Great. So. So that makes sense. So what I'm going to accept is I think we go forward with with equity only on both. We will explore. We are going to ask staff to explore the feasibility of the cap on on delivery since you have some evaluation to do there. So that is an amendment to this motion. And then secondly, I just want to acknowledge Councilman Soros, her amendment earlier, her friendly amendment, that we're accepting that and we're going to apply that to business, new business opportunities and employment opportunities, as echoed by a couple of the council members as well. So those are the two additions and that is the motion. And let's go to the roll call. District one. I district to. High. District three. I. District four. High. District five. High. District six. I. District seven. District eight. District nine. All right. Ocean Cares. Thank you very much. Let me go ahead and go to the last item, which is item 17.

Recommendation to receive and file the Long Beach Safe Parking Program Feasibility Study; and Direct staff to initiate a 12-month pilot program at 2 locations within Long Beach, utilizing funding that is best appropriate.

LongBeachCC_09182018_18-0850

Motion carries 32. I am 32. Communication from Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman praised Councilmember Warangal recommendation to receive and file the Long Beach Safe Parking Program, facility, feasibility study and direct staff to initiate a 12 month pilot program at two locations within Long Beach. It seems the public comment scene on Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I'd like to turn it over to staff for staff presentation. Then behind the veil for conversation. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. As you remember, in October of 2016, the City Council requested a report on the feasibility of implementing a safe parking program. The Health Department did so looking at five other cities. Almost all were in California. One was in Washington. They identified five best practices, basically, that everyone who participates in the Safe Parking program is working on transitioning into permanent housing. They're generally run by nonprofit agencies, usually utilizing a variety of resources. They have a well-developed relationship with local police departments. But what we found is that they haven't had to use that very much, that they operate only in evening hours. So they tend to maybe start at five or six at night and end at seven in the morning and that they do not allow for RV parking. Generally, the programs require that people engage in planning and services to reach permanent housing. The staffing is sort of a case manager and worker model and all the information is entered into the homeless management information system. So they're fully engaged. Those eligible to participate get a time limit. A parking permit might be 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. That is contingent upon their participation in services and that programs are mostly have a small number of units and multiple sites. So in many cases you only have five units, seven units, something like that. Um, so the, the recommendation was to do a pilot program with a number of sites up to approximately 20. And from that, the estimated cost is about $220,000, which include staffing, facilities, security and other materials. With that, I closed my presentation. Spaces. 20 spaces. Just to clarify, that would not be two sites. That would be two spaces. We're talking about that in. One, two or three or other site. Right. I think the. Appreciate the staff presentation. Again, a little bit of context. So this was an item that was brought forward over a year ago and staff did a great job about hiring an outside consultant to come in. We facilitated meetings with, I believe, nine different churches to find out would they be open to doing a program, program like this? If not, what were their hesitations? What did they need to see? So I think staff has done a great job talking about security and restrooms and cleanliness. I know in the second district this has been a major issue. We have a large population of people residing in their cars and that, as we've had discussions before, not only is good, it's not good for their health, but it's also not good for our neighborhoods when we have people emptying out their their waste of all types out on our street. And it is definitely something that we want to do better at. So I'm very thankful for. The nine churches most recently have had a discussion with the church on Seventh and Redondo. I know that there are some concerns about where the churches might be. I think having staff work with those that are willing and able and that we have good security measures in place is a great first step. I also really appreciate that staff has done a great job about identifying funded funding that wouldn't come from our general fund, but then would come from monies available at the state level. So I hope my colleagues will support this. I know it's something that we've been talking about for a long time. A pilot program with four locations and 20 spots with that turnover rate could really have a great impact on our residents. Thank you. And if I can make a clarification, the. Agenda item talks about two. We would like some flexibility. To go through an RFP process and determine how many. Locations actually make sense. So given the dollars that would be. Available, how, you. Know, because some people may only want three or four spaces, some may want five or six. I think finding a good fit for us, that's not too many locations. I know that. I think four five is probably the conversation that we've had with with other folks. So I would ask that, yes, we go through an RFP process. I appreciate being able to be flex flexible. I think if it's more than four locations, we should have a two from four to the council to be able to talk about where those might be. Sure. If that could be add in the motion, that'd be great. I'll go right ahead. Okay. I have a comment. Yes. I'm sorry. Okay. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thanks. So thank you for the the information. I'm glad that we're finally bringing this back. So thank you. Councilmember Pierson, you've been working on this for some time with our health department and many other organizations along with these churches. And what I would just say, and I know we're having this discussion, the 12 months in selecting a couple going from there, do we have or six months? Do we have a list of the nine churches that were in the discussions? Because it'd be nice to know who those are. And then secondly, I would just sort of reiterate, whoever we pick in the to whatever hopefully the pilot program goes well and it's, you know, to our liking and we like the process and we can get that figured out. But looking forward to like a mainstay program, I would really like us to look at this equitably around the city, and I continue to reiterate that because, you know, many of our downtown neighborhoods have been the fair share. We've we've had the fair share of a lot of the services. And I really just hope that we can find other cities are doing it. L.A. is looking at each each police division. So they have about four police, probably more police divisions, but they're looking at each police division to make it citywide. Other areas are looking per district. They're even looking at field offices of council members. I know that's a whole other discussion, but just in that same thought process, I hope that we can make this as equitable as possible throughout the city, not even just for our residents. But I also think about the individuals that are experiencing homelessness that may want different opportunities in different places close to other services around the city. So just a thought on that. But again, I think you and I think that was all my questioning. So thank you very much. I'm sorry, did you answer the nine locations? The nine locations. Councilwoman Pearce has those nine locations. Thanks. My staff is supposed to be sending them to me now. It's been a while since we reached out to them and not all nine of them. So it was a great conversation because not all nine said we have spaces available. Some of them said we have three spaces. I think one in your district said, you know what, we already do so much so we couldn't do overnight. But if you want to send people here in the morning, we can feed them. And so different churches have offered different things. I know in my district because I've been doing a lot of the work on the Seventh Street and Redondo. One is one in Grace UMC. That's at third and Gina Perez is another and both of those are outside of the downtown area. So I understand the the desire we can get you the list. So that would be, I think. After they do an RFP process, that will happen. Yeah, I want to clarify that. While we've done some initial outreach just to understand the market, this would still be an open competitive process. We're looking for both a. Vendor who can actually. Provide the services and run this program, but then also applicable sites. So, you know, the nine may be interested, but there may be others there may be some on that list that. Now, you know, aren't interested anymore. So that will all go through that process. Thank you very much. Are you ready in the meeting? Councilmember Mongeau. Thank you. I would only ask that we again get a TFF back or a friendly amendment to bring a TFF back that says both the nine sites that that we can talk about or that'll come from Councilman Pearce and related to that. How much staff time it's going to take. I just really want to get in the habit of us making sure that we're assessing costs and staff time and specifically, like the item says, utilizing funding that's best appropriate. I think that staff could outline what that funding is and what the amount is and all of the I mean , I just feel like there's a lot of information that's available that's not in the item yet. And so if we could get something back either from the councilman's office or from city staff, that would be helpful. So I can answer. Two of those quickly on the floor. We are looking at approximately $220,000. That was the estimate. And we can certainly refine that as we as we move forward. And the state the funding source would really be state homeless. One time dollars. Since this is a. Pilot program, we're trying something new. We do have the ability to apply for those dollars that's gone through and gotten very. Good feedback from the continuum of care. Partners. So we're really looking for counsel. Direction. Tonight. Should that be one of our priorities? So is. This from the part of funding we've already been allocated or is this a new part of. Funding. From the 1.3 that's been identified that Long Beach would be able. To apply for. And of the 12.3 that we're eligible to apply for? What was because this wasn't in it originally or was it. We are still putting together that actual list about we believe that we would. Be able to. Make room for it. It'd be about $220,000. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'll call on myself. I'll just say that I'm supportive of this item. I think, as I said before, you know, we are in unconventional times. And so we have to look at unconventional solutions to to to the problems of the day. You know, it's unfortunate that this is a one time funded in a one time manner, because if it's successful, you know, my my question is, you know, how do we fund it? You know, the following year or if the year after that, or how do you grow it if it's a successful program? And so this is hopefully something that we will model and be a best practice and hopefully have the state of California paying attention and county to to hopefully look at sustaining because I know it's going to be successful I'm optimistic here. The and then to staff I would just say that I've done some extensive outreach with many of our faith organizations churches in my district. And I know that we have a number of them who may be interested in participating. And so we'll be getting we'll provide you with a list as well of potential sites. So thank you. So with that, any public comment on this matter? See none, please. Members, cast your votes.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 18.48.195, relating to testing and operation, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1125

Item 20 Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to testing in Operation Read and adopted as read citywide. Thank you, Mr. City. Attorney. Vice Mayor, members of the Council. This is the second reading of the amendment to Title 18 or Chapter 18 of Long Beach Municipal Code. And it it's requiring contractors, engineers and test companies to submit electronically their compliant and non client non-compliant reports. So it will hopefully increase efficiencies. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Gonzales. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 23. None. Members cast your vote. Councilwoman Mongo. Motion carries. Thank you.

Recommendation to approve the scope of work for the ‘Outdoor Office’ in Harvey Milk Park and Equality Plaza. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_07192016_16-0645

Kick. Madam Clerk, item number nine. Report from City Manager Recommendation to approve the scope of work for the outdoor office in Harvey Milk Park and Equality Plaza, District one. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. And Arturo, is there a staff report to please. Yes. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the city council, Arturo Sanchez with the city manager's office. The item we have before you is per the council request, to return with a revised scope of work that is inclusive of the elements that were important to the Harvey Milk Park Committee. Staff has had several discussions with the committee and we developed, I believe, a scope of work that is reflective of maintaining a strong identity related to Harvey Milk, the legacy that he brings, as well as the memory wall in the wall recognizing civic leaders related to the LGBTQ community in Long Beach. Great. And I just have a couple questions. Arturo, thank you very much for your work in this and working with the committee as well as my office to really create a better understanding of what the grant will comprise of. Can you go over how many meetings you've had with the committee so far? Yes, ma'am. Through the chair to Councilmember Gonzalez, we have had three meetings, I believe, and several discussions via email with the leadership of the committee. Okay. Great. And just an overview, if you could. I understand there will be an outdoor office space. Like what other key elements can you describe in this scope of work so people can really understand what this will become very soon? Yes, ma'am. In the attachment page one, under the opportunity to summarize the project towards the tail end of that description, if I could read a few sections from there it will say it is of paramount importance that Harvey Milk Promenade Park and Equality Plaza continue to serve as a memorial for Harvey Milk and other leaders in the LGBTQ community. As more users are drawn to the outdoor office, more people can be exposed to the life and legacy of Harvey Milk. In this way, the message of the park is amplified beyond the existing memorial. It is the city's intention to consider reorienting the park, enhancing LGBTQ elements and or add a commemorative element of Harvey Milk so as to incorporate the message and meaning of the park into the added amenities in ways that are respectful, creative and inspiring amenities and or elements such as increasing redesigning the space for plaques of local LGBTQ, creating and designing a creative dynamic and visual representation of LGBTQ heroes at the Park and Equality Plaza. Representation of the LGBT and Mr. Q their pride colors by creating and or designing a representation of pride colors that is artistically and visually impactful that transcends day and night. Creating and designing some imagery of Harvey Milk at the Park and Equality Plaza and potentially incorporating the history of Harvey Milk and history of local LGBT. Next, another Q Movement. Finally, the programing of the park must intentionally and specifically include programing for LGBT communities and its allies. One of the important things to point out here is that, of course, it's a $300,000 grant and there will be decisions that will need to be made about how these elements are included. And the committee is committed to working with us. In fact, they've already designated three members to work closely with us on with the rest of the community stakeholders that will be pulling together now to really start the serious work on this project. Great. Again, I really want to thank you very much for your work on this because I know it's so very important for the downtown community, the LGBTQ community. We have Vanessa, Deb and Raul that are here from the Harvey Milk Park Committee. I also see Craig Cogen as well, who had been involved with so many things in downtown, of course, of being the CEO and thank you to city staff as well. I think this is going to be a impeccable project for including more local LGBTQ honorees, but also enlivening the life of Harvey Milk. And so I see that coming together beautifully. And thank you all very much for being here. I appreciate it. Thank you. Are we at the second of that motion was with was Vice Mayor Richardson. I just wanted to chime in and just say that I've been following this this project for a while now. In fact, I was you know, we're trying our best to emulate the outdoor office concept at Highland Park. But I just wanted to say that tremendous work has been done here. And and I know that is sometimes difficult to pull together different interests and and make something happen. So this is really, really a good testament to your leadership. Council Member GONZALEZ So thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to express my support for this project. I think it's really great. The most impressive part of this process for me was staffs working with the community to get it right. So whatever the process was at the outset, I only read about it in the paper, but it wasn't ideal. And the fact that everybody kind of came to the table and made the process right and made it something that the councilwoman is so happy with is really a great thing to witness. And obviously something that all of us with different projects in our in our districts can relate to. Just making sure that that process is good so that the the project, if it's successful, is successful not just because of the end product, but because of the process, too. So this is great. I wish I wish I had an outdoor office to work in every day. I think it's going to be a great asset to have. I did try to suggest it to some of the stuffy lawyers I work with and they laughed and said, Dream on. So I look forward to watching other people working in their outlets or outdoor offices as I drive to work. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce. Yes. I just wanted to say what a great job Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilwoman Gonzalez has done. And congratulations to the committee that's worked on this. One of the first times I spoke at council as a resident was supporting the creation of Harvey Milk Park based on everything that he's taught our community about courage. And so it's great to have this celebrate Harvey Milk, but also have it as an opportunity to invite others into that space that might not know who he is. And so I just want to congratulate everybody for really working together and hopefully it's a model for how we can work on future projects. So thank you, everyone. Thank you. With that, we have any public comment. Please come forward. Larry, would you click as the address? I would request that this city take judicial notice. Of the staff report when this. Subject to change a little too. It came up the last council meeting of the meeting before when they pointed it out that Long Beach is the only the only the only city in this country. To have a plaza named after Harvey Milk. Or the mayor of the of San Francisco. Related to that. The only reason we have this here is because of the despicable conduct of a photo addicted political pipsqueak that thought he could make political hay out of the unfortunate and tragic, tragic deaths of two individuals. By naming the park after a person who had no connection to this city whatsoever and in so doing, gave the middle finger. The Long Beach residents that were within that community. That does not speak well for the character of this city. And it does what I'm saying does not eviscerate some of the comments some people have made here tonight. But the genesis of this. Is what needs to be. Worked out eradicated. It may have to be completely taken down and shipped back. And it's particularly devastating to the city's image when it comes with what's happening when combined with what's unfolded in the last three, six months. Pimping out. Teenagers. In an attempt to get a selfie with the first lady. And also in solving her. By suggesting her character was such that she would like to come down, she would allow herself to be come down and be seen as elbowing her way into a situation where more people or local residents were more qualified. To have a library named after a period. That's an insult to the first lady of the United States, all orchestrated in the final analysis by a political pipsqueak who will be by the end of the year, in prison. I suggest you again take judicial notice of the fact and ask yourself why no other city in the country has it. It does not speak well for the character of any individual on this council. That does not. Thank you very much. For coming back and redo it. Excellent. A related message to the six neighborhood organizations who all unanimously voted to endorse naming their local park after Harvey Milk. Next speaker, please. Thank you. When I. Now. Did some study on the Harvey Milk legend. I noted that he had fought for all minorities, not just the LGBT. Not just the. The. Same sex community and. Somewhere in there I thought, Oh, the homeless fit in there. So while we are closing out Linkin Park. And I've thought about this for a while. The homeless have nowhere to go. They don't have a park. So that's how Harvey Milk fought for all minorities, all people who were outcast. He fought for the outcast. Is it feasible as we're closing out Lincoln Park for the redevelopment? To now say to the homeless community, here is a place where you, too, can gather. Outdoor office. What does that mean? Maybe there would be some people sitting out door in that office on staff who could. Help facilitate the homeless who are part of the same sex community. Harvey Milk didn't just fight for the same sex community. He fought for those who were of the outcast IV service, those who were of the same sex transferring into another outward gender community. And when you're homeless and you're trying to go from a man to a woman or a woman to a man, it's much harder. But if that if if the park that Mr. Miller fought for embraces all of the outcasts, which includes the homeless. And then we have the, the, the same sex community and the transferring into another outward appearance community embrace the homeless. You're bringing all of the outcasts together. Now we have to ask ourself. If the same sex community is looking down on the homeless, what really is going on here? If the only park we have is for the same sex or the transfering out of my God given gender into another outward appearance community. Then. Then we're having a park, but we're we're leaving another whole community out of the accommodation of the park that is named after the legend who fought for all of the outcasts. I need you to think about it. Where are the homeless community community going to go? When you get up Linkin Park. Abe Lincoln would probably want to know. Thank you, Mr. Sir. Next speaker, please. Really? Mayor Council City staff. First of all, congratulations to Councilmember Supernova De Andrews and Al Austin on the reelection and congratulations, Jeanine Pierce. It's especially nice to see you up there. Thank you very much for your continued support on this project. I was here about three weeks ago when the grant needed to be approved and the committee is has been committed to this project since the initial days in 2012 with then Councilmember Robert Garcia. And we continue to work with Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez and city staff. So we appreciate the support and we will continue to work with the city and on behalf of the committee. Again, thank you very much for your continued support. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Vanessa Romain. I sit on the Harvey Milk Committee and I'm also part of the new ad hoc. Committee that be working. Much closer with Mr. Sanchez in making sure that things go the way that the committee has seen and supported and and youth city council members have supported. Harvey Milk Park is our part. And I say our. Our. Community. Doesn't matter what your language should look like. We've got people staying over there now and we haven't even done anything that are homeless at that park. We haven't had the. Police chase them away. We are in support of the outside office. What it's going. To develop into. Be it's not just a park, just sit around. It's park for work. So, Miss Price, you're welcome to come visit our outdoor office at any time that you like, because it will be there. And it will be there as long as the community understands that. Harvey Milk made a difference. We on the committee in a part. Of this city are truly. Going to continue to make a difference in this community. So thank you for supporting the concept. Thank you to Mr. Sanchez for sticking by us putting. He said he was three meetings. I could swear there was 12 meetings, but, you know, he can't count. So we don't need to worry about that. But the reality is we have met with him continuously. We've stopped, had coffee to kind of touch basis and understand one another and where we're coming from. So I don't think that there's any other staff member that you could have assigned to this duty. To do what he has done to bring the LGBTQ community together, along with the city's. Ambition to make Harvey Milk Park a little different. So thank you again for your support. Thank you very much. Thank you all. See no other public comment. We're going to go ahead and take a vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Now we're going to go to due to the public comment for tonight. And again, I apologize for tonight's moving around of a lot of stuff which I know is unusual. Let me list everyone that's up for public comment in this order.

Recommendation to request City Manager report back within 180 days on the feasibility and possible implementation strategies for an internet-based app program to help manage parking impacts during weekly scheduled street sweeping.

LongBeachCC_11122019_19-1125

Thank you. That's the last hearing on the agenda. We're going to move on to the other items on the agenda, beginning with item 13, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Pearce, Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilman Austin, recommendation to request city manager to report back within 180 days on the feasibility and possible implementation strategies for an Internet based app program to help manage parking impacts during weekly scheduled street sweeping. If I see a person in second then only public coming. It's quite. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to begin by thanking our public works department and especially Dikko for his amazing work related to street sweepers over the past few years and implementing the technology that's available. Obviously, we all know that street sweeping is not one of the most interesting topics that our city works on, but it's absolutely essential and it's so relied upon by residents to keep our streets clean and well-maintained. The Public Works team has committed to finding ways of improving the service by changing all of the street sweeping hours citywide to make it easier on residents. And that was a huge endeavor that resulted in very positive quality of life impacts for our residents. Our public works team has worked hard to upgrade our street sweeper fleets to ensure that they're using up to date technology and modern equipment. And so with this progress, we're now at a point where we have the potential to take another big step to improve resident experience during suite, sweep street, sweeping hours, and to use technology that can help manage the impacts on parking in our parking impacted areas during Sweet Street Sweeping. Parking is very difficult in many parts of the city, and allowing this item to move forward to create street sweeping app technology that allows us to be smarter and letting residents know when street sweepers have left the particular street or area is very important and promising. Our residents deserve this council to look outside the box and find ways of making their quality of life and user experience more positive and hopefully helping them reduce tickets and parking impacts in their communities. I ask my colleagues support and in this item and moving it forward so that we can explore what the options are for us and using our current technologies to enhance the user experience for our residents by making it possible that we can alert our residents when the street sweeper has passed their street so that they can be free to park in the area, especially if there's still an hour and a half or an hour left in the blocked out periods of time. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mrs. Spears. Yeah, I support this item. I guess I would ask. I'm. I'm curious. I know we have a lot of apps, parking apps for our meters and everything else. I'm curious if we can get some data on the usage of those apps, because I feel like a lot of my constituents, every time I bring it up a community meetings that we have these apps, they're not aware. So in bringing this item back, if we could just include kind of where we're at on some of those parking apps already. That would be. Helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Announcements open all. Thank you. I support this item and I don't know if this rises to the level of a friendly amendment, but what I'd like to explore, what I've been asked about is will the app enable us to or enable residents to see the street sweeper coming? And is will they be able to see it 10 minutes, 5 minutes ahead of time to move a car as it approaches? So if that's not decided yet, I'd like to include that in the item. Well, so if I can just speak to that. I was trying to tread lightly with this item because I realize that it could impact budgets and the like. So where I thought we could start is with whether we can get residents can get similar to a like an alert Long Beach where they can get a notification if they're signed up for the service after the street sweeper has left so they can go and park there if that technology is available, then of course, the next inquiry would be whether or not they can get an alert that the street sweeper is coming. So but that that is another phase. And I'm hoping to tread lightly on this as we move it forward. But I think if the technology is available for one, it should be available for the other. But I was hoping that this item could be limited to the Post. Street Sweeper Alert. Thank you. Asked and answered. All right. Now I'm going to go back to the public because I didn't call the names out as Mr. Larry got here. Okay. Mrs.. Mr. Shelton. Okay. And Cantrell. Fine Cinnamon, because would you please cast your vote in? Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Thongkasame Theara, dba Thai District, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 149 Linden Avenue, Suite E. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_03102015_15-0202

Item 12 is a report from Please recommendation to receive and for the application of tie districts for an original application of ABC license at 149 Linden Avenue, Suite e District two. Thank you. I would like to make a motion to receive and file the application of Thai district for an original ABC license with the following conditions being shared. I think it's already been shared. By the city clerk? Yes. And there's been a second to that motion, is there? Any any staff report or just questions. Commander for our friends here, if we have any questions. I don't have any questions. I'm in support of this item. So any member of the public that wish to address the council on this item seeing none. Members, cast your vote. Vice Mayor. Lowenthal. I'm sorry. Motion carries six zero. Thank you. Item 13. Item 13 is a report from Please recommendation to receive and file the application of the Breast Lamp Bar Corporation for an original application of the ABC license at 245 the prominent North Suite 100 District two.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving an exception to the 180-day waiting period for Public Agencies pursuant to Government Code 7522.56 and 21224, to hire Arthur Cox for a limited duration to work in the Public Works Department. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02112020_20-0132

Motion carries. Item 11. Report from Human Resources recommendation to adopt a resolution approving an exception to the waiting period for public agencies to hire Arthur Cox for a limited duration citywide. There's a motion and a second saying no public comment, please cast your vote. I'd like to make it clear that we would like him to work on our magnolia tree issues. Please. That needs to be in this contract. Is he limited on what he can work on? Mr. Modica. No. So he would be available to the director of public works to head for whatever it is within the hours that he's available. Thank you. I'll start to work on my tweets to the 63. Please, please cast your votes. Let's vote quickly before this. List gets longer. The other one's really quick. No, I want to show you this. This is important. Motion carries. Thank you. I'm going to do we're going to do. Adam item 12 is our last item. Can we do item 13 really quick and 14.

Introduction of an Uncodified Ordinance Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 to Extend the Time that Tenants Must Pay “Deferred Rent” from 210 Days to 395 Days Following the City Council’s Rescission of the Local Emergency. (Community Development)

AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8159

When we're getting the word out about this, are we how are we going about getting the word out about these protections, one and two, are we doing it in multiple languages? So we. Let's see. We have we do have our Tenant and Small Business Assistance page on the city's website under the COVID 19. And all of our tenant protection ordinances are there along with implementing regulations. And this ordinance has an implementing regulation that we will be updating that that further talks about how how this is all being handled. I do not believe that we have put up anything in any other languages to date. We also the paralegal in the attorney's office is fielding questions about the about the rent freeze and the moratorium. So we are providing information as well as the rent program is and central legal who we are contracting with also has copies of our ordinance and our implementing regs. Okay. Any further questions, council member Vella? No. Okay. Any further clarifying questions before we hear a public speaker? Vice Mayor Knox White. All right. So the staff report and you mentioned stakeholder outreach. Do we have any information about locally how many people are deferring their rent, etc.? Like what the impact is? So I did have an opportunity on the 10th of July to to meet with Eastbay, the East Bay Realtors, Base Realtors, their local government relations committee. And it sounds like. People are feeling pretty good. They were saying maybe some of the folks who do property management were saying maybe 70, 75% of their tenants have been paying rent in full. And it sounds like there are tenants who have been availing themselves of different assistance that is out there. Our rent relief program is hopefully launching this week. So the program that the council approved last month, we hope to launch this week, so that that will also be promoted as a part of really at least providing an asset and a resource for folks to apply for assistance. So my sense is that landlords are concerned because the longer this is lasting, the kind of scarier and the harder it is. But it it kind of feels like. More than a majority of tenants are paying rent. And and those that are those that maybe have some challenges are getting some assistance, I guess is kind of what I heard. But I swear. Is that all for you? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Sir. Madam Kirk, we'll go to our public speaker. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember. Yes, good. Question. When it comes to repayment, is there. If there is an agreement with regard to repayment, is there every expectation that the agreement has to be kept and that failure to keep the agreement risks jeopardizing the protection that that that, you know, our ordinance gives with regard to tenants who are in a who are repaying. That protection being a protection from eviction. So tenants are encouraged to enter into a payback arrangement or that kind of thing with their their landlord. However, they are not required to do that to to receive the benefits of that time period under this ordinance. So the encouragement is there, but it's not a requirement. Interesting. Okay. Councilmember O.D.. Sorry. Thank you. So if that if that happens, is that considered and that repayment is not made, is that considered a breach of contract that somebody can be sued on that agreement? Or is that considered a breach of lease where they can be evicted? Well, you cannot be evicted. The way the ordinance stands now and the way it's proposed to continue is you cannot be evicted for nonpayment of any deferred rent. For now, what will be the 13 month period? You will have to be current on your current rent, but you won't be able to be evicted for the nonpayment of the deferred rent until then. Month 14. Right, if you rent and that would be the basis. Right. But if you sign an agreement that basically says I'm going to pay, you know, X dollars per month over month, and then you somehow failed to pay that mean does that mean you can be evicted or is that just a contract? And maybe that's maybe that's a legal question. But my my concern is you can kind of see, right, that we have these side agreements and then people don't for some reason are unable to comply with them and then they're going to get evicted. And then someone can say, well, the agreement trumps the ordinance. Like the ordinance does not require an agreement. So beyond that, if you choose to enter into an agreement, then I guess I, I mean, I guess I would defer to the city attorney on what that then becomes a breach of. I guess when this was in your record. Then I think it would also depend on the nature of the agreement and the drafting of the agreement. This is. Highly unusual. So we won't. It's difficult to predict what a court would ultimately conclude. We think that it is likely. That a court would conclude that it's probably just a breach of contract. But because we're talking about hypothetical agreements and we don't. Know what they say, it's difficult to conclusively say what. They would be on it. It is our it is our thinking. That most likely those agreements. If these are these would be private agreements without any input from the city, nor could we, because they're not we're not a party to these agreements. We think that that there is a reasonable likelihood that. A court would construe those agreements to be contractual and not subject to. Unlawful detention. But we certainly could not render an opinion without knowing what the agreements substantively say and even if we did. Given the unprecedented nature of. This type of. Order and the lack of judicial guidance. Of course, we'll have to ultimately resolve it. Okay. I mean, you could tell it my concern is right, that, you know, these would be substituted for leases and or you know, we already know there's unequal bargaining power between a landlord and tenant. So, you know, I, I could see where someone could be pressured into agreeing to some waiver of rights that they're given by this ordinance and then, you know, suddenly being subject to eviction. So if there's a way to fix that, maybe we could think about it. Well, if I may respond to. Yes, but landlords require tenants to. Enter into those leases. It would have to be. Voluntary if a landlord required to do so, it would violate our fair housing of a well. Yeah, but we know there's unfair bargaining power positioning, so. All right. So we hear from our public speaker or speakers, please. Catherine Pauling. Good evening, Ms.. Pauling. Hi. It's just Katherine. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can hear you just fine. Okay. I'm I'm I'm honorable mayor, vice mayor and council members. The Alameda Renters Coalition supports the expansion of repayment and ordinance 30 to 75. We believe this action is also a necessary component of the recent declaration of racism as a public health emergency. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID 19 on too many communities of color due to systemic racism in terms of work, health and housing. Additionally, we are hearing many renters are confused about their rights under the various ordinances. Our requests that a greater effort be made to inform tenants of their legal rights and the resources available. As Council has noted, 25% of Alameda residents do not have online access. It's reasonable to assume that most of these are renters with local papers, limiting print editions and COVID 19 limiting gatherings. It's difficult to communicate with our diverse communities. For these reasons, ARC requests a mailing to renters be done by the city, possibly drawing from the rent registry and provided in multiple languages. Respectfully submitted the Alameda Renters Coalition. I also want to add our concern to families point. Debby Potter. Just Miss Potter just mentioned that tenants are being encouraged to go into agreements about repayment. And at a time when people are not back to work and don't know what their future income or employment is, I would request that you not encourage agreements at this time, especially given the tenant has to be able to go into court to present these arguments and so many ways the power imbalance really precludes going into this, or have them talk to an attorney or our legal service before they enter into any agreement so that they have some advice on this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So. And Ms.. Weisler, that was the extent of our public comment on this item we did. One more person raised their hand. So we have Janet. Jennifer Rakowski. Yes. Good evening. Hi. Thank you. Council members for contact. I staff a landlord tenant counseling line for a neighboring city. And so I can't speak directly to Alameda, but I can tell you that our phone lines are flooded with calls from people who are struggling to pay their rent even more. So we are constantly inundated with people who are seeing the writing on the wall with too short of a time period to pay back the rent that they are already owing. And so they are breaking leases because the prospect of paying it back on a really quick timeframe when they're still out of work just is overwhelming. And the reason. So everything from people who have personally had a health issue due to COVID 19, had a death in the family due to COVID 19, had roommates move out due to COVID 19, loss of job. Just the stories I hear on a daily basis are heartbreaking and the ways in which the city can take this issue seriously and look at ways that provide for. A reasonable planned expectation on the part of landlords, but also a pathway to stability that is achievable for tenants because tenants are already moving out because the prospect of paying off the debt too quickly is overwhelming. Thank you. And we have one more speaker. I understand now we have two more, so. Okay. Another one added Grover Whitman Brown. Yes. Good evening. Hi. Good evening, counsel. Grover Cleveland Brown from Eastbay Housing Organizations. And I'm calling on behalf of oppose membership to ask you to vote yes on this important extension of the repayment period. And also to echo the previous caller, the need for tenants to have protections is only growing as each month goes by and as unemployment insurance is about to be reduced for many thousands of residents. And so we ask that you consider the strategy that's been adopted by other cities and counties, which is to try to translate the unpaid rent into consumer debt so that tenants are not faced with eviction when they can't pay essentially two month's rent at once for six or eight or 12 months, which is unable most people are unable to pay two rents any month, let alone month after month after month once they return to work. So thank you for considering it, and please reach out to us if you have questions about how other ordinances are working. Thank you. One more speaker. At least one? Yes, just one more. Kevin. Lauren. Hello. I again. Hello again. Really in support of this because I am a fellow renter. I moved here about two years ago, leaving my family's home and taking care of my grandmother. So and I'm an artist and obviously there's no work to be done and everything is very uncertain. So knowing that Alan Miller would have my back in a situation and like want to keep me here, would make me feel really, you know, cared for in a the fact that something that we want to implement is really going to be for showing compassion to our citizens, especially if I'm struggling and I'm white passing. I can't imagine what people who are forced to work, who are, you know, of the minority groups like being black or because of color, like they probably are really struggling even more than I am. So I think it's really important to think of assistance in this situation. And then 1/2 everyone go over and have them probably like I think they make really strong points and I hope this passes. Yeah. Thank you. Now we have one more and then a public comment submitted in writing to next is Alexia Orocobre. Hello researcher. Hi. And I just wanted to quickly echo, support and urge that you all vote yes on this extension. I think it is very important not only for residents but to be able we all know what's coming. And I think it's important to protect the renters. And I just second everything that was also previously said. Thank you very much. Thank you. And a written comment, did it say. Yes, Rosalynn, to Courtney, property owners or not? The bankers have tenants. If the city wants to pay the rent through subsidized payments, that is up to the city. Thank you. And that's it. With that. I have a clause, my own commerce clause, have a comment and we will go back to the City Council for a motion and for the discussion. Who wants to lead this? Councilmember Odie. I'll start. No hands came up. I'd like to move approval of this, but if possible, in my companies that are amenable, give direction to staff to come back with an ordinance that allows us to treat any of these side agreements and even this type of unpaid rent as consumer debt that we we did this one in in March. So I use my CPR skills. April, May, June and July. So now we're coming up on five months of unpaid rent. And maybe the truest thing that ever came out of the White House was that the worst is still yet to come on this so mean we could be looking at another five months and then what ? We have tenants with one year worth of rent that you know, it will end up being double. And I don't want to see people get evicted over this. And there's to me, there's no action. You know, in our state capital, there was a bill to do this exact same thing to reduce consumer debt, and it died because the real estate lobby killed it. And, you know, there's nothing coming out of Washington anytime soon. So if we have the ability to do that, I'd like to see us try to do that. Um, I just to follow on to Councilor Brody's comments and other public speakers. I would actually like a clearer understanding of what. What exactly that looks like. And then the question I would have for counsel for the city attorney is, would that be a significant enough departure that the ordinance would have to come back to us? But. But can someone explain what how does that work for to convert? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes, sorry. My suggestion was to give direction to direction, not to amend. Got it. Okay. So we could do that, too. Um, well, I would think that passing this ordinance is of the essence. Time is of the essence. But that's. I'm one opinion up here, so. Okay, so. But could I. Could I get an explanation briefly from the city attorney or from Miss Potter or whomever? How does that work? What is it. Is. I would like to defer to the city attorney who I think has provided direction on that issue of consumer debt previously, and I think has indicated, at least previously that it was maybe not something that he felt we could do. And I don't know if at this point like a federal issue to look at that. Okay. If we could just have one speaker at a time. That would be great. And actually, are you prepared to comment on this, Mr. Chen? I'll generally. Say that we're more than happy to look at ways to look at these side agreements. And to provide as much protections for tenants as possible. And we obviously strive to effectuate your direction to us. Whatever it may be. And we've expressed some concerns to you about a general conversion of renters debt to consumer debt, notwithstanding other jurisdictions having done so. But we're having express. Reservations, too. We're happy to take your direction and we'll effectuate it to the best. Of our abilities. All right. Thank you. Okay. So. Do we have? My iPad always has a moment where it decides to freeze, so help me out. Councilmember Vela, you had your hand up. Did you? I was just going to say that, you know, I think that I'm fine giving direction. I don't want to change the current ordinance before us. I think that we need to get it enacted and give people as much notice as possible that we're we're we're giving this change. I also think that essentially passing protections without notifying the most vulnerable of their rights, it means that we're essentially not passing protections. I have read a number of different articles. There's an article in the New York Times about a bar in Oakland and the people that work there. And many of them were concerned about making rent because they were worried about addiction. This article came out at the end of June. We all know that there have been a number of protections that have been passed preventing and effectively putting in a moratorium on evictions during the pandemic. So I'm very concerned that people don't know their rights. I've gotten some emails offered to the city attorney, and I'm not just talking about residential tenants. We have commercial tenants who don't understand their rights, and I think there's a little more. These are folks that have potentially have more resources available, things like that. And they're dealing with the same landlords, frankly, that that also have residential tenants. So I just I think, you know, we need to get the word out about what, you know, what the protections are. We need to do it in multiple languages, even if it's that we do a mailing and or require a posting in buildings, we require landlords to notify the tenants or we require postings in apartment buildings, on the community boards, things like that. I'm very worried. We also have a number of very vulnerable tenants who are not leaving their houses because of preexisting conditions or their age or a number of different things that put them at risk. Maybe they're immunocompromised. Some of these individuals do not have access to the Internet. They're not seeing what's being posted online. You know, I know of some individuals who didn't even know about the opportunities that the food bank and things like that or opportunities to get food delivered. And so at this point, it's really become a word of mouth thing. In the past, I'd also spoken with the mayor about doing something similar to what the city of San Leandro is doing and what some folks are doing in Oakland of going through and calling individuals. I just want to put out there that I'm more than happy if we do have a registry. We have phone numbers and things like that. I'm more than happy to volunteer my time to call through and let people know about the update, not necessarily to give legal advice, but to just let them know, you know, what the updates are and what services are available. Because I think the word isn't getting out to our most vulnerable. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to not just do the work, but make sure that it's the protections are really having the effect that we intend them to have. Okay. Councilmember. And you know it. And just a little housekeeping detail. It is 1054 and before 11:00, I'm going to have to ask for a motion. But do you have a quick comment or should we slip? I mean, I'd be happy to amend my motion to give some direction to notify people in whatever way you think is appropriate. You know, so that's perfectly fine. Okay. Would you like to do that? Yes, I would. But we can talk about that after. Well, I didn't know if we had a motion to vote. We take care of this item. But you think there's a lot more discussion still? Well, I don't know if. You know, if if what the customer suggested is okay with everyone or we needed to have staff come back with a plan that we wanted to review. And, you know, I don't I don't know. I mean, I'm open to whatever whatever my colleague feels is the most appropriate and effective way. Well, I think I heard the staff direction made that council member who remind me can call somebody. Did you make the motion? Yes, I did. Okay. And Councilmember. Well, you seconded, correct? Okay. Um. In less than 5 minutes. What can we do? Or we can. Do you if you want to. Oh. Yes, sir. Councilman, I mean, city manager. If if you want to just put direction. I'm all right. If you want to put direction at the end of the motion, the staff can create a communication plan and follow through on it and communicate it back to the council. We could do that, especially since we're going on break between now and September or potentially that way we could go ahead and get that communication out in this time frame. Makers of the motion. I mean, that works for me. We still have a second reading on this this ordinance. So I don't know how that would play in, but I think the sooner the better. I think in the discussions that staff has had, we would begin that. We've talked about starting the communication outreach after the second reading so we could test the materials and then after September one, knowing that it would become effective 30 days later. And then he knew what it was. Sorry. I hate to interrupt you, but I get nervous because the city clerk is counting on us to do this before 11 and it's 1056. So council, we have to. We've got a couple of remaining items to go. We have item six G, which should be pretty fast. We've, we've looked at this before and and then we have items ten A which is designation of voting delegates for League of California Cities Conference. I mean, that shouldn't take long with conferences until October, if I recall correctly. But anyway and then we have our two big is the two A and the five the continuation of five A. So do I have a motion? I tend to think we can get all this wrapped up the same evening by midnight. But he's got a motion. With 3 minutes remaining. I remembered that notion that we continue until midnight. Okay. With a motion to continue. All items until midnight. Do you have a second? A quick second. 6 seconds. Any discussion thing then? May we have a roll call? Vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Next flight. Odie I. Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft. I. Carries by five eyes. Okay. Thank you. Good work, everyone. Now it's 1058. We had 2 minutes to spare. Okay, Miss Potter, I cut you off. Please continue. That's quite all right. I was just going to say, I think it would be helpful for staff if we had a little more direction. Part of the motion is council would council be requesting us to come back with an ordinance dealing with the side agreements and the consumer debt? Or would you like us to analyze that and come back with with. I was a little unclear about that piece of the motion. That's all. Understandably, the vice mayor has his hand up. He's got those. Plans. Jason has had his hand up for about 10 minutes. I'm so sorry. I just didn't realize that you. Had a lot to say before we get into. Yeah. Clarification. We might want to talk. Okay. So just. Further, thank. You very much for. Your time. Here's the thing, Councilor. You are low on the screen. Oh, sorry. You have to really wave to me or text me or something. I've got it. Thank you. Yeah, I did not see that. My vision, you know, it's just. I have to look out of the corners of my eyes. See, you are so Councilmember Desai. Great. Well, thank you. All in. Good. Just so my comment is basically this, you know, homeowners and renters alike are definitely struggling through this pandemic. But I think the census data clearly indicates that renters are especially vulnerable given that their incomes typically are half that of homeowners and the fact that they lack the assets that homeowners have. I mean, right now I'm in. Interest rates are so low, they're at historic lows for homeowners who are contemplating refinancing. So it's incumbent on city council to step up when it comes to helping out our tenants, our renters. And I see. And the and the item tonight, a reasonable effort when it comes to assisting renters. In addition, I believe that that it's a it's a reasonable effort that also were would benefit landlords in the end because it you know they can keep their their tenants around if they have a more reasonable debt load to carry . And basically, what we're what we're doing is amortizing it instead of over seven months, over 13 months. And I think and I think, you know, that's reasonable. We're not saying five years or anything like that. So. So. So that's why I definitely support this. I support this also because, you know, originally the ordinance did not have a loan payback provision and it was there was a modification to it. And I think the modification to it was reasonable. And the amendment that we're contemplating tonight is reasonable. As to the two other items, you know, if they're part of the motion, so be it. But you know how I feel about those two other items because I don't know I don't know about this consumer debt issue. And in terms of the other matter that was raised, I'm not too sure. But but I think for the main the main issue that we have before us in extending out the repayment time from seven months to 13 months, I think that's quite reasonable. And I think, you know, in this time that we're in, I think renters needed to know that we were on their side. Thank you. And again, my apologies for missing you. Okay. I need to raise my hand. Yes. Or wave or jump up and down. You know the simple vice mayor. Thank you. I will second the Councilmember Baysox comments and the comments of my my other colleagues. So I wanted to ask a clarifying question. So because we have to have a second reading, this does not pass on September 1st, correct? If it passes on second reading, the second reading is actually the beginning of. September and it actually becomes effective then 30 days following the second reading. But there is sufficient protections in the existing ordinance so that it will be a routine ordinance versus an urgency. Yes. No, I think I think that that that makes sense. I guess what I was trying to think of is, you know, given that that direction, which will be clarified about communications plan, you know, which I will absolutely agree, needs to be multilingual and robust. It would be very helpful to me that we are getting to that point where we may be asking certain certain people who might have a second unit or something like that. And we do hear from seniors who are who are impacted by this. It would be helpful. I don't want to undo this work. I think this work is important. We need to do it. But it would be helpful to me if maybe even during the second reading, we could have a presentation of what else we are doing or could do to help those landlords whose tenants are not paying work or are not are not able to pay rent. I'm not interested in, you know, subsidizing, you know, kind of corporate large corporate entities for whom this is just a giant investment. But, you know, if we have people who own one or two units who may actually be really impacted by not actually seeing rent for a year, which quite honestly is very possible, you know, if 25% of people are already not paying their rent fully, it just might be. I would like to know kind of what is available in terms of protections from the state and the federal. But also, you know, Councilmember DeSantis point out we do have a large reserve. And, you know, again, reserves are for rainy days if we need to be helping renters who can't pay their rent to landlords who can show a financial hardship, I do wonder if we should be looking at that as a follow on something as well as this, you know, as this drags on, it was much easier for me to say three and four months. You know, that that's a tough quote, but we can fight that. But if we're starting, my guess is this the state of emergency isn't over before the end of the year. So I just I just I want to start looking ahead instead of finding that people are in dire straits. And now we're trying to help them out of dire straits and just think think through that. So it would be great to have that come back sometime in the near future. I don't want to add a whole nother new priority, but if we could think about how we can have that conversation, I think it would be good. But I'm here to support tonight's resolution because I think this is a step. And I would just say maybe I think it's always good to have as much information as possible. And it's true that a lot of people are being impacted by people's inability to pay rent. It would be helpful to know. To the extent possible, how much people have been renters and therefore their landlords have been assisted by some of the programs that the city has set up the the grant program. And I know we've got the Alameda Strong Community Fund that has some allocation. It's more heavily weighted to local businesses that there's still some allocation for renters. So I would I think it would be useful to know that information. Okay. Let's see. So, you know, my feelings are this is is very necessary. And. Back when we were looking at this first one in April, we just had no idea. That's not cool. I know. I've got to stop. I'm just going to fold my hands in my lap and stop fidgeting. Of any way back in April, when we looked at this, I think it was April, we just had no idea where, where we were going with this. And we we still don't, although I'm hopeful, ever hopeful that, as I like to say, time and science are on our hand, on our side, if we can just get people to really comply with the COVID guidelines. So there's not a whole lot of them wear masks, socially distanced, watch it wash your hands frequently. Don't go into crowded places. We can make a difference. But in the meantime, people have not been able to go back to work. And and it's, you know, you think of all the stress that, ah, people are facing who are struggling to put food on the table. And, you know, to the extent that we can help out, I think this is a very thoughtful ordinance that came forward. But I also do agree that we need to make sure that the information is out there in multiple languages. So however, that can be done and and disseminated as widely as possible. But I think, you know, we've got the rent registry and we have other ways of knowing where the renters are. So I am sure that's doable. So then, okay, so we've had our motion, it's been seconded, we have staff direction, anything further that needs to be said before a roll call vote. Okay. Let's have that all covered, please. Uh, Councilmember de thug. Yes. Next week. I. Ody I. Vella. I. Mayor as the Ashcraft. High. That carries by five eyes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Potter. And for your input to Mr. Shand. Very helpful. Okay, we move quickly on to item six, Madam Clerk, which you introduced that police. Recommendation to authorize the city attorney or designee to consent to law for Goldfarb. Whitman's request to waive conflict of interest in connection with call for legal representation of the city and city transactions and the County of Alameda and on the Rose, the Village Affordable Housing Project transaction and delegated authority to the city attorney or designee to consent , modify or reject future requests from Goldfarb to waive conflicts of interest in connection with Goldfarb. Legal representation of the City of Alameda on city transactions in the County of Armenia on future affordable housing transactions involving County of Alameda, A-1 funds or comparable county funds. Okay. And did we have any public speakers on this item? Ms.. Massacre. We did not. Okay. Any clarifying questions or. Well, do you want a staff report? We've we've covered this one before. Okay. Do I want a staff report? Could I get a motion? Councilmember Odie. Just one quick question. This is so the future delegation is just related to the county, right? That's right. Like I'm old approval. We have a motion by Councilmember Odie and a second by the Vice Mayor. Spaceman. Not quite any discussion seeing. Then maybe we ever roll call vote please. Councilmember As. I. Like slate my Odie. I. Avella I may. Mayor, as the Ashcroft. High. Carries by five eyes. All right, good work, people. Then we move on to the next page. So we've got. Okay, we've got City Manager Communications Council, Mr. Leavitt. Make you a member of the council. Would you like to be on the council. For a lot. Of. Fun? Marissa, Ashcraft and. And City Council. I just have two quick updates due to the time of night. I won't go into some other things, but one is just we are still we're working out one logistics issue, but at this time we're planning on having testing starting up this week, tomorrow at the 300. I think it's at the research park over over at the research park. So however way. Over. A been driveaway astronomer over the street and the city health's urgent care is going to be the provider. And I think everything's a go right now. We're hoping I'll be a go tomorrow. One last one. Logistics that you still working out to make sure it's tomorrow instead of Thursday. And then secondly, there's been a variety of concerns from residents regarding encampment outside the Webster tube off of Webster Street. It is Caltrans property. We've been working with Caltrans due to COVID issues. There's certain state policies we have to work through. And so that is taking time and working through that. As far as those encampments. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And then we come to item eight, and I believe the city clerk told me that there were two comments that weren't able to be heard in the first public comment. So are those. Correct. Live? Yes. Well, no, Bethenny who she had trouble getting on, so she submitted it to me to have it read. And then another comment. Yeah. Okay. So Beth Canning. Yes. Sunday, July 26th, 2020 marks the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ada. It is remarkable how much more accessible our country has become since the passage of the ADA. It is equally remarkable how much more work we need to do to be a society that is fully inclusive of people with disabilities. I want to thank you for honoring the 30th anniversary of the ADA by lighting City Hall in blue and white this Sunday, July 26th. And the next is at Nairobi. Taylor? Yes. My name is Nairobi Taylor. I organize with youth activists of Alameda. And I wanted to say that as a 15 year old black girl who would like to go into nursing, I find it crucial for our city council to assist in changing the racist ways of Alameda. While some find heavy police presence necessary and even suggest that racism no longer exists. Black women are 2 to 6 times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. That statistic alone shows that there is much work to be done and therefore I hope that our city council members are putting the work in to revolutionize our city. Thank you. And those are private comments. Yes, that's okay. And then we. We have no council referrals this evening. Council communications. Anyone have anything quick they want to say, counselor over there. Oh, yes, thank you. I attended the airport noise forum last week. One topic that was covered was because a lot of Alameda residents were concerned about the sudden change in the schedule by Oakland Airport. When it comes to fixing up the runways and everything, they typically do it on night times. But because of COVID 19, they have begun to do it in daytimes, which as a result then has forced planes off of a certain runway that is creating daytime noise. The Oakland airport officials indicated that that they heard the what the residents concerns are, but that they're also in the in the they're wrapping that that work up as it is. So so so hopefully that will remedy itself. The second thing I want to report out of the Oakland Noise Forum was Walt Jacobs was once again our resident citizen. Walt Jacobs was once again voted as co-chair. So he did such a great job representing class. And I believe Walt worked with our mayor in putting together a letter, I believe. Is that. Yes. So I just. We're capable our capable staff. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the work you do on that committee. Councilmember Desai, I appreciate it. And also the work of Mr. Jacobs. Anyone else? By Smirnoff's way.

A MOTION reaffirming the King County council's support of unbanked money transfer operators and the immigrant communities they serve.

KingCountyCC_09082020_2020-0286

Thank you very much. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to where or does 2020 182. And we will unless the objection, we will put that on the consent agenda at full council. Our last item today is a motion related to the unbanked. Money transfer operators. Matt Nicholson, the council director of government relations, is here to provide the staff report. Mr. Nicholson, the screen is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counsel, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Thank you. Mack Nicholson, Director Government Relations for the Council Here to brief proposed motion 20202086. The motion itself is relatively straightforward. The subject of the motion is a little bit more complex. The staff report for this is on page 33 of your packet. The motion itself does three things expresses council's support for the East African community and their desires to support their loved ones. Affirms the right for money transfer operators to engage in lawful commerce in a safe manner, and calls on the state legislature to study the issue of bank derisking and find a solution that promotes financial inclusion and public safety. As far as the background, the crux of this issue really is a phenomenon known as bank derisking. And bank derisking happens when financial institutions or banks terminate or restrict business relationships with clients or categories of clients to avoid rather than manage risk in the context of the motion before you. Banks have been de-risking or refusing to offer their services to money transfer operators, money transfer operators, or any type of business that facilitate the cross-border transfers of funds using it or their internal system or relying on international banking networks. Money transfer operators are commonly used by immigrant populations who have relatively low rates of financial participation to send money to family who remain in their country of origin. These type of transactions are called remittances. Western Union might be the best known money transfer operator, but there are certainly many others. As far as why banks are de-risking money transfer operators, generally, it's because banks make the business decision that the cost of compliance with national and international regulatory systems governing the cross-border movement of money, along with the risks and penalties for for noncompliance, outweigh the benefit of providing these services. So they start providing them rather than carry that risk. And that's that de-risking concept. In light of de-risking money, transfer operators have had to find other ways to send money overseas. As you heard in some of the testimony earlier today, it's become kind of a cash transaction and that the money transfer operators that remain in business are transporting cash, which has turned into a public safety issue as well. So to bring it all full circle, the motion calls on committees of jurisdiction in the state House and the state Senate to study the issue of bank derisking and to find a solution that promotes financial inclusion and public safety for these immigrant communities in King County in the state. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions of Mr. Nicholson. Council member of the Grove. I. We'll record your vote for the previous item. Ordinance 2020 182 Council member out the group. Did you want to speak to motion to the motion regarding item bank money transfer operators? Would somebody be willing to make a motion? Mr. Chair, because to preserve Grove isn't there. I'll go ahead and move it. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn is moving that we give a do pass recommendation to motion 2020 286 as Mr. Nicholson is that Mr. Nicholson has just briefed Jason. Discussion. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I am concerned also that in a money transfer that I have been making for over a decade, all of a sudden all kinds of new things are happening. And I'm wondering what's happening, why? Why this is necessary. And recently, the the bank overseas got my money, but they wouldn't give it to the person unless they knew my relationship to the person. What is going on where that kind of information is so necessary? We are aware of what's going on. Is that something you can respond to, Mr. Nicholson? I can take a crack. We're going to quickly get out of my expertize. But in reviewing sort of some of the reports and what's happening is going to be a focus on anti-money laundering and making sure that funds are not ending up for terrorism funding purposes. And in that process, I think there's just more sort of paperwork, more disclosure requirements, both nationally and internationally. And so I think these banks are feeling more of an obligation to do more due diligence to make sure that the money that's flowing through their systems doesn't end up being used for sort of unauthorized purposes. And that might be what kind of what you're noticing on a on a a transactional level. Now and a small amount that small but not huge amounts of money. I was really surprised by the amount of information. So thank you. Further discussion. My personal privilege. I'm pleased to be your client. If Kaphar. Or Lambert wants to send. Any money to me, I will not ask any questions. But I would. And my husband would. Okay. You're all out of order. A council member at the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. When you called on me a moment ago, I have taken a personal phone call from. From family and was distracted. Would it be appropriate for me to make some remarks on this, or would you like me to wait until final passage where we have it before us now? So this would be most of and I'm not aware of any amendment, so it would be most appropriate now. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look at this. I think nothing is more important than family, regardless of our political party or race or national origin. The one thing that unites every human being is this the love we feel for family. And there's no more noble instinct than to care for a child or an aging parent, you know, to support them, to care for them, give them a better life. And the motion before us is about helping people care for their families. And specifically, it's about helping our constituents who are immigrants and refugees from East Africa overcome barriers so that they can care for their families back in Africa. Like many of you I've heard from community members in my case in South Kent County, who work hard often to jobs to earn money to support not only themselves, but their family members who are still in Africa. And they often, however, face a barrier in sending money to those relatives around Africa. And that barrier is called derisking. And that's, as was noted, the process banks go through of either terminating or restricting the business relationships of account holders that they deem to be, quote unquote, high risk. And this was something that began in the U.S. after the 911 terrorist attacks. And it makes sense to have good procedures in place. But unfortunately, many of the account holders and the local East African and Muslim communities believe financial institutions have closed their accounts not due to legitimate risk, but instead due to discrimination. And King County has one of the largest African communities in the United States. It also creates a public safety issue because many of these small business owners who aren't able to engage in the banking activity end up storing large amounts of cash on their on their premises, making them vulnerable to attacks and robberies. So my interest is in being able to promote financial inclusion so that people can support their families as well as protect public safety. And it's a gentle motion. It directs our government relations team to reach out to the state of Washington, explore the actions they can take to promote that kind of inclusion, or for all King County residents and members. So, too, for a lot of the folks you represent, this is a really important measure, and I hope you'll give it fair consideration. Further discussion, just briefly, Mr. Chair, Dombroski Cast Member, Dan Basket Davis Chair I just wanted to take this moment to highlight a strong and growing Eritrean community in one of the strongest parts of my district, Lake City, where we have a strong faith community and a community center. And this is an issue that I also understand is important to them, and I'm happy to sign on as a co-sponsor today for the reasons outlined by Councilmember Up the Grove, the prime sponsor, in his remarks. Thank you. Thank you. For the discussion. Seeing none. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member WG High Council member belted Schubert. City Council Member Dombrowski. I. Council Member Dombrowski both I Council member done. I remember done both i council member Colon. I Council Member Commons both. I Council member Lander. I Council Member Lambert Fox. I Council member. I. Council member up the both on Council Member upon rank power. I. Council member upon rank power votes. I Council Members are high. Ranking. Council members on line votes. I. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is 990 knows. By your vote we've given a do pass recommendation to motion 2020 286 and investors objection. We will place that on the consent agenda for for council. Sordid and having. Madam Clerk, I want to be assured that you recorded Councilmember up to vote on motion on Ordinance 2020 182.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Agreement No. 33765 with the firm of Rutan & Tucker, LLP for legal services related to labor negotiations.

LongBeachCC_07072015_15-0600

Item three is a report from City to City recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a First Amendment to agreement with the firm of Rocktenn and Tucker LLP for legal services related to labor negotiations. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address this item? Councilmember Austin. Yes. Thank you. And before we proceed forward, I pulled this item because I a little bit of concern with the the contract. This is a contract with the attorneys who are negotiating a labor agreement with the IAM. And the original contract was for $200,000. That's correct. And the request here is for an additional $200,000. Is that correct? That is correct for a total of 400. So when do we begin our negotiations? When did we retain the attorney? We began the negotiation, I believe, eight or nine months ago. And we retained their attorneys. Approximately at the time we began negotiation October 14. And I know for for a lot of reasons, there are no there's no way of really knowing when the negotiations will end. However, I think we should incentivize our legal counsel to to to motivate them to get something done. And so I'd like to amend this, if possible, to the 75,000 as opposed to $200,000. That would be fine. We would just if the concludes if the 200,000 were to be approved, obviously we would only spend what we need to conclude negotiations. If we need to come back, we will certainly come back and put another item on the agenda for counsel's consideration. And if we spend less than $75,000. That's correct. To is and that's my motion. I believe I have a second on that. What was that? So I repeat this. What? What's before us is to extend the contract for the legal services for an additional $200,000. There's no time certain. And what I'm saying is that I'd like to to motivate our legal team and send a message that we want to see our negotiations wrapped up sooner than later and lower that amount to $75,000. And by all means, if you know it goes longer than necessary, the city attorney can come back and get more authorization for more money. Thank you, ma'am. Councilmember Urunga, would you like to address the motion? I. I agree with my colleague, Councilmember Austin. I think that these negotiations have gone on for far too long. We need to get something going. If it's a matter of money, let's not make money. The issue with in terms of our of our contract with the negotiators. I think we need to. House could say something inappropriate. But let me let me just say that there needs to be and they need to be incentivized to get going. Let's get a contract and let's get it now. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I would say this is yeah, this is a welcome motion, a welcome alternative if if I just heard it correctly. How many months? Seven, eight months. Nine months. Since October of. 14. So if it were nine months for $200,000, we send the signal that we want this to go on. We're okay with this going on for another nine months and I personally am not so. Thank you, Councilmember Austin, for his motion. I'll be in support of it. Councilmember Andrews. I was just in agreement to second that motion. Yeah. Okay. Councilwoman Pryce. I have a couple questions for the city attorney on this. First of all, we're. This motion. And the second is being made with the, I guess, implication that if we approve a shorter dollar amount, that somehow the attorneys will be motivated to resolve any ongoing discussions. That's what I'm hearing, is the implication. But my question to you, really, you don't have to comment on that. But my question to you really is, do you have any concerns with shortening or reducing the amount that's approved? Is that any concern in terms of our contract or our agreement or understanding with the firm? Vice Mayor, members of the Council? No, I think that we would just may come back to you again if this doesn't ramp up. We obviously have no way of knowing when this will conclude and the process it will take and how long that will take. So the thought was we would renew it for an additional 200,000 at the same as the original amount. But we would certainly if council would like us to come back more often, we will do so. Councilmember Mongo. I guess my concern is that. I don't want there to be any delay in the continuing negotiations necessary to reach a resolution. And I don't want there to be a point where money is stopping us from being at the table, where we would not be able to provide the feedback that our negotiating partner is requesting, provide additional information. And if coming back here is a delay, I mean, I don't know how long how much takes to be absorbed. I know that at points during this negotiation, we have been meeting several times a week for up to ten hour days. So I'm just not clear on. How quickly we could go through this and then leave our partners at the table with no one. Councilmember rego will be ensured that we would not let that happen and we would come back in in a timely manner. Okay. Councilmember Austin. Yes. And just finally, I'd just like to say that this is I brought this forward in and in an effort to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars and to be sure that we're sending the right message not only to the attorneys, but to the bargaining unit here, that we want to see this this whole process come to an end. Thanks. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item three? Can we? Okay. Thank you. Very good. You can see if this is the same group that is responsible for giving the middle finger to the members of the the idea. I think the easy side. I agree action needs to be taken. And what needs to be taken is it immediately? Tonight and the current contract. Go out and find somebody new. Give them strict marching orders and have them come back within 60 days with a a solution that is in keeping with the marching orders that you've given them, period. This has dragged on too long, and the information that was imparted from it here, I think is shocking. I certainly didn't realize how how much how big a shift you were giving the people, period. It just doesn't make any sense. So. You the motion. Having to end the contract tonight. Enter into a new one with a credible. Dynamic that is well-trained and well-seasoned in doing this. Thank you. And that isn't it hasn't contributed to any of your campaigns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. Mr. City Attorney, I have a question. What do you have remaining in the contract? Do you have anything remaining in the existing contract? Currently, we do not have the last couple of months invoices, but we've expended $155,000 of the 200,000. Okay. All right, members, there's been a motion in a second. Please cast your vote. Why spill over, though? Thank you. The motion carried nine zero. Sorry. I'm signed. Incorrect. Okay. Thank you. So that is the consent. By default, that is the concert calendar we are item 12. Epic title 12. Oh, of course we filled both item 12.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Human Services Department; authorizing the Mayor to execute, for and on behalf of The City of Seattle, an interlocal agreement with King County for the administration of the Seattle-King County Area Agency on Aging as provided for in Title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965; superseding a prior interlocal agreement authorized by Ordinance 102148 and amended by Ordinance 120196; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119149

Thank you very much. Are there any comments? If not those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Human Services, Equitable Development and Renters Rights Renter Rights Committee. The Report Human Services, Equitable Development and Renters Rights Committee. Agenda 17 Constable 119 149 relate to Human Services Department authorizing the Mayor to execute four on behalf of the City of Seattle. Interlocal Agreement with King County for the administration of the Seattle King County Area Agency on Aging, as provided for in Title three of the Older Americans Act of 1965, superseding a prior interlocal agreement authorized by Ordinance 102 148 and amended by Ordinance 120 186 and ratify confirmed research projects. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank very much, Councilmember Sawant. Thank you, president harrell. This is an ordinance if passed, would authorize and interlocal agreement with King County to have the aging and disability services division of the Human Services Department of the City of Seattle to be the area agency on aging coordinator for the county. And the committee recommends passage of the bill. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Mr. O'Brien. So what I think John Gonzalez, Herbal Johnson. President Harrell. My favorite unopposed bill passed and chair of sign senate adoption of other resolutions. Please read agenda item number 18. You read a short title if you can.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and any subsequent amendments, between the City of Long Beach and the State Water Resources Control Board, to receive funding in the amount of $100,000 to provide beach water quality monitoring, for the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02232016_16-0175

Next item. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to execute all necessary documents with the State Water Resource Control Board to receive funding in the amount of $100,000 to provide beach water quality monitoring citywide. Thank you. Your income. I don't know. Councilman Andrews. Any public comment on the item? Seeing Nazis cast your votes. Well. We do have a question. Oh, sure, Councilman Price. Sure. I just wanted to thank staff for this great effort. You know, our city has done such an amazing job in terms of making sure that we have. Hmm. Okay. Thank you. Since we deal with this issue a lot. To make sure that we have that water quality is such an important part of our story here in Long Beach and what we have to be proud of. So I want to thank staff and thank my colleagues in advance for supporting this. Vice Mayor, did you have any comments? I just had a question. Is this the same monitoring that we had developed and expanded in conjunction with Heal the Bay and their report and all of that? Nelson Kerr, our bureau manager from Health Services. Yes, honorable mayor, members of the City Council. Yes. This is the same hill. The Bay uses our test results to calculate their grade, so they're using our data. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I appreciate the continued work. Thank you. Sorry. One more thing. Would this be a good time to report that in 2015 we got a ratings and all of our waterways as opposed to 2008 when we had a bunch of FS. This is a great time to report that. Was it is it 2008 we had to write these. Yes. And dry weather. Yes. Yeah. And then 26 vice mayor was saying. So for a long time we had bad grades and we're doing really well. This city council has spent millions and worked diligently over the past ten years with its own city council committee to clean the water. The City Council has worked diligently with Heal the Bay so that we have independent third party people that are evaluating our water. Mr. Kerr Behind us, he has health experts that collect samples. They have scientists that test the samples. So these are legit. And again, they're supported by Heal the Bay. Mr. Ker, did you want to say anything? I concur with what the city manager said. You know, we just had an interview regarding Colorado Lagoon and the water quality there. And we were talking about the great. Work of the. The residents who live in the area and instead of a grassroots effort. So we're going to call it the eel grassroots efforts because the water quality at that body of water is so amazing and a lot of people don't know and they're still not going in. So we're hoping that Mr. West's concept of swim ability really takes flight in 2016. So think Colorado Lagoon is our shining star. That used to be a perennial. Beach bummer. For years and years, and now it is actually our best water quality in the city and has been since the project's been almost completed. Okay. Councilman Fischer, you will read the. Yes. Councilman Mungo. I just wanted to remind everyone that Councilman Price did such an excellent job reminding us how clean it was by having that water dumped on her head for ALS. And we really appreciate her showing us the cleanliness of the water. And I'd be willing to find another charity to have this same experience again. Swimming in it. We could do a swim. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Vice Mayor Lowenthal You know. Right. So Councilmember Price reminded me I know we take this for granted now because of how far we've come, but at the same time, there are a couple of things that I think we should at least share with the public. And one is something that Councilman Price just mentioned off the mic, which is we will be posting these grades at our beaches. Is that correct, Mr. Kerr? Just say yes. Yes. Okay. And so it's similar to our restaurant grades. Where is it? By flags. Will the grades be posted using a flag? Mr. Modica. Yes. We going to post at four beaches where we'll give the grades? Well, actually, I'll be in colors so it'll be safe to swim or rain advisory or don't swim in red. So green, yellow and red. Occasionally we do have a sewer spill or something and we'll have to put that out there. But normally in dry weather, we'll have greens out there. We'll also have the water temperature and we'll also have a QR statement. If you have a smartphone and if you want to get into how the sciences of how we test our water, you can run your smartphone over that and go straight to Mr. Kerr's website and health services to determine all that. And these will be at Mother's Beach, at Colorado Lagoon, at Bay Shore Beach, and also at Kite Beach. I appreciate that. I think just separate in and of itself, it's a very significant thing. But when you start looking at what makes the city attractive, whether it's for cycling or for tourism, these are all things that get widely publicized. I've been on the Hill, the bay board for almost ten years now, and it is something that's widely publicized and which we should be proud of. They're proud of where we came from and how far we've come, actually, and it is a big deal. So I'm looking forward to announcing those grades and and that will keep us motivated. There are some things that we cannot control. We just were reminded that we probably have not knock on wood had a spill in quite some time, but there are effluent issues that we aren't able to control, but we are on top of what we can and at least being able to alert our residents and visitors when it's not quite. Safe and pristine. I think it's a good thing. Thank you. Correct. We'll be very, very honest about it. And also, we want to shout from the rooftops so much so that we're going to be placing shortly 17 swim ladders at all of our public docks throughout Alameda space to just encourage people to be in the water. Thank you. See no other public comment. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Villa Camini, 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_09212020_CB 119889

New Agenda Item three accessible 119889 relating to historic preservation and person controls upon the Select Committee. The glamor presented by the Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the code and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the settlements. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 119889. Is there a second? Second. We have been seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Strauss as sponsor, you are recognized in order to address this bill. Thank you, council president and thank you, Councilmember Peterson for your grace of me not briefing you more than 2 minutes before this council meeting began. This would be coming forward, this legislation, as this is in your district, Councilmember Peterson, this legislation would impose controls and incentives on the VA community building, which has been designated by the landmarks . Preservation for the Community, is located at 1205 42nd Street and University District. It is a seven unit two story apartment building with mostly three and four bedroom units, and it was built in 1924. It is being designated in recognition of its distinctive characteristics of the eclectic style of architecture mixing Spanish, Mediterranean and colonial revival elements. The controls and incentives cover the site and exterior of the building and have been agreed upon by the landmark Landmarks Board in the property. Art. Thank you. Council President. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing not what the Kirk call the roll on the passage of the bill was. I. Morales. Yes. Mesquita. Yes. Peterson Yes. The want? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Juarez. Yes. President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three. Will the clerk please read item three from the published agenda into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Exchange, 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_03022020_CB 119748

Excellent. Thank you. Please read agenda item number four. Oh, scuse me. Let me say this for officially the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number three into the record. Agenda item three Council Bill 119 748 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange, a landmark design by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12. I misspoke. Code now into the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Master Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Excellent, Councilmember Strauss. Thank you. In addition to having seven items before full council today, we have also had four in district walking tours with small businesses, helped over 30 constituents and met with 28 different constituents in district. Now speaking to Council Bill 119748, imposing controls upon the sunset telephone and tough graph exchange. This legislation imposes controls on the site and the exterior of the building, which was built in the neoclassical style. And this building was also designated as a landmark mark by the Landmarks Preservation Board in June. The structure was built in 1905 to serve as one of Seattle's earliest telephone exchange buildings. And it's significant to women's labor history because of its role as a workplace for many women. At a time when there were few employment opportunities for women, after it was a telephone exchange, the this was used as a masonic lodge. Masonic lodge two for two purchased the building in 1924 and occupied the space for ever for the next nine decades. Today the building sits vacant and is unreinforced masonry, and I also share the sentiments of Councilmember Herbold and Morales regarding unreinforced masonry. And so these controls will help preserve the building while while it is remodeled and seismically retrofitted. Excellent. Thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss. I really appreciate in your committee how you called for additional attention to the historic use of it. And I think Councilmember Lewis also was pointing out that there had been previous buildings that had plaque. So that's correct. To call out the previous historical usage. So love the connection there to building on our history of strong women occupying that building. Any additional comments? Yes, Councilmember Lewis. Yeah. Just really briefly, to echo comments that I made this morning during briefing, fully support this bill, this before us today. I think it's a really great example of how we can increase housing density in some of our neighborhoods while also protecting and expanding the esthetic character of the neighborhoods through the unique identities that some of these buildings bring in, in terms of the not only how they look, but also the unique history that some of them bring to our neighborhoods. I think it's something that as a council, we should continue to incentivize and work with folks to bring forward because it really is a a unique way to introduce more density. The fact that this building is now going to turn into two townhomes where it was a not frequently used in recent years meeting center for the Masons is a step in the right direction and fully look forward to voting for this today. Excellent. Thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments since then? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Peterson Hi, Suzanne Strauss. Herbold Hi, Lewis. I'm Morales. I'm President Macheda I seven and Fabian unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please read agenda items four and five into the record.

Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six-month extension for the filing a Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1, 2020.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CF 314455

Agenda item eight Clerk File 314455. Seattle Information and Technology Department request for a six month extension for the Filing of Surveillance Impact Report due on September 1st, 2020. Thank you so much. I will move to get approved and file clerk file three one, four, four, five, five. Is there a second. Second? It's been moved and seconded to approve and filed. Clerk filed 314455. Councilmember Peterson, you are the prime sponsor of this item and are recognized in order to address it. Please. Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, I'll be brief. As I mentioned at council briefing, due to various delays associated with the COVID pandemic, our Seattle Information and Technology Department is filing a six month extension for the surveillance impact reports. We will receive these no later than March. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the clerk file? Hearing none will occur. Kirklees call the roll on the approval and filing of the clerk file. For both? Yes. Whereas. Councilmember Suarez. Hi. Lewis. I. Rallies. I was set up by Peterson. Yes. Swan Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Gonzalez. High. Nine in favor and unopposed. The motion passes and the clerk file is approved and filed. Items nine through 11 Will the clerk please read? Items nine 311 into the record. Agenda items nine through 11. Appointments 1595 through 1597. The reappointment of Mary Ellen Russell as member Seattle School Traffic Safety Committee return to March 31st, 2022 and the reappointment of Margaret Macaulay and Leland Branch. Bruce for terms to March 31st, 2023.

Recommendation to adopt resolution identifying the Terms and Conditions for Fire Department Response to incidents outside of the jurisdiction when the Long Beach Fire Department is compensated or reimbursed for such response. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0262

Motion carries eight zero. Item 17 Report from Fire. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Identifying the terms and conditions for the Fire Department. Response to incidents outside the jurisdiction when when the Long Beach Fire Department is compensated or reimbursed for such responses citywide. Thank you. I have a motion in a second. Any public comment? CNN. Please cast your votes. Should one staff report on that, please? Can we get a staff report? Chief three. Mr. Mayor, council members, I'll be very, very brief. This this is the California Fire Assistance Agreement. Basically, in a nutshell, what you're doing tonight is you're authorizing us to continue to respond to the state as we are requested and also be reimbursed from the state from a portal to portal standpoint, the same way we traditionally have been in the past. On January 1st of this year, there was a change in the state at the OS level that basically stopped reimbursing municipalities for downtime and portal, the portal time only reimbursing cities for the time they actually worked on on an incident. So what this resolution will do is it will continue to get us reimbursed at the rate we traditionally have. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Councilman want. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. Next item.

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, to work with the Animal Care Services Bureau in Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to implement a "Commitment to Adopt Policy" within 60 days to provide a streamlined and equitable approach for placing animals into forever homes.

LongBeachCC_04212020_20-0340

Madam. I think I skipped over eating there. That's management item 18 meeting. Communication from Councilwoman Mango. Councilwoman Price. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilman Austin. Recommendation to implement a commitment to adopt policy within 60 days. See if I can. Have Councilwoman Mango motion in. Time to motion. To a party. To. I don't see it because I can't see anywhere else. Into the. Not into the chat it into the texting messaging service that we emailed earlier today or yesterday. Okay. Last week. It was last week. It's okay. Go ahead. Cut one mango. I do it. Thank you. This is the culmination of bringing together a lot of the ideas from many who have come to council meetings and written. Office related to. How to support animal services and getting the animals into the homes. Over the last six weeks, we've seen an amazing amount of work on the part of. Our foster. Partners, and we want to continue that progress on a go forward basis. Many of you know, the shelters are on the verge of empty. We do have a few cats left, but it would be great if they had a home. And so as we come out of this crisis and return to normal, we want to get ahead of it and make sure we have processes in place that support our animal control director and our employees working hand in hand with the community and our foster partners to make sure each animal finds a home. So you may remember that in the state of California, there used to be a ten day sale policy for owners to reclaim their animals, and that was rescinded several years ago and during a prior financial crisis. And so the shelters are only required to be a lot on three days that we do as a best practice for the protest. This would allow people during that time their whole period to. Commit to adopting the animal and then have a backup person. This will allow. The director. And the city manager a lot of leeway in crafting the policy and ensuring that the organizations that follow through on those commitments are rewarded with the ability to make more commitments. But if organizations make commitments and don't follow through, then they would lose their ability to make those commitments so that we ensure that animals have the best chance of finding a home. With that, I hope that my colleagues will support this item. We've done a lot of outreach in the community and we really think that this is a step in the right direction. Also very open to any suggestions that have come up since item was written, which we felt that could improve it both on the city manager side or the Parks. And Rec slash. Animal care side. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, I have Councilwoman Price who's going to make a second. I'm happy to support this item, and I want to thank Councilwoman Mongo. She's always very, very creative and thinking about our animal care services division and all the different things that we can do to increase adoptions. And I really appreciate her leadership and happy to support this item. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes. Thank you. I also would like to thank our cast in Mungo for bringing the site on board. It was about any measure, you know, everything. I've seen more animals arriving in the home. I think it's worth giving it a try again as a notable bonus item. But the next is council this year. Oh. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Mungo, for bringing this forward. I think completely and a real compassion. To once again. Can I go and get the times, please? I can see that there's a lot of books that are not me, including city staff. Everyone needs to mute their phones except for the person. So thank you so much. But Council Member Pearce. Thank you. I was saying I appreciate the item. I think it is a step in the right direction and aligned with the work that we've done over the last two years with Compassion Save. I did make sure to check in with city staff first and I had a couple of questions that I just want to ask publicly and then I'll give my full support to the item. I know that we the last time we talked about our animal shelter, we had given direction to city staff to start working on an operational agreement, which would seem that some of these items laid out in this item would include could stop. Just give us a report on where we're at. I know that COVID pops up, but what's the timeline for getting an operational agreement with the SPCA? Take out some of our time, Erica. So we were given the assignment by the council to first before we got to the operational agreement, really dove into the review of the agreement and the lease and all the documents that are currently in place. So that work essentially was very close to being finished when COVID 19 happened. So that has been we're very close on that part. We were actually in the process of setting up the negotiation meeting and sitting down with SPCA when I believe it was even on the day that we implemented either Safer at home or declared an emergency. And so that has unfortunately impacted our work to be able to to have those discussions. It is currently on pause and we know it's important to the council. We would like to get back to it as soon as we're able to. But we ideally this item was going to wait until we were done with those negotiations. But we do feel this is a relatively easy step to implement. But the ongoing discussions and operations and the negotiations would take a fair amount of time. So I don't have a date for you. Stephen, does he? He can chime in. But at this point, we're a little bit on a pause. That's that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that we kept that at the forefront of what we're thinking. And my next my next comment would be just and one of the issues that continues to come up is tracking animals that go to the SPCA and making sure that if we're focusing on Forever Home, which has been the continued intent of this council, that we are also tracking what happens to the pets that go to Assisi. So I would ask as part of this, that that staff figure out a way to track when those adoptions are happening so that we have a count of that. So that those are my my two comments. I support the item and think it's a good step following all the work that we've done and want to thank all the advocates that continue to do great work and advocate and again, thank our shelter staff and want to make sure that they have the tools that support them to do their good work. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And we can certainly add to the list of the things we're going to discuss with SPCA, the reporting requirements that you talk about and have that be part of those operating agreement discussions. Thank you, Tom. Councilmember. Thank you. I thank the board. Thank you, Councilman Mongo, for bringing this forward. You did ask for suggestions, so I will really get into the weeds on something a constituent brought up. And that's the last bullet point number eight. If no committee member has requested or allow refuge to pull at 4 p.m. the night before, and what was suggested was that information needs to be out there publicly. So if someone is anticipating an animal still being available for a rescue on a Friday or adoption on a Friday, you don't want to disappoint them by the animal being gone before. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilmember Austin, but thank you. Would also like to lend my support to this. Obviously, I was closing in on this item. I think it's very important. But I also want to commend my colleague, Councilmember, a longer term commitment to this issue. I know she and her husband, Scott, they spend a lot of time and they're very close to an animal shelter near and dear to her heart, the dolphin. I'd also like to think that this this policy that we are moving forward with will help support many of our dogs and partners who are doing some amazing work. I mean, there are a lot of where some of our unsung heroes in the city of Long Beach for their commitment, compassion and work to adopt out my pet. I can speak for my personal experience. Just a little over a month ago, my family, we adopted a pet and know I want to thank our school board member Megan Crawford of fostering and facilitate that. Also want to give a shout out to Sparky and the gang for their efforts to really save the lives of countless amount of animals in the community. And so this is this is a good framework to work from. I think this does kind of get into the weeds, but I'm okay from that. And I hope that you can actually build on this and come back with a really good policy. So I'm happy to support Cities Home as well. Thank you. I'm now a compliment. And they think you're a member longer for me. But I just also wanted to go with my colleagues have said in support of this item and I'm thinking. Well, thank you, Councilwoman. That concludes comments of Councilman Mungo. Your your Q and and it's in motion was I think you did already. Do you have any additional comments to close or. No. I just want to appreciate the adult membership. And I think the same committee member called my office is on my call list. We do have a procedure that smooths that process out and we do need a lot of local information and that will be available. That tells people that some of that so that they can. We really, really want the public to make that commitment to adopt during the ten day period. That's our ideal service. Thanks so much for the and support. Thank you. I just want to add I want to I also want to thank Councilwoman Mongo. I think she has been just really bold in the work at the shelter. Obviously, the shelters have been in the district and there's been a lot of great work on the council. But I know, Councilman, you've been putting a lot of time with the organizations, and I think that the proof is in kind of the new reality that we have with the amazing director and team and volunteers. And this is really great work happening. So I just want to thank you and everyone on the side and integrity and support for the work. So thank you. With that, please do the work. Okay. District one. Lake. District one. Park. West Lake. District two. I. District three. Our district for. I. District five. I. District six. Five. District seven. I. District eight. Oh. District nine. Hi. Motion carries with you now item 90.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program; amending Sections 5.73.010, 5.73.020, 5.73.030, 5.73.040, 5.73.050, 5.73.060, 5.73.070, 5.73.080, 5.73.090, 5.73.100, and 5.73.110, adding Section 5.73.105, and repealing Section 5.73.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code to renew and modify the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption program.

SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_CB 118505

The report the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resilience Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118505 relating to the multi-family housing property tax exemption program and exemptions. That's fine. Councilmember O'Brien. Okamoto. Excuse me. Councilmember Okamoto look alike, don't we? Yes. Thank you very much. The multi-family tax exemption program really has been foundational to the city's efforts, along with the housing levy to build affordable housing. This council bill will extend the program further. It's also a program that has taken Office of Housing, has taken seriously audit findings to strengthen and build the program even better. There are policy changes that were recommended by the. Executive that were consistent with. The ballot committee. In our committee, there were two further amendments that were made that, in my view, further strengthen the program, scaled it up for larger multifamily units, and then passed out of the committee with council. Members who want got in Burgess and the chair supporting it. Councilmember Lakota abstained from voting, in part because he has two. Amendments that he would like to present. I view those amendments as friendly. Amendments will second them and support them when they are made. I'd like to also. Say that while the housing levy and. The multifamily tax exemption has been. Foundational to the work of building more affordable. Units, it's not our work is not yet complete. That work will be completed by the implementation of the Hallow recommendations that were adopted in the well. The work program. Was adopted by. The resolution. Earlier in the in the meeting. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the Office of Housing. For really working this program hard, finding ways to strengthen it and to make it a even better tool than what it is. I want to remind my colleagues here that we will be going to the state legislature to further enhance the program. That is not part. Of these recommendations, but is still essential to be done to really fulfill the recommendations by the Heller Committee. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the two amendments coming forward in support support the Council Bill. Thank you. Councilmember Licata. But thank Katsura Okamoto for looking at these amendments and supporting them. I'm going to read both of them off. Perhaps we could do with them as a single vote. The first is this section was on Salon document on page 77 line 14, but is section 5.73.120 expiration program. The legislation came to us from the executive with recommendation that it be a permanent program. And what this does is set a four year period as we've had similarly in the past past four programs. They come again before the City Council for approval, as I've stated before in this morning's briefing session and at our committee meeting. I think it's important for the Council to be engaged in this program, since it is one of the major programs we have in this city providing affordable housing. And it's, as I say, in in line with what we've done in the past. The Second Amendment, this is on page 75, line three. It basically directs the director will annually analyze rent level information for affordable units in buildings that basically have received a certificate of exemption at the seven year period. What this does is it allows us to compare rent levels for market rate units of comparable size and age located in the neighborhoods. This will help us do an analysis for the directors annual report as to the effectiveness of the of of this program. Thank you. Any questions? Comments. Councilmember Harrell, we. Did hear some testimony about trying to insert prevailing wage in the MFT program. I was always very interested in trying to accomplish that. I just wanted to say for the viewing public that it's at least my understanding that it does raise significant legal issues and that to some extent is inconsistent with some of the authority that we have. And I'm sure that I'm going to assume that that's why this is not part of this legislation. But, you know, I used that expression earlier. In a perfect world, we'd have many different things, but unfortunately it does not look like we can accomplish that in this legislation. But I did appreciate the comments made during public comment. Q Any other comments or questions. We need a second on this on these? Yes. And according to the clerk, we need to do these individually. Okay. So why don't you begin with your exploration? I remove the amendment regarding the expiration of the program. Seconds. Any further discussion? And Councilmember Okamoto, second at that amendment, is all in favor of adopting the amendment on expiration vote. I. I opposed vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted and now the Second Amendment. Second Amendment is to section D on page 75, line three. And I had previously read that amendment second. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? All in favor of the Second Amendment from Councilmember Licata on reporting. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. That amendment is also unanimously adopted. Are there any other comments on the ordinance? I as a member, Licata. I want to thank the Councilmembers for amending the legislation in front of us. With these two amendments. I. I have mixed feelings about this program. It is one of the main programs that the city relies on for affordable housing, and there have been some positive improvements to this version, particularly moving it up to 25% from 20% for the smaller units and also for encouraging units that have three and four bedrooms. So I will be supporting this legislation, but I think it's important for us to keep in mind that this is not a free program. We often refer to it as a tax shifting mechanism, but the research that the auditor due to the auditor's research we've discovered, not easily, I should mention, because there is some difficulty in extracting this information to King County that, well, there's about $12 million in tax shift, about actually about 10% of that 1.2 million in the past have actually been from revenue that we have foregone in the general fund. So there is a subsidy from the general fund. The discussion I think, that needs to happen going forward is given the subsidy that we have in this fund, is this the wisest use of our of our general fund to provide affordable housing in this in this makeup where we have a limit of 12 years? And also whether this is the particular groupings we want to provide affordable housing to and also in what neighborhoods. But that's a longer analysis. We've looked at it and poked at it in the past. We're not going to do that here. But I hope with these amendments, at least, we set the stage to make sure that we continue to monitor this program and at least assure ourselves or see if we can assure ourselves that this is a program that is cost effective in providing low income housing. Thank you. Any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill. Okamoto, I Rasmussen. I. So want back I got in I Harrell I Licata I O'Brien hi and President Burgess nine in favor in and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Transportation Committee Item nine has been held until October five, so please read item ten.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Downtown Denver Events, Inc., to extend the term to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9. Amends a contract with Downtown Denver Events, LLC by adding two years for a new end date of 2-28-24 to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9. No change to contract amount (202053400; 202161211). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.

DenverCityCouncil_01312022_22-0071

11 eyes council resolutions 22, dash 0051 through 22, dash 0070 have been adopted. And apologies there. Zoom is not working well this evening for whatever reason. So thank you, council pro Tem Torres for stepping in there and we're going to go ahead and move forward here. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 71 on the floor for adoption? I moved the Council Resolution 20 2-0071 be adopted. I got. Thank you. It has been moved. And we're going to give that second to Councilmember Herndon. Comments and questions or questions by members of Council on Council Resolution 71. Council Member State Abarca. Thank you. I'd just like to go on record voting no for this. This this for the downtown Denver Partnership's contract to operate the Biergarten and the skating rink downtown. It's one that I believe we should be having deeper discussion about. I voted on it, voted no. On it in. The past, and just wanted to make sure that. I still let you guys know I still have big issues with this contract and do not think that we should be approving it. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Torres. Oh, no major comments. Just wanted it pulled out from the prayer block so that I could vote in favor of it. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Hines. I thank you, council president. I will be voting in favor of the of the resolution. I do have concerns about the the bike lane and sidewalk immediately adjacent to Skyline Park. That is constantly and consistently obstructed with lots of vehicles. Some vehicles of vendors are parked in the bike lane. Sometimes they're city city vehicles, sometimes they're business improvement district vehicles. I don't believe that we should allow some areas to be blocked, some right of ways to be blocked and others not. And and I think we should be consistent with ensuring that access around Skyline Park for pedestrians and cyclists are preserved. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and seen no one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 20 2-0071, please. Ibaka? No, Clark. I. Flynn, I. Herndon. I. Hines I. Kashmere. I. Can each I Ortega. I send Sandoval. I believe we have an affirmative from Councilmember Sandoval. She's got her camera on, but her audio, for whatever reason, isn't working. Thank you. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. On the 12 eyes. 12 Eyes. Council Resolution 20 2-0071 has been adopted this evening. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 80 on the floor for adoption?

Recommendation to request the State Legislation Committee to review and consider supporting SB 1281 and AB 2792; and consider adding an item to the State Legislative Agenda generally advocating for lowering the state cannabis cultivation tax.

LongBeachCC_05102022_22-0536

Communication from Councilwoman Allen, Councilmember Younger Vice Mayor Richardson recommendation to request the State Legislation Committee to review and consider supporting SB. 1281. And AB 2792 and consider adding an item to the state legislative agenda advocating for lowering the state cannabis cultivation tax. Thank you. I'm going to turn to Councilman Allen to be. Thank you, Mayor. I want to start by recognizing council member your Ranger and Vice Mayor Richardson for their support on this item. Our state cannabis laws were designed to regulate cannabis, protect public health, and help sells out of the illegal market. But I mentioned earlier tonight the cannabis industry is over, taxed and burdened by various regulations. There is no industry taxed as much as the cannabis industry. While this certainly benefits towards the state and local budgets, it's just flat out unfair to the industry. And this structure is also a factor and how strong the illicit cannabis market is throughout the state as this existing state laws imposes a weight based tax, the cultivation tax and a 15% excise tax on cannabis operators. Local taxes are then imposed in addition to these state taxes, the cultivation tax of $161 per pound. This is a flat tax, meaning that the impact of this tax will vary depending on the market price for per pound of the cannabis. If the market price of cannabis is low, the tax is a greater burden on legal cannabis operators, often leading businesses to cut jobs, cut, lost or lose their doors altogether. Or like the lady who just spoke. You can add janitors if you need them. The structure makes it very difficult for legal cannabis businesses to be successful and earn a profit. This is a result. And displace workers. Close cannabis entities to seek other, more low cost avenues for business, such as the illicit market, which does not face the operating and regulatory cost of the legal market. If legal cannabis businesses struggle to operate, the illicit market will continue to grow and be even more persuasive. The state is working on cannabis tax reform and it's important that the city demonstrate strong support for its current and future legislative items. Both SB 1281 and AB two 2792 address these tax issues. These bills will help the legal cannabis industry market compete against the the illicit cannabis markets, which in turn will help create more jobs, increase government revenues and community benefits from local business owners. So I ask the State Legislation Committee support these bills and add an item advocating for lower state cannabis cultivation tax on the committee agenda. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I get the motion in the second, please? On record. The second, please. There you go. Counselor, we want to thank you. Councilmember Allen, for bringing this forward. More than happy support. I think that when we look at our legislative agenda for this coming year, this is a very important item that should be included in there. And I think we should have some real robust discussion on this because obviously, as we've discussed tonight, the cannabis industry is is being I'm not going to say attacked, but it is under scrutiny and it needs in support. It needs help. And I think one of the most progressive things that we can do in the city council is to support that in support of our cannabis industry partners here. So more than happy to agenda, is it we will discuss it and I'm sure that we will support it and send it forward to our legislation committee as well and then to the City Council for full support later on in the in the process. So thank you for bringing this forward. Happy to support. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Councilmember Allen and Your Honor, for bringing this forward. I certainly want to support this item before us this evening. And I've already written letters of support on both SB 1281 and maybe to 279 to to the sponsoring legislators in Sacramento and noting that two of the three state legislative committee members are agendas in this particular item. I just want to ask from a from a form kind of perspective, what's going to be the process? As I understand this, this will go back to the state merge committee where we. Will. Possibly get a report from staff and support this. Because I just heard our chair say that he he wants to support this. My question is, can't we just cut the process and and support it tonight as a as a body and women that. So you do have some options. I think you with the consent of the chair of the state large committee, you can actually amend that and bring it. If there's support of doing this, we are going to be bringing the state legislature agenda, I think, next week. It just got heard in committee. And so, you know, this could be then added in as a as a supplemental to that and bring back to your to your consideration or if you really wanted to delve into it and get additional testimony and information, you could do that in committee and then bring it back. Okay. Like I said, I'm I'm inclined to support it tonight. But, you know, if the maker of the motion and the senator one to continue with this process, I'm I'm okay with that to support it as is. Yeah, I'm absolutely in favor of getting this done. So if you if the colleagues are amenable to supporting this tonight, I'm all for it. It's a matter of the advice of our attorney. But we can do it tonight. Let's do it. Let's get it. Let's get out of the way. So. So, if I understand, the amendment to the motion would be to add it to the supplemental state led agenda that will come back in a week to the council. There you go. Stupid teacher. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think I think the the the from the perspective would be, I think adding it to the state let's committees for approval next week which I think is set to be approved next week in skipping the committee process, I think meets Councilmember Austin's needs as well as the councilwoman. I'm sure it comes from for. Is that you're amenable to that. Okay, Councilwoman. Okay. So then the adjusted motion is then to just fold the support into the seat ledge. Official agenda, which it needs to be anyways. And that way our, you know, our lobbying team and our, our, our folks and also get engaged on the city side to push this issue in Sacramento. So that is the motion. Vice Mayor Richardson Giovanni, there's no comment. I like where this is headed. I'm support. Thank you. Then with that, please cast your votes. We're actually I'm sorry about that. We actually have public comment on this one as well. Madam Quirk. Well, Elliot Lewis, Jose Hernandez, Daniel Lopez, Jordan, Wilbert and Edgar Cruz. Please line up at the podium. Elliot, Jose, Danielle, Jordan and Edgar. I think some of them are saying that they don't want to speak up. Okay. So I think we're I think we're good because anyone comes forward, we're going to go out and take a is there someone that's speaking or please come forward. Good evening, counsel and staff. As you may know, my name is Edgar Cruz, Social Security recipient, and I am the founder of the Cannabis Concert Complex of Long Beach, where we focus on social equity and community redevelopment in our jurisdiction. I'd like to start off by thanking counsel, cannabis oversight and economic development for their hard work and support. In regards to Agenda Item 17, 28 and 33 and October, the Office of Cannabis Oversight presented a proposed map that would amend Green Zone for dispensaries but made no mention of the other license. Types are in desperate need of relief. Even after the state has revived their location requirements, the city has done little to catch up. Property owners and realtors are well aware of what this means and for them to be valued, their property is 2 to 3 times higher than those not in the Green Zone. While it is unknown how the market will respond to this expansion of the buffers, the initial response will, we hope, will level devise and force them to offer more competitive pricing. Another issue facing the cannabis industry is federal legalization, with the banking industry threatening property owners to foreclose a property if leased to any cannabis businesses. This again limits competition and the valuable properties, so any guidance you can offer would be appreciated. A solution could be to promote property ownership. They are also has stated that they currently do not support ownership through the grant program, instead encouraging leases that increase the likelihood that the lease would enter into a predatory or financial unstable agreement . Property ownership will not only provide location for the business, but a real asset that may outlast the business. What does it mean to truly support equity businesses? If we look at other cities that have done that have done to bring parity to the marketplace, the answer is really simple Give equity applicants exclusive access to a licensing process . Equity businesses are not essential because anyone can do it, and if anybody can do it, they're going to do it without us. From the property owner to the investor, all seeking ways to control or cut out the equity owner. But if equity is the only point of entry, equity is vital to the industry. The city has taken many steps to support equity businesses, with the exception of building equity businesses to support equity businesses. The collective power of a group of like minded business owners will ensure the success of all incubating, training, learning as a whole towards the mutual success of each with the collective buying power and resources to have a fair shot in an industry that is locking them out, facing regulations that are more punitive than any other similar business or industry. At the October Council meeting, it was made clear that new licenses, delivery dispensaries, shared manufacturing would be exclusive to equity applicants . And I would also encourage you to go further and expand licensing to include events and onsite consumption. Denver recently approved the first social equity onsite consumption loan, and I hope that you take cue from 2015 when Long Beach went to complete with the other cities at the forefront of this new industry. I really thank you guys for your time in industry and I know it's been a frustrating and long process in regards to creating the social equity program and making it more substantial. And I think it takes all of us, we are learning as we are going and is very grateful for you guys to have this process. A lot of people that I know don't have the opportunity to speak to their council members. Mr. Speaker, murder, economic development. So for us to have that opportunity is very grateful. So thank you, guys. Thank you very much. That concludes public comment. We have a motion in a second on the floor, please. Members, cast your vote. Motion is carried. Great. Thank you very much. We are we're going to continue the regular agenda. I know the cannabis items are over. If I can ask everyone to exit as as quiet as possible so we can continue the meeting. That would be great.