Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

A RESOLUTION amending Resolution 31857 providing conceptual approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit to Seattle Arena Company, LLC to include the construction of permanent tensioned tie-backs in portions of Thomas Street, east of 1st Avenue North and west of 2nd Avenue North, and the long-term occupation of these permanent tensioned tie-backs in the right-of-way to enable the renovation of KeyArena at the Seattle Center.

SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_Res 31888

From the regular agenda. Agenda item one The Report of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas Resolution 31888 amending Resolution 318 57. Providing conceptual approval of a significant structure term permit to Seattle Arena Company LLC to include the construction of permanent attention to tiebacks in portions of Thomas Street, east of First Avenue, north and west of Second Avenue North, and the long term occupation of those permanent attention to tiebacks and the right of way to enable the renovation of Key Arena at Seattle Center. Can we recommend the resolution be adopted as amended? Thank you. And I did want to mention that Councilmember Mosquito had a prearranged meeting that requires a conflict at this point on an agenda. So. So what does he have there? So she doesn't need a formal excuse, but she's she had to go. Okay. So I will move to formally excuse councilmember skater from the remainder of the meetings there. Second. All those in favor of schools against mosquitoes say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Okay, so I'll now proceed with the resolution in front of us. So, as you may recall, we did form a select committee on civic arenas and dealing with the key Arena Construction Council member, whereas in her leadership she did the lion's share of it. She was kind enough to allow me to chair one of these small, insignificant issues on tiebacks, but nonetheless, I chaired it. Thank you for that. But this resolution basically gives conceptual approval of what's called a significant structured term permit to the Seattle Arena Company to construct, maintain and operate at a permanent tension tieback required to operate a tunnel under crawl under, under an across Thomas Street. Basically, the arena company that's in charge of the construction revise its construction plans include these permanent tension tiebacks and they'll remain in Thomas Street. They're necessary for the sort of the feasibility of the construction project. They also during the meeting gave us a status report on the project and everything is going as planned and they are very pleased, as are the central staff members of ours and our department is very pleased with how that construction project is going. So basically if this resolution today is adopted, as that will continue the work going down that road and they will draft an ordinance that will grant final approval of the term permit, and we'll describe their proposed conditions of approval at that point, which shall include the annual fee and the maintenance obligations and the indemnification provisions and the insurance and the bond requirements. So again, this resolution is as necessary to allow continued work. Any questions on the resolution? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries resolutions that then show sign it. Thank you very much. Please read the next agenda item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to enter into a renewed Cable Television Franchise Agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with WaveDivision I, LLC; and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise.

SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_CB 119030

The Report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee Agenda Item 30 Constable 1190 30 Relating to cable to cable television authorizing the mayor and or the mayor's designee to enter to every new cable television franchise agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits Weight Division one LLC and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purposes of implementing or administrating the renewed franchise. Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you very much. So this council bill authorizes a renewed cable television franchise between the city of Seattle and waive its legal name being waived, Division One or LLC. But we refer to it as WAIVE and the current franchise agreement expired November 17, 2017. So our office and some of your offices have been working closely with the Office of Cable, Communications and Central Staff to make sure we basically had a franchise agreement that expanded on our current community benefits and aligned with the values in our Cable Customer Bill of Rights. And so we had three different meetings regarding this issue, including an initial briefing on July 19th, and we had a public hearing on August 2nd. And again, the city clerk, just to give some description of the process, publish the notice for the August 2nd public hearing and various news outlets. And again, we complied with a fairly thorough process and that's intent and make sure we have all the input needed to make sure we have a good franchise agreement. The city and we've negotiated these through a side letter agreement for the community benefit agreements. We may require, require that the city cannot require because of regulatory issues, certain kinds of broadband issues. But we can certainly extract as many public benefits as we can in our working relationship, and that's pretty much what we did. The Office of Cable Communications conducted a community assessment at the beginning to determine the needs and interests of the city and its residents. And again, what had come out of that is the reinforced need for public, educational and governmental access of the known, otherwise known as peg channels and cable discounts to low income residents. So in in a nutshell, this particular franchise agreement we will be able to achieve for the first time residents who have waive and are eligible for our own utility discount program, the city's utility. This grant program can receive 30% discount on its basic service rate. That discounted price is about $20 per month, $20.96, to be exact. We will continue complimentary cable TV's service to city buildings and schools. Again, we have agreed to that. There will be increased support for peg channels, public education and government channels, including a new PEG fee. There will be free Wi-Fi in certain intersections, particularly around 23rd Avenue and and Cherry Street and 23rd Avenue and Union Street. We will continue to provide free cable cable modem, Internet service to qualified non-profits and has agreed to double the number of complimentary Internet service to non-profits. Currently, there's 55 active modem sites, and they will add up to five a year for a total of 100 sites. So the Information Technology Group and our community believes we have a good franchise with which to renew and the committee recommends approval or any further comments or questions about. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw. Burgess. Hi. Gonzales. I Johnson. Suarez. O'Brian. Salon girl. Eight in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passed in the chair will sign it. Please read a report of the Park Service Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue & 1443 Kalamath Street in Lincoln Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 (former chapter 59 zoning to mixed-use) with waivers, located at 1010 and 1050 West Colfax Avenue and 1443 Kalamath Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-13-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1086

Council Member Sandoval Will you please put Council Bill 1086 on the floor for final passage? I move that bill 20 dash 1086 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved. Thank you for the second. Councilwoman Ortega. The required public hearing for council bill 20 Dash 1086 is open. May we have the staff report? Certainly, Madam President. Good evening, counsel. I'm Brandon. Shaver. 1/2. Look, get this in presentation. I'm Brandon Schaefer, senior city planner with CPD presenting a special math amendment for ten, ten and 1050 West Colfax and 1443 Kalamazoo St. Three Zoning from before with waivers. You are one year or two to see Annex five and CM eight with waivers. You can see that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of West Colfax Avenue and North Commerce Street in Council District three within the Lincoln Park neighborhood. The subject property is currently a drive thru restaurant. Strip mall and. Commercial building, measuring approximately. 1.89. Acres in land area and is requesting a rezoning to CM x five at the southern portion of the property along Kalama Street and CMCs eight, with waivers along Colfax Avenue to allow mixed use development. Current zoning on the site as before with waivers. You one, you two. That is the adult use and billboard use overlay the zoning dates back to 1978. It is a former Chapter 59 zone district meant to provide neighborhood serving users along arterial streets where a maximum floor area ratio of 2 to 1 can be achieved. There's a complete list of the waivers in the staff report, but I just want to make mention of two that prohibit the adult and billboard use overlays, thereby canceling out the overlays that are currently mapped on the property. Adjacent zoning includes campus to the north, rear campus. C, Mass five. C, max five and GMC 12, all with the adult billboard use overlays with GM's three and two unit zoning to the. Existing land use of the subject property is commercial retail adjacent land uses include public quasi public college campus office mixed use unit residential and vacant land across Lebanon Street. Here are some photos to give you a sense of the building form and on the area with the subject property on the top left, in the top right. You can also see residential structures on the south of the site, on the bottom left, and then the vacant land along West Colfax Avenue as pictured on the bottom right . Here is a side by side compared compared to the table showing the differences between the proposed and existing zone districts, the CM CMC's five and CMC's eight with waivers were introduced build to back and transparency requirements that will result in a more urban, pedestrian friendly built form that is more appropriate for this location. There are also waivers proposed for the portion of the site along Colfax that's rezoning to CMCs eight. These waivers are detailed in the staff report in the application, and they limit the building height to seven storeys and 75 feet. These waivers will not impact the protected district standards imposed by the two unit zoning to the south. These waivers are intended to provide flexibility in accommodating an additional four affordable housing units in close proximity to transit. And they are consistent with CPD's policy of using waivers as a bridge to a future text amendment. As many of you may be aware. CPD is currently working on an affordable housing zoning incentive. And this site is probably going to have would probably qualify as being considered as an incentive area. There's also a development agreement in the form of an affordable housing agreement that has been executed. This agreement goes beyond the build alternative plan as 10% of all units will be income restricted for a period of 99 years at 60 and 80% and my levels, 25% of these income restricted units will be two bedrooms and 10% will be three bedrooms. Further income restricted units will be equitably distributed across the project and constructed of similar quality as the market rate units. As as the project is currently designed, there will be a total of 28 affordable housing units provided. This is in contrast to the four affordable housing units. That would be the results of the build alternative plan calculation. Information on the rest of this application was sent in late November. At that time, the applicant. Continued to. Engage with the community. They worked with hosts to develop that affordable housing agreement, and they worked with CPD to craft the waiver language. This resulted in a revised application being submitted in late August. At the time, the staff report was sent out. We have received 18 letters of support, including one from the VA on the Lincoln Park neighborhood and one letter of concern and one letter in opposition. Moving to the criteria. There are four plans that impact the subject property beginning with comprehensive plan 2040. This proposed rezoning is consistent with many of the strategies dealing with equitable, affordable and inclusive, strong and authentic neighborhoods and environmentally resilient goals and strategies. Moving the blueprint. DENVER The subject property is mapped as part of the general urban neighborhood context. The predominant land use in these areas is multi-unit residential and there is a regular street grid with consistent alley access. However, this application is proposing the urban center neighborhood context, which is more appropriate as the site is across the street from light rail station in close proximity to downtown Denver and nearer to campus. As Blueprint Denver master at a citywide scale. Limited flexibility can be interpreted as long as the request furthers planned goals and fits with the overall intent of the context map, which this does. And is consistent. The future place map designates this property as a community corridor. Here we envision a mix of office, commercial and residential uses with buildings generally up to eight storeys in height and given the street type of Colfax Avenue being a downtown arterial. The increased height here does make sense, and it is still less given the waivers that will limit the property to seven storeys instead of eight. So provide that transition to the neighborhood, to the south. This is part of the community centers and corridors growth area strategy where we envision 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment by 2040. Next, we have the Lincoln Park neighborhood plan. This plan was adopted in 2010 and envisions the area as a stable, mixed income neighborhood that provides connections to the surrounding neighborhoods downtown and the area of campus. The Framework Plan identifies the subject property as both mixed use retail and mixed use commercial, and the application of mixed use zoning as prescribed in these places and also in areas of change which these properties were designated as in Blueprint Number 22. The Building Heights Annapolis plan recommends up to five stories along Colfax and up to two stories along with along Kalama Street, closer to 14th Avenue. However, the plan does anticipate higher intensity zoning changes, and in these instances, applicants must substantially mitigate negative impacts. And approve the plan goals. So in working with the community, the applicant has been able to. Provide an affordable housing agreement and increase the amount of retail based on the neighborhood inputs. They have also relocated truck access. Based on neighborhood alley concerns. And they've also planted their plan to do live working. That's what they plan streets to better integrate with the residential area. And lastly, they are intending a public art component to be along Kalama Street to better integrate into the art district on Santa Fe. Well, it's not a supplemental plan to comp plan. This rezoning does mean housing and inclusive Denver and it will be providing affordable housing in areas of opportunity and promoting mixed income retail housing. Staff also finds that this reasoning meets the next two criteria as a result of the uniformity of district regulations and also further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans, facilitating increased housing density in transit, and providing better health outcomes through increased physical activity within walkable distances. There are two justifying circumstances mentioned for this reasoning. The first is change or changing conditions in the surrounding area. Recent physical changes include the opening of new multi-unit residential projects within close proximity to the site, as well as significant public and private investments along the Santa Fe Corridor. And the second justified circumstance points to the fact that the subject property currently zoned before with waivers you are one you have to retain. Former Chapter 59 after the city adopted the Denver zoning code. Lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the purpose and intent statements for both Cemex five and CMC's eight. City staff recommends approval based on all review criteria met. I'm happy to answer questions. And also we have Andrew from hosts. Who can. Answer the questions about the voluntary housing agreement. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Brandon. There has been no written testimony submitted regarding Council Bill 1086, and we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Joe Swanson. All right. I thought we had Joe. All right, Joe, we're getting you promoted up into the panelist. And you might have to meet yourself, Joe. There you go. This is Joe Swenson. And everybody hear me? Okay. Go ahead. Great. My name is Joe Swenson. My address is 950 17th Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a senior manager of real estate development at the Opus Group based here in Denver. And I like to thank you and city staff for your work on this project. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you and look forward to this evening's discussion. You're with us tonight. We have several of our team members. I'll be joined in this presentation by Brian Connolly from Don Johnson. And all of us are available to answer your questions. The oldest group is a 65 year old company based in Minneapolis, has had a presence in the Denver community for over 25 years. We have a strong community focus and commitment to Denver, not only donate millions of dollars per year to community organizations, but also volunteer our time to partner for a greater impact. Our company's focus on community has driven our work on this project, and because of that, we began our engagement efforts over 15 months ago. From the beginning, it was important for us to get early input and feedback and the community's vision for this property. We held six meetings with the registered neighborhood organization before even submitting our zoning application and then a number of individual conversations with our members throughout this process. In addition, we held meetings with the Neighborhood Equity and Stabilization Group hosts Denver Housing Authority, the District of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Business District. Affordable housing is a very important component of the proposed rezoning request. A project team worked with House to negotiate an affordable housing agreement that runs the land for 99 year period. The affordable component of the rezoning will allow for 60% and 80%, and my units will have a wide variety of unit types and sizes. We've also dedicated all of our three bedroom units to be affordable. The proposed zoning will create conditions that can benefit the community in a variety of ways. Early on, the neighborhood organization told us that this property is viewed as a gateway to the neighborhood in the art district. The new zoning request will help us achieve the vision of the piano as follows. The proposed zoning creates an opportunity for transit oriented projects across the complex light rail station. The new zoning will allow for live work units where an owner can operate a business on the ground floor while living upstairs, decreasing the expense of operating a small business. The proposed zoning requires street level activation along the Colfax frontage, allowing for a variety of users, including restaurants or businesses that serve the community. With the proposed zoning. Opus will partner with the art district on Santa Fe. To assist with art curation and public art features surrounding the property. Finally, the rezoning will create conditions to support a great new project that will offer improvements in the alley, new sidewalks, utility upgrades, pedestrian plaza and added greenspace. Brian Conaway will not talk about playing guidance. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Joe. Next up, we have Brian Conley. Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly here my business addresses 950 17th Street, Suite 1600. And as Joe mentioned, I am a land use lawyer with OT and Johnson Robinson, Neff and Reagan Eddie. I was asked by the applicant team to specifically touch on the issue of plant support, and we appreciate Mr. Shavers analysis on this topic. So I'll be brief. The proposal will allow for revitalization of an auto oriented, low density intersection and to a much more walkable area that takes advantage of transit access. So in that way, the proposal furthers many of the big picture themes of Blueprint in the Allman Lincoln Park neighborhood plan, including providing access to opportunity, creating affordable housing , establishing conditions to support community oriented businesses, provides mode shift away from cars and towards other forms of transportation, and it provides efficiency in land use and development. Since Brandon provided greater detail on planning guidance, I won't reiterate what's already been said, but we do believe the proposal is most appropriately reviewed under the urban center and neighborhood context and that the future places guidance supports the building height at seven stories along Colfax and scaling down to the south. With respect to the comparison to the existing zoning, the rezoning advances several aspects of planning guidance and brings the property integrator conformance with the plans when compared to the existing zoning. The building height will remain the same as currently entitled in the CM x eight with waivers portion of the site and the zone change will allow for relief from the current are limitation, which makes for less site, less efficient site development and avoids the possibility for surface parking. It maintains protected district upper storey setbacks and reduces height in the CM x five portion of the property, and it will require activation through transparency and street level active uses. So with that, we believe the request is consistent with planning guidance. We agree with staff's analysis. We'd be happy to take questions or discuss this further. We certainly respectfully request your approval. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Jay Fournier. Go ahead, J. Hi. My name is. My name is Jay Fournier. I'm also with the Opus Group. I am here to answer questions on the design architect on the project, working with Joe and Brian. I don't have anything formally to request but just offer my mind if you have any questions regarding the architectural design and the urban planning of the project. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jay. And our last speaker on this hearing is Jesse Paris. The new members of council cannot be heard. Mm, go ahead. My name is Jefferson Parish, a representative for Denver homicide. Wow. Blackstock, someone with the self defense, has a passion for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High Schools. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I was with me not in approval of this rezoning. I figured it was going to be more gentrification than usual. This area town has been gentrified, such as other areas of town, the Westside as well. I wanted to know I had a few questions for the occupants. If. You are going to plan on keeping the existing restaurants and retail establishments along with the laundromat. I also wanted to know why only 10% of units are going to be affordable for 99 years. Also, we wanted to know why the army levels are so high since you're talking about affordability. Is this affordable for 60% to 80%? Army is not affordable. Especially when an average annual income in Denver is about $55,000 a year. So. I say that the occupiers did their research better outreach. They reached out to the Arnolds. They reached out to several neighborhood groups. I seen there was one letter of concern. I wanted to know what that letter of concern was. I want to know what the letter of opposition was. And also I want to know what is the guarantee of this actually being affordable. You said that you came out with a neighborhood a neighborhood agreement. Who is going to enforce this agreement for 99 years? And also how many portable units. Is it going to be more than 28? Or is that just the total that's going to be affordable? How many units in total are going to be at this property? And honestly, it's it's got to be next year. This is going to be residential commercial all the above. So a please answer those questions. I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Build 1086. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, my first two questions are for you on the justifying circumstances. You mentioned that public and private investment along the Santa Fe corridor were one of the things that allowed this to go to higher heights or meet some of the criteria. Can you just give me a sample of what those investments were that qualified for you in your in your analysis? Yes, definitely. So staff looked at recent development that has occurred along Santa Fe since 2010 when the neighborhood plan was adopted. So I think in the application, they specifically call out a mixed use building that's under construction right now along Santa Fe. They also talked about another project that is at Colfax in Osage that just recently opened. And then the public improvements, I believe, are still underway. But there is a project underway by Daddy to make Santa Fe Corridor a quieter sidewalks and public art components to make it more of a walkable place. So I think that staff thought that increasing the height and the density at this location was in going with the neighborhood is changing and was a satisfying, justifying circumstance. Hey. The. Parking minimums here. Can you tell me a little bit more about how how you look at what kind of parking is required here, given either whatever arrangement is made, the type of zoning that it has and its proximity to transit infrastructure. Yep, that's a great question as well. I do not know off the top of my head what the parking requirements are for the C-Max and. It depends on if it's for residential or if it's for a commercial use. I can get back to you on that. And then there's also a parking reduction for being in close proximity to the rail station. So I believe that they. Did get a reduction. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Brendan. Andrew, question for you at Host. If you can give me a little bit more. Information in the in the public about the development agreement that was struck. Sure. We worked with the there's a voluntary, affordable housing agreement that has been struck on this property. It will be in place, as they've talked about it already for 99 years. It takes a total of the 280 units that are anticipated at this particular time and would say 10% of those would be creating 28 units. This is intended to be. There's a for sale clause and there's a rental clause. But the rental is will generate about 25 units at 80% AMI and about three units at 60% AMI. As we were going through the negotiating process, when we looked at the neighborhood and what we were looking for here was really also trying to get larger family units. So we were looking at things with like three bedrooms. We actually were able to come to an agreement that all of the three bedroom units in this project would be affordable. So there's we they did go the extra mile to actually get a larger family units in this in this agreement. So did you have any other questions? You mentioned a for sale clause. What does that mean for affordability? So it provides an option. So if you have a rental, if you if the project's all for rent, then it would be everything would be 80 and 60% AMI. But if they operate for sale, then it would be actually it's the same. It's 80. It's sorry. It's sometimes are different. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Andrea. And then my final questions are for the applicant, Joe or Brian. So several of the businesses in the retail area have closed. I've noticed recently, but I know the restaurant remains. There might be some others. Have you been has there been conversation with any of the businesses that have remained about continuing on with the project? What does that look like so far? I know. It's throwing a. Wrench and everything, but. Yeah, COVID has affected some of the local businesses there. Um, I know the Starbucks, um, the two other businesses are planning to leave. Um, and we worked actually hand in hand with the laundromat to kind of figure out how to relocate them. Um, so we've come to agreement with them. Um, part of our purchase agreement that doesn't allow us to speak with the tenants directly as we have, we've had to go through the landlord. But the project is designed where we can bring back these local tenants, um, and keep them in the project if necessary and if they want to stay a part of our outreach engagement. Over the last 15 months, we met with Irene Aguilar and asked them through our programs to try and help out with a time in between when construction starts and when the building would be open for these retailers. And we hope this is committed to really help these tenants and act as a liaison between the tenants and to try to figure out a way to make that work. Okay. That's helpful. So Andrew gave a little bit of a rundown of the development agreement, and I remember in committee it was clarified that you can designate the affordable units for a certain population. I think my question was, how do you make sure that it's not students, that it really is families and not a set of roommates that might be occupying the three bedroom? How would that actually. Work in your in your. View? Sure. So, first of all, we're renting by the unit and not by the bed. And that is typically a natural deterrent to students. You know, they're looking for, you know, to rent a bed and not be held accountable for an entire unit. We also we rent on a 12 month rental cycle, and it's not based on the academic calendar. It's also my understanding that their housing policy allows us to cater towards that family, and that's what we intend to do. Okay. On the art curation, I know that you and I saw the letter from the district. Thank you for working with them. What does that look like? Does that look like art shown in the lobby or. I thought I remembered artist studios being discussed at one point. What's the what's the plan for this one? Yeah. So we have a few options. I think first off, we have an opportunity and the right of way on the sidewalks that have some type of sculptures and some type of, uh, a pedestal to really make this feel like a gateway to the art district on Santa Fe. We also have the opportunity to have the assistance from the district and art and are united spaces in the building. And I think the kind of the best option is on the east side of the projects are the proposed project along Kalama. We have a co-working space where it would be floor to ceiling glass and the idea would be like a first Friday. Or if there's some kind of event that the artist from Santa Fe is hosting, that we could have a gallery space there, that a local artist could have their work shown and leave it there for, you know, 2 to 3 month period or whatever would be appropriate for that artist. Thank you so much. And then on the actual development that the build, one of the big pain points of this particular corridor has been the sidewalk along Colfax. And Councilman Hines might remember. When we were. First sworn in, a constituent from downtown who uses a wheelchair to get around, made sure that it was on both of our radar, that he can't use this this particular sidewalk, the utility infrastructure is directly in the middle of it. Can you give us a sense of what you envision that looking like for pedestrians, for for for access? So part of this site development plan process, we worked with the city and we're basically dedicating the first 20 feet between the building and Colfax Avenue as public right away. So that would be an extended sidewalk as well as a tree line. And then we are upgrading all the sidewalks along the Pan Alley map. And then another thing of note is that obviously we bring on an accessibility consultant to make sure not only the public right away is accessible, but also within the building. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions, Madam President. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Joe, if you could just stay on. I've got a few questions for you as well. First of all, did you guys try to acquire the property to the south of the lodge? We did not. Okay. That has historically been city owned property. That's where the Community Development Agency used to be before it was CPD and now Dido. And I had asked our planning director some time ago about planning director, but our Dido director to look at that property and tell us what was the status of it, because it has been vacant for years and years and years and it's an eyesore on our community and it would have been ideal to incorporate into the development. But so that's why I was asking the question whether or not you guys even looked at that, because it will continue to be an eyesore on your property once it's all said and done, if it continues to remain vacant as it is today. Yeah, yeah. There's there's currently a single owner on the property that we're rezoning and we never consider that piece of land to the south. Yeah, it could have been a good opportunity, though. Yeah. It could be. But anyway, so my next question, some several of them were asked by Councilwoman Torres. As far as the it is, is this being done in partnership with new said or did you guys purchased the property from them? Sunnyside actually sold this property to the current owner, I think it was in 2005. Okay. The new set is no longer part of. Okay. Got it. All right. That's good to know. I guess it's. I don't know. I lost track of that back then. Didn't realize that happened. That Fargo. I want to know if you guys have done a traffic study and if that's going to warrant anything new or different with that many units being put on the property. And can you give us an idea of roughly based on the commercial square footage that you're looking at and the residential? How many cars will be on the site? Sure. So we haven't. Had a significant reduction because of its proximity to rail. But you're not going to build a project without some parking. Right. So the code requires us to have 0.75 stalls per unit. We're currently designing at that point nine stalls per unit with retail spaces as well. We haven't yet done a traffic study, but that would be a part of the site development plan process as we get into that further. We submitted our initial plans in October and we're expecting comments here hopefully in the next 2 to 3 weeks. And at that point, we'll have to engage in a traffic study in the current retail on the site, I think there's about 15,000 feet. And so we'll have 10,000 feet of traditional retail and then six live work units. And those are about 1500 square feet each. When you say traditional, you think in a restaurant, some of the neighborhood serving kinds of businesses. Yeah. So the way it's designed on the northeast corner, that could be a restaurant like a sit down restaurant and that's about 3000 feet. And then the Inland Retail to be able to pan kind of mid-block along Colfax. That's going to be very flexible where it could be a sit down restaurant or it could be some type of a drop off laundromat. Really could be anything. Okay, so have you all begun talking to see about whether or not you're going to be pursuing any kind of curb cut off of Colfax? We're actually going to be removing the existing curb cut, and that does require commitment, see done. Um, and so as soon as we get these initial comments back from the step process that will allow us to begin the civil designed documents to engage, see that and start that process just. So that typically you're not going to have a curb cut on Colfax, is that right? You're just going to have a calendar. We'll have one access point, lots of columns, one off of the pan, and then we also have an access point. Oh. So good. Okay. Okay. That's helpful to know. I appreciate that. Let me move through. I've got a few more, if you don't mind. Madam President. We already talked about the parking reduction number of parking spaces the city owned lot. Curb cut. Traffic study. I think. Can you tell us whether or not you're looking at securing any lower income tax credits for the project? Well, we are not. Yeah. The really the only benefit that we are looking for, this is the extra height in zoning. So it will not be asking for any other assistance. Okay. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Next up, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank Councilmember Torres for bringing up the point about access on Colfax. I also want to thank the applicant for, I think you said, 20 feet of right away. Wow. So I use a wheelchair for mobility. I add after customer returns brought up the lack of access. I have tweeted about that location to and from from where I live to go over the metro. I would go along this area and I would go in the in the in the parking lot because there was no way for me to get between the rock obstruction and the trees. And so I want to thank you for your commitment to pedestrian access. Colfax, obviously, is a huge transit corridor, perhaps the busiest in the city. I don't I don't know. I haven't looked at the data, but at least for pedestrians and and mixed use. So I want to thank you for for considering the pedestrian access in that and that large sidewalk access. I think that that will really help you with with encouraging people to to live, work and play there and and use whatever businesses in the immediate area. So I just wanted to throw that coming up. Thank you and thank you, councilmember attorneys for bringing that up. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1086 is closed. Councilmember Torres. Would you like to make any comments since it's in your council district? Thank you so much. This was your group was actually one of the first two that I met with about this particular property. So I know that you've been working on it for a very long time and appreciate. All of the. Measures that have been taken to make sure that different partners within that neighborhood felt really good about the project, that community members felt like it was reflective of llama Lincoln Park. And I hope I would love for that to continue, not just with the art district, but with that community. That's very much an established and historical Chicano neighborhood that's deeply reflected in the art and in the culture surrounding that. It's also. A. Highly mobile. And I love the access that you're granting, particularly at Colfax, as we were discussing. But also, I think the what I'm hoping will be the transparency of the building. I remember a hotel, small hotel, boutique hotel that I visited in Louisville, Kentucky, where their lobby is effectively a a a. Gallery. And an artist studio for the public. And it just made it a really unique space that you don't see too often, especially as you get into the downtown corridor. So I just want to thank all of the partners that have been involved in this and have done it so deeply. And I know this is a project that Susan Stanton was working on, and it was just really a pleasure to be able to to work with her for such a short period of time. And knowing that she had been involved and was involved when we first met, it did breathe an air of confidence of process into this project and I think that has shown through. And just thank you for all the work that you've done. And I'm looking forward to the build and I hope my fellow council members will join me in supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have help from Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to echo what Councilman Tory says. I was working in Councilwoman Montero's office in 2012, 2013, when we did the study, pedestrian study and access along Colfax there. And we had talked about the redevelopment of this site and here it is. Now, I'm a council person being able to vote on it, so it's pretty cool. And in season Stanton's memory, I remember being elected and she called me and talked to me about this site and how excited she was about it and the affordability and what were my thoughts about it. And um, even though she's not with us today, her legacy still lives on through all of these buildings. And I miss talking to her and going over things with her. And she would be sitting here with us tonight, surely proud of all the hard work that we need to do so in her honor and her memory. I thank you, Councilman, for bringing that up, because she's been it's been this degree of loss to the families community with through this year. With that, I will also be supporting it this evening. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And and thank you both for bringing up Susan's memory. She is definitely near and dear and had her networks all over the city, if not the region. And so I'm happy to support this tonight as it meets all of the criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call. For us. I. Well, I. Peter Baker. I. Ah. All right. When? I. Brendan. I. Time. I. I. Can I? Ortega, I. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 1313 ies council bills 20 dash 1086 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 1127 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to receive a report on incentives to encourage small business recruitment, retention and growth and approve the recommended Incentives for Small Businesses Program; and Request City Attorney to prepare any necessary documentation to implement the Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02172015_15-0126

Item 13 is a report from financial management. Recommendation to receive a report on incentives to encourage small business recruitment, retention and growth. And approve the recommended incentives for small businesses program. And require city attorney to prepare a necessary documentation to implement the program. Thank you. I think I have a motion by Councilwoman Pryce in a second by Councilwoman Mango. I'm going to turn this over to Councilwoman Pryce. I'd like this motion to direct the city attorney's office to prepare this in the form of an ordinance, if that's possible. Mr. PARKIN. Is that possible? Mayor. Councilman. Councilwoman Price. Yes, it is possible. We we initially drafted this and I'll let Mr. GROSS speak to it, but it seemed like there were some various options. And so when we brought it to council, I wasn't we weren't sure on which direction to take. You could come in the form of administrative policy, a resolution or an ordinance. So depending on the direction of the Council, we could work with staff and prepare it. Okay. Thank you. And I'll turn this back over to the councilwoman. Thank you. And Mr. Parkin, in terms of one of the things that I think we've been kind of interested in is what the impact of this was going to be. So we wanted to bring it back at some point so that we could see, you know, how many businesses have taken advantage of this incentive package, what that cost has been. How would that impact an ordinance if we were to go that route? I don't see the requirements to report back or the reporting requirements would necessarily be included in the ordinance itself. I think once the incentive program is is flushed out and we put it in the form of an ordinance in some format, I think direction from council staff could direct, it could be directed to come back at appropriate periods of time to report. Okay. And so with that, you know, I'd like to modify my motion, if that's possible, to request the city attorney to come back with an ordinance that puts this incentive package, has all the components of this incentive package, and to have it come back to council in six months for a review of Mr. GROSS, do you think that's a reasonable time period? I think six months for the preliminary review. It may take a bit longer to get a full report because the program needs a start up time. What. Councilwoman Price? I think if you're talking about six months, if we come back with a proposed ordinance, it will come back, of course, for first reading, second reading. And then approximately 31 days after the mayor signs, it'll go into effect. So the six months following the effective date of the ordinance is that. Let's do one year, give us some more time to collect data. So that would be my motion. I want to thank John GROSS, his office, for putting this incentive package together and for helping us come up with ways that we can assist small businesses by giving them some incentives for growth and establishment in the city of Long Beach. I do want to request that this particular ordinance, once it's drafted, be forwarded to our new Economic Development Commission so that they can work within the parameters of this ordinance to figure out how to market it and make it a practical reality for businesses, both those who are currently in existence and may be looking to expand their operations, or those wishing to relocate to the city of Long Beach who might qualify for an incentive so they can work with this ordinance to come up with a marketing strategy and a plan by which business owners are advised of these opportunities. But we don't want to have is is a policy that is not really being utilized or many business owners are unaware of or an ordinance. So that would be my recommendation as well. Thank you. Thank you. And so. Mr. Parking Mayor, members of council, if if there was if I could clarify. So the direction now is for the city attorney to prepare a draft ordinance for review by the Economic Development Commission prior to coming back to the City Council for first. To, you know. Clarify the direction would be for the city attorney's office to prepare a draft ordinance that would come back to council. The Economic Development Commission would then have the ordinance once it's been approved by council, and they would have, at our request to review this ordinance, to review this incentive package and come up with strategies and and methods of marketing it and making it known to the business community so that they could take advantage of the incentive program. Great. That's a great idea. There's a I think the motion is clear. I'm going to go to Councilman Mongo and then the speaker's list. I'm sorry. Councilman Price, were you all done? Okay. Councilman Mongo. I just want to give extreme thanks to the staff and the EDF Collaborative Committee, and this ordinance demonstrates to our businesses that Long Beach will take the steps to become a leader in supporting our local businesses and incentivizing them to grow more jobs for our residents. And these are the types of programs, along with the appointment of the Economic Development Commission, that really will go a long way in demonstrating to businesses that we're a new council. We're here to be business friendly. Long Beach is the place you want to come to partner. And Long Beach is the place you will grow and strive as a business so long as we know that. This business ordinance will be an incentive to help all businesses, and it will not infringe upon any of the incentives or requirements of our local business improvement district or any of the other programs we already have in place that are very successful in supporting our businesses. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thanks. And I want to I want to give some credit, some accounts to my fellow colleagues for bringing this forward. This is outstanding. I've seen as a number of folks have discussed and talked about doing something like this, but to see it in this format and know that we're moving forward, it's it's it's a good thing. Just a couple of things to note. So just on the on the incentive for renovation discussion and construction for small businesses, it says that this would only work for businesses if it if it's a construction cost of above 40 $500. So. So if someone wanted to let's say that they were in a not in a CDBG eligible area and they wanted to improve their facade and it might not cost 40 $500. I think this should be a good incentive for those folks. So we can't use CDBG dollars for. So I want to talk through that piece a little bit. So so how would that work? And is this something I mean, so, Mr. City Attorney, is it true that only it would have to be 40 $500 or above for for a facade project? Mr. GROSS. I think I might be able to get the gross. The program, as written, is intended to say that if there is a permit pulled for any work that exceeds 40 is 40 $500 or higher, they will be eligible for this incentive period independent of any other program. Okay. I would ask with the makers of the motion, be interested in a just in that down some I think some of the small businesses, particularly in Artesia, they don't have we don't have the redevelopment and some of them aren't in CDBG eligible areas anymore. So we always find ways to just help them get open and get their sign open and all that so we can take it down on the $2,000. I'm okay with that. But I just want to make sure with Mr. GROSS that that doesn't put our fiscal impact. Well, I'll get to that. That's my next. Estimate of that doesn't skew it too much. And the amount is is a scientific guess. And certainly I think more people would be eligible, but I think it would be up to council. I think we could live with a slightly lower amount. Yeah. Most of these projects are not going to reach $5,000. They're going to be 2500 to 4, 2500 to $4000. So this just means that we will be able to use that. This will be another tool and tool in the tool kit for small businesses. So you go with that friend. I'm okay with that. I think Councilwoman Mongo had some ideas, too, on that. I still got the floor. Well, we're the makers of the motion. Yes, we were. When I was thinking through the original incentive. One of the benefits is if you were looking at doing an an improvement project and it only cost $3,000, you'd maybe go the extra mile to do it above and beyond to the top level to then be able to be eligible for the incentive. Does that change any of your thoughts? I mean, what does a typical improvement project cost? I mean, traditionally so if we so a lot of times we use the $2,000 rebate as incentive for people to do anything. To the front of their operation. In some areas, this is not available. So sometimes just the the the mere incentive is enough for them to actually take a look and say, hey, this is worth a few thousand bucks. So are you saying that if it was a $2,000 project, we'd pay for it completely? Or are you saying that if it didn't qualify for the full 4500, that we would incentivize it by paying for half? No, I'm just saying the same program this year. All the way down to. 2000. We take it down to 2000. Is that a 4500? Do you have an estimate of how many you think are going to apply for that? Just so we are thinking the fiscal. Our director of financial management has said this entire thing is a scientific guess. Right. I'm not going to try to guess more science. Okay. So and then the next thing on fiscal impact, I see maybe three or four sentences down. It says, because of improving economy and the low impact of the cost of this program, it's believed that there will be enough on budget at one time revenue to fund this balance, this program for the balance of 2015, subject to the impacts associated with the decline in oil revenues. So I guess my question is, since we had the conversation about on budget at one time revenue last week, was that considered? Here were the funds that we allocated last week, the funds that we're talking about here. Yeah. We think we're okay with this, even with the allocation of funds. So we have mystery money. But what we're saying here, council member, is that we believe and we're still working on the projections, but we believe that the revenues and FY15 will have will likely have enough surplus there. They are moving in a positive direction to cover this relatively small amount. In terms of our overall revenues. Great. Thank you very. Much. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you. And just just to clarify, also a question for myself on this, on the last conversation that happened, if staff can remind me the. The community block grant amount with the eligibility that the maximum is at 2500 or is it two? It's 2000. And remind me what the signage grant that we already provide that 2000 or 2500. I believe they're both 12. So they're both 2000. So so it's a total of 4000. If you are in a community, if you are in one of the zones, you can receive up to 4000. Is that correct? If you do signs and a facade, if you. Decide a facade, you can proceed with the four, right? No. Well, I thought that was the case. So you get so the sign facade program is the same. It's the same program. So you don't have to spin on a sign. You can use it on a facade. You can get 4000 if you're a new business, the property owner can get 2000. And that's exactly that's exactly okay. That's what I was trying to remember with. So the property owner and the business can both join the 2000. Okay. So let me let me go. There's a like a storefront with. No, get it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so let me go to city staff. Did you have an additional comment on this? Yes, Mayor. Councilmembers were incredibly excited about this program. We just heard about the ordinance aspect of it tonight. So that has a different aspect. So our thoughts might be we don't know how this is going to roll out. Just tonight, you can see we're talking about 4500 to 2000. Once you make an ordinance, you're stuck. That's it. And I'm just thinking, Mr. GROSS commented that earlier, maybe this could be like a six month or one year pilot program if the council chooses to the ordinance who were hoping, perhaps give it a sunset in a year and then the Economic Development Committee could adjust it or the council could adjust it and give them more of an opportunity to play with this as opposed just simply to market it. But our concern is once it goes in ordinance, we're not going to have the ability to tweak it if indeed what we're proposing needs to be tweaked. If you what you could do is have a sunset having to renew the sunset, which we've done before. It'd be up to the makers of the motion, though. I think that's a great idea if we sunset it. But I'm just trying to think about the date. Would we would ideally a year out. Six months or a year we're comfortable with either. Or in line with the fiscal year. It could be fiscal year. Whatever works for the council, I would recommend the fiscal year. Okay, let's do that then. Okay. Thank you. Let me go down the speaker's list. Vice mayor of Louisville. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the staff as well. I'm very supportive of the program and in the conversation we just had, and I apologize if I missed it. Of the 200,000 or less required for implementing the program, did you determine how much would be set aside for the incentives? Does that? I don't mean the individual incentives that we just talked about, but in total. 200,000, the entire amount. Okay. Okay. And then. If we're doing. Was it just decided that we're doing the ordinance route or sunsetting through the ordinance? Correct. Okay. And then at the time when the ordinance comes back, are you expecting any kind of a report from staff? It's part of the motion. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then. The challenge always becomes how long does it take for someone to go through the process? And so. Do you have an established time frame? For applications and how long will that take? And the and let me just add a caveat. We had great incentive programs that a lot of our quarters took advantage of years ago through the Neighborhood Resource Center. And and I think some of it became a staffing issue and really a challenge in processing the number of applications that came through. And then it also became a resource issue. And that might not be relevant with this, but. If we're asking council offices as well as others to let people know about this opportunity, I think we want to be able to manage expectations as well. The committee charged staff with making this a very simple process. And we believe that the application process will be simple and quick. There are not a lot of requirements. The forms that are required or the information that is required is minimal. There are very few and in the way of tests. So in working with the city attorney to convert this to an actual program that you would adopt, I don't think we will need additional staff. That's just a guess and I don't think it will take very long. So, meaning the process, I suspect is submitting a form, looking at a permit, construction permit. It will be a simple process. Okay. Thank you. That's it, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. And I think the city manager opined in on my major concern, and that was just the ordinance approach, thinking that that would lock us in. I do want to compliment Councilmember Price and Mongo for thinking out of the box and their efforts since they've been on this council to to really try to turn around that image and to make Long Beach business friendly. I think. And in making this a pilot program, this also affords the economic new Economic Development Commission the ability to to to vet this as well and make further recommendations to make the program even more responsive to our small businesses throughout the city. So with those comments, I'm prepared to support this and look forward to a report back from the Economic Development Commission as well as staff in in a year or so. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did have a couple of other points that I just wanted to clarify. It was not the intent behind this legislation for this any sort of business license incentive to apply at all to the bids. And I just want to make sure staff is on board and agrees with that. That's everybody's understanding. That's correct. Okay. And then the other thing is and this was an issue that was pointed out to me, and I think it's a good one in terms of the incentive to create jobs. How is it that we're going to, you know, fact check? Is that kind of a an honor system in terms of how the information on number of employees is presented to us? I imagine if they want to qualify for the incentive, they're going to have to report an increased number of employees than the subsequent year. They'll have to pay the fees associated with that increased number of employees unless they've terminated or downsized. Is that correct? That is correct. And just as a clarification, so there's no misunderstanding on the bids. There is the the businesses that are in the bid will qualify for this incentive. That's so it's all a positive thing. There are no cost to the bid or no revenue reductions to the bid, but the businesses there will qualify. Great. And then and then in terms of the the the headcount on the employee, the number of jobs created and such, I imagine that it would not be in the best interests of the business to report a higher number than they actually have, because then the subsequent years after the year, the incentive they'd be responsible for any fees associated with that number of employees. That is correct. And we will be using what they certify and report to us. It'll be a simple process. Okay. I know that the Economic Development Commission is going to look at some of the marketing concepts and really look at this as an item that they're going to try to make practical. But in terms of our business license department, do we have any immediate plans for how we're going to promote this new incentive package to existing businesses or any new businesses? Are we going to send a letter? Are we going to give anything out at the counter? Are we going to post that on our city's Facebook page? Do we have a small business, you know, email list that we can go to? What are we going to do to let people know that this isn't an opportunity for them to take advantage of in the coming year? We're still working on that, but the immediate things are notifying people in the counter and having signs and verbal notification website and we may put together, but it'll depend on what the commission says. It may be that a brochure is appropriate at the very least. So I think all of those things. Thank you, Mr. GROSS. Thank you. And now do it, Mr. Park. Jiffy. I did a mayor member of the council just on the change to the ordinance under the incentive amount. If I. If it was accepted as a friendly amendment to reduce the 4500 to $2000. And then the second part of that sentence talks about or construction exceeds $9,000. Would there be a subsequent change to that dollar amount or does that remain at $9,000? I wasn't contemplating a change, but I'm open to that. If Councilman Richardson feels that that would help the businesses in his district. We certainly can look at modifying that. So this is if the the incentive amount equal to the total amount of one year of the business license if the total value of the renovation exceeds 4500. So then that would change the 2000 or an amount equal to two years the business license tax if the total of the renovation exceeds 9000. I know that seems kind of redundant. If the total value exceeds 4500 or over two years, if it exceeds 9000. I mean, the whole idea is if you want to break it up over two years, it has the. No, the the intent was to at a certain level, I'll use the original intent at 4500, you got a incentive equal to one year of the business license. If you spent $9,000, you could break it up over time. You can bring up two years of worth of incentive. You double the incentive amount. So the so you can only do it up to two years. Yes. Yes. The VAT a value equal to two years. So right now you have a one you have an incentive equal to one year of the business license fee at $2,000. And then you have to go to $9,000 to get the second year. Hmm. So. So I think the spirit of it, I think the spirit of what you wanted to do was just double the number. Is that the general spirit of what you wanted? That was the original intent. It will make sense for it to be if we're going to 2000 and it should go to 4000. It's only. I'm okay with that. I mean, honestly. If that's the spirit of it, it seems like it's just the right thing. I agree. And just to be clear, because I think there's some comments, we're not like paying for people's remodel. We're not you know, we're not giving away money. It's they're they're getting their business license fee waived for one year. It's not like we're doling out money. So. Okay. Great. Councilmember Austin. Yeah. So just one point. Mr. GROSS, you said this would the implementation would be under $200,000 annually. Is there any appetite from the council to to to kind of codify that, to make sure that we don't kind of lose control of this, you know? Maybe capping it at $200,000. I think that seems reasonable. Mr. GROSS, would you prefer that we do that? Because I know this is just an estimated guess based on we have never had anything like this before, so we're just guessing on what the the fees would be. I imagine that at some point, if it exceeded 200,000, you'd come back to us and tell us there was no money. I think that's what we prefer to do, is to come back and report to you. And I'm okay with that. If council is okay leaving it at that, it's somewhat fluid and I think we need to allow the program to be somewhat fluid and not really set any hard parameters at this time. I imagine that city staff will come back to us if they are in a position where they're concerned about resources to be able to cover this incentive package. Well, I just I'm okay with that. I just know this is going to be tremendously successful. And so, you know, the expectation was 200,000. But if it comes back and it's 1.2 million, don't be surprised. Well, I'm hoping that Mr. GROSS is willing to be a little bit flexible and allow it to go to maybe to 20 to 30 to 50. You know, somewhere around that number can help out a couple of extra businesses there, I think. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. I think in the same spirit, I know there was a conversation about doing a bunch of outreach for these. And I would just just as a note, just I think when I think of a pilot, I think of it being sort of targeted outreach, like maybe partnering with the bids and things like that. So we know what we're up against before we go out with the big push. So just a word of caution like, you know, we we've done pilot, I've seen pilots before and they weren't they didn't work out the right the way you anticipated they that they work out. So I would just say maybe this first six months or however long we're doing this pilot, maybe we should just be targeted about our outreach. Thank you. I think that is the entire speaker's list. Councilman Mongo. I would hope that in our outreach that we all put it in our newsletters. I know that in my district, the areas of business that struggle the most are the ones that actually can't get a bid together yet. And we're working together to get that bid in place. But we need to really reach out to all our struggling businesses, especially the ones that don't have the benefit of a community of business leaders together. And hopefully they'll see this as the type of thing that will hopefully coalesce them into a reasonable community. But thank you for the ideas. Okay. Thank you. That is all for the item. Is there any public comment? Please come forward. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, Craig Cogen. And this evening I'm representing the Council of Business Associations, and I want to thank Councilmember Price and Councilman Mongo for bringing this item forward. And thank you to Councilmember Price for meeting with us yesterday, Blair and I yesterday to talk about this issue and some of the specifics behind this proposed ordinance. And I'm I guess I'm happy to hear that we are moving from an ordinance to. Is this an administrative policy? No, it's not. So it is remaining an ordinance, a temporary ordinance. Mr. Cogen It's an ordinance with with a sunset at one year that will renew at the fiscal year. Okay, great. So what we'll look forward to and especially after the commission has a chance to review it, but using the Council Business Association as a conduit, as an outlet to its potential businesses as well as its existing businesses, to market this project and market this resource heavily to. Its. Stakeholders as well as its potential business owners. Because I feel as though that we could do a tremendous amount of good to notify these stakeholders and be able to allow them to take advantage of this resource, but at the same time review the measurable results and to make sure that it's meeting our reasonable expectations established at the outset. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members Jeremy Harris, Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I would just echo what Mr. Craig Cogen has already stated and said that the chamber stands willing and ready to assist with that marketing push and be a communicator for other council members. Thank you to the leadership to Councilmember Price and Councilmember Mongo for bringing this item forward as well. Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. At sea. No other public comment. We will go out and take a vote. Members, there's a motion on the floor. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Great. And I want to want to congratulate the committee. I want to congratulate Councilwoman Pryce and Councilman Mongo for putting this on the agenda and kind of moving it forward. I think it's really great for the city and also staff. Staff. Actually, we also worked pretty hard on this, too. And so. Mr. GROSS and your whole team and. Mr. West, thank you. Thank you all for working with the council offices and on moving this thing in the right direction. And we're still out there at the early phases will be getting an ordinance back from the city attorney here in the next week or so to move this forward. So thank you all. Next item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to a sales and use tax; providing for the submission to qualified electors of the City at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposition to collect a sales and use tax to fund transit and related transportation programs in Seattle.

SeattleCityCouncil_07272020_CB 119833

The report at the Select Committee on the Transportation Benefit District Funding Agenda. Item one Capital 119833 relating to a cell cellphone use tax, providing for the submission to qualified electors at the city at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2020. Your proposition to collect resale and use tax to fund transit and transportation programs in Seattle. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. So here is what I think we need to do, because there's a lot of moving pieces on this particular council bill. So if there is no objection, we will first hear from the committee chair, Councilmember Peterson, to present the committee report, and then we can consider the possible seven amendments in the following order. I would propose that we consider Amendment two, which was published on the agenda. That is, Councilmember Morales's proposal to increase the tax rate from 4.1% to 2.2%. Then I propose that we consider Amendment six, which was not published on the agenda. That's my proposed amendment. That would increase the tax rate from 0.1%, 2.15%. And then there are there is another potential Amendment six B that was not on the agenda and would require the rules to be suspended. That is being potentially brought forward by Councilmember Mosqueda. And it would amend it would be an amendment to remove the increase to low income to the low income spending cap category with those with any additional funds being directed to transit service. We also have Amendment eight. We could then consider Amendment eight, eight or eight be also not on the agenda. That amendment would be brought forward by Councilmember Herbold and would propose to increase the emerging service category cap. Then we could consider amendment number one, which is on the agenda that's being brought forward by Council Member Strauss and proposes structuring the levy change, changing the time length of the levy from four years to to a six year term. And then we would hear amendment number seven, eight or seven D also not on the agenda, but amendments being brought forward by Councilmember Strauss, which would be technical fixes to clarify the term of the measure. If the term of the measure is extended to April 2025 or April 2027. And then lastly, we could consider amendment number three, which was on the agenda. That's my amendment to include explicitly essential workers in the low income spending category. So so if there is no objection to that order of discussion of the amendments, then we will consider them in that order. Madam Chair. Madam President, could you just repeat the numbers for me real quick, if you don't mind? I got the descriptions, which I appreciate, but I just wanna make sure I got that right. Okay. Amendment to. Amendment six. Potential Amendment six be. Amendment eight A or HB. Amendment one, Amendment seven A or seven B. And then we will conclude with Amendment three. All right? It's. It's it's like we're having a select committee meeting of the study over here, but here we go. Okay. I didn't hear any objection. No objections. All right, let's rock and roll. So here we no objection in the order of the expression of events will be considered in that order. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you. Council President, colleagues, our Transportation Benefit District has been operating successfully for the past six years after voters approved the current version in 2014. On Friday, July 17, our Select Committee on Seattle Transportation Benefit District funding unanimously passed Council Bill 119833 to renew funding for that important transit measure. And we voted on all seven of the published amendments at that time. A theme at committee was to prioritize transit service over road works, which we did by moving more dollars for remote work into transit and requiring that a majority of all new funds go toward transit service. I think we can all agree it's disappointing that Tim Iman's initiative, 976, which was rejected by a whopping 76% of Seattle voters, has removed approximately half of the funding source. We hope to overturn that measure in the courts. If we do overturn I nine, seven, six, I support doubling the car tab revenues that we are allowed to increase as a council. At the same time, we can't ignore that ridership on King County metro has plummeted by over 72% during the COVID pandemic. Moreover, a second wave of the coronavirus is an imminent concern, as we've seen with our governor last week, imposing additional restrictions. Yet I am upbeat on the future and the future of transit. It's going to the demand is going to increase. And I'm hopeful we're going to get back to the high levels that were prior to the nation, and that will continue to increase that transit ridership. Today, there are additional amendments for consideration, and while we are likely to hear a robust debate about some of these amendments, just hope the general public sees that there is unity and that we all support transit and want to renew this measure. What are the key amendments or two amendments for debate today? Is it about the tax rates? One of the amendments proposed to double the tax rate to double the sales tax 2.2%. I am not able to support a doubling of the sales tax for all the reasons that we don't like sales taxes. I am pleased to see the compromise amendment from Council President Gonzalez to make sure we get more revenue for transit than the proposal that was transmitted to us. This amendment would increase to 0.15%, which we discussed a little bit this morning. So council president, after we vote on all the amendments, said, I'd like to make three final remarks before the final vote, if possible. Thank you. Absolutely. The prime sponsor of the legislation I was always gets the last word before we call things to vote. So. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, for that. Those introductory remarks. It is 3:25 p.m. now, so i think we should go ahead and get started on the amendment work. So let's go ahead and start with amendment two and the primary sponsor of that is Councilmember Morales. So I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Morales to make her motion to formally put amendments to before the council. Thank you. Council President I move to amend council bill 119833 as presented on Amendment two. On the agenda. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment to. Councilmember Morales, you are the prime sponsor of that amendment and you are recognized in order to address your amendment. Please. Thank you. Colleagues, we had a robust conversation about this this morning, but for the benefit of the public this afternoon, I want to thank you again for the discussion that we had last week about this amendment. As I said, I am working to try to protect as much as possible service hours, up to 150,000 service hours for our neighbors, even as we do struggle with an increase in a sales tax. I withdrew it last week to allow more time to hear from stakeholders. And I want to say that after speaking with several community organizations in my district, including across Refugee Women's Alliance, Interim El Centro de la Raza, when America began Safe Streets Rooted in Rights. The MLK. Lincoln County Labor Council. Teamsters 117. I've decided to bring the amendment back for consideration. These stakeholders understand what's at risk if we move something to the ballot that will reduce transit service so drastically. So I don't want to belabor the point. I will just say that the point 2% increase is an effort to protect the transit system that we've already invested in. And cutting Seattle's investment to 30 million a year will wipe out that system and harm those who need transit the most. So I am moving this amendment and asking for my colleagues support. Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for those remarks and really appreciated the, as you put it, very robust conversation around all of these amendments this morning. So this is a continuation of that conversation, of course. Colleagues, any other comments on Amendment two? However, I'm a skater. Please. Thank you, Madam President. As I said this morning, I'm supportive of the efforts to continue to increase the amount of funding that is going to these critical transit services. We know the Economic Opportunity Institute has calculated the impact at 0.1% sales tax increase would have on households and estimates that the amendment would mean an annual cost of about $9 per household, making about $25,000 a year, or about $12 per household making around $50,000 a year. So we can't under underestimate the impact of that dollar amount on working families. But we also know that cutting transit, which is a lifeline for the very same folks that we're concerned about having to pay this tax would have a much more regressive and harmful impact without being able to get to work or childcare or there are other critical services like medical appointments. We've heard from folks who are supporting this effort from labor partners and Sage and other folks today. So I will continue to support this effort. And if this does not pass, I will also support the other proposal from Council President Gonzalez. Looking forward to making sure, though, that we are doing everything that we can to get additional dollars in hand to preserve where possible or reduce the burden of the cuts that are expected. And I appreciate the efforts that have been put forward today to do just that. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for those comments. Are there any other comments on Amendment two? Oh, council members a lot, please. Thank you. Sales taxes are a terribly regressive tax that put the burden of funding transit on poor and working class people, leaving big business and the super rich relatively untouched. And many council members have acknowledged this reality. If, on the other hand, we allow the cuts to happen, it will impact workers who depend on transit for basic mobility. Some of those same working families who are hit by the regressive taxation and as was mentioned in public comment, it hits people with very low incomes, people with community members with disabilities in many different ways. And it will hurt transit workers, union members of 8587. The choice between increasing the sales tax and austerity cuts to budget hours is a false choice where working class people and the marginalized communities and poor people lose either way in deciding whether to support this amendment. What's decisive is whether other concern for me is whether other council members would be willing to support progressive funding alternatives to this. Regressive tax. I mentioned in committee ten days ago that legally it is not true that sales taxes are the only option for funding transit. Yes, the transportation benefit districts are a legal construct and have certain identified funding sources. However, there is nothing in the law. There hasn't been anything in the law that would prevent the council from passing some other progressive general fund tax and using those funds to pay for bus service. For example, the City Council could pass an ordinance to increase the tax rate in the just passed Amazon tax. Increasing those tax by a quarter of a percent would be sufficient to raise those funds to eliminate the transit budget charge without any sales taxes at all. I ask the question at that time, would council members agree to support that? Another example is the city could put on the ballot a point 2% increase in the D.A. tax rate and use that instead of sales taxes because they are not regressive like the sales taxes. It is less progressive. The taxes are less progressive than the Amazon tax because the Amazon tax only taxes the largest 3% of big businesses . But they are more progressive than sales taxes because sales taxes hit the poorest households the most. Ten days ago, I asked if any council members would seriously support either of those progressive options instead of the regressive sales tax and budget cuts. And I said that, if so, I would be happy to make that motion. I indicated that I would abstain from a vote. 4.2% sales tax rate on the committee to give time for the City Council members to signal support for a progressive alternative. Unfortunately, I have to share with members of the public that in the past ten days I am not aware of any other council member supporting shifting transit funding away from sales taxes towards other avenues for progressive taxation. And the reality is, the political establishment in Seattle and elsewhere always tries to put the burden of taxes on working people unless there's a movement to fight back. We won the Amazon tax only because we had a massive and democratically organized movement with a ballot measure that was a credible threat to big business. The fundamental lesson of the false choice that we are left with today instead of progressive taxes is that the political establishment cannot be trusted to support the interests of workers unless they are forced to do so by a sufficiently powerful movement. However, faced with this situation, my office must vote to either accept the mayor's proposed cuts to Metro, which is not acceptable, or to vote to increase regressive taxes on workers. As I said, both choices are bad. But as many community members have said in public comment today and before, the budget cuts would be the most harmful. And for all those reasons, I will be voting yes on increasing the proposed sales tax rate by an additional 2.1%. Thank you, Councilmember Salon. Are there any other comments? Councilmember Strauss. Please. Thank you. Council President, as I stated in my comments earlier this or this morning, the duration is what's most important for me. Just by listening to my colleagues comments and consideration between .2.4 and 5.1. I'm not hearing a majority of comments because that's all we have to go off of here on either 1.1 or 2.2. I'm wondering if there is some folks are coalescing around one spot. Maybe that's a question out of order, but I figured I would ask it in open session. Governor Strauss will be considering a 0.15 amendment in the future. Right now, we're having no conversation around the Amendment two, which is Councilmember Morales's proposal for a point to increase, of course, can't compel colleagues to to say what they don't want to say. But there is obviously the alternative proposal of Amendment six, which is my .15. People are welcome to to signal preference one way or the other if they're comfortable doing so. And if not, then we'll, we'll we'll know where the where, where folks lie once we call the amendment to a vote. Councilmember Herbold, you're. Thank you. I will be supporting the Amendment six. I have expressed my concerns in the past about increasing taxes that have a disparate impact on low income people. And the sales taxes is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. I understand from the analysis that increasing the sales tax from 0.1%, 2.2% will be for car owning lower income households. It will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax car, I think I should say car owning households generally will be outweighed by not having to pay the car tax as well as car owning lower income households. It's the low income households who don't have a car that would, under this proposal, see their total tax burden rise by increasing the sales tax 4.1% to 4.2%. I understand that there is a good conversation about whether or not the loss of transit service outweighs the the negatives around having the total tax burden rise for low income households who don't have cars. But I do believe that Councilmember Gonzalez puts forward a a good compromise to help address the the the the negative impact of of of loss of transit service to those to those households, and also while minimizing the progressivity of the taxation. And so I will be supporting that. I also, as Councilmember Gonzalez explained this morning, I have concerns that this is the first tax measure that we are going to be putting on the ballot in a post-COVID time, where people are very impacted across many, many socio socio economic economic spectrums, negatively impacted by the economic realities of COVID 19. And this is this is so important to our to our city that I just really don't want to risk losing it. And so I am maybe perhaps cautious and risk averse. But I want to thank Councilmember Morales for the the work that she has done over the last week to generate support for an increase. I believe that support for an increase will transfer over to a 1.15% increase. I also want to thank the the the. Transit Advisory Board for four. There were weighing in both on the size of the tax as well as the term of the tax. So things to get. Thank you so much, colleagues. Any other comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Lewis, please. Thank you so much, Madam President. You know, frankly. I'm still in a place where I would like to see no increase of the sales tax at all over the the 0.1%. I understand that there are a lot of. Trade offs that that would involve in terms of service future service cuts or potential service reductions. I continue to be very optimistic that the city is going to prevail in our litigation to unlock car taps again as a component of our transportation benefit district strategy. That Council magically we will be able to work with the county on a regional successor that could potentially go up to $100 on the car tabs above and beyond the $60 car tabs that we have currently had on, and that that revenue could have a massive impact, especially on a county wide basis, to restoring those transit hours . But, you know, that's still a risk and there's still a lot that needs to be worked out for that to happen. So I do think it's warranted to send to the people of Seattle the 1.5 number so that we can have that option to go up that high in the event that we're not successful in Olympia, litigating in the court that the repeal of Simon's initiative. I would also signal that it would be my intent to seek only renewing the existing point one in the event that we are successful and that we do unlock those car tabs. For my comments this morning. But in the meantime, to avoid the worst of the reductions in service, I would support the the 0.15 that has been proposed by Council President Gonzales. I'm hoping that we would actually not have to realize that sales tax increase based on the successful result of litigation. So I just wanted to put that out there. And I do want to thank Councilmember Morales for giving us the option of having this discussion, because I know that it was a amendment that was walked on last week, but I think it was important that this was thoroughly vetted, that there was a really lengthy conversation about these impacts. And I do think that the compromise that the council president has put forward is is a good one, and it's what I intend to support. Thank you, colleagues. Any other comments or questions about amendments to. Seeing and hearing none. Councilman Morales, any any last words that you'd like to offer or would you just like us to have. Well. Let's just do it. I know. I see. For those of you who can't see the entire grid of the council, there's many of us who are fanning ourselves. So we hope everybody staying safe in this heat. Okay. Without there being additional discussion, I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of amendments to . Morales i macheda II. Peterson No. I. Strauss. Yes. Lewis No. Her bold. No. War is. No. Council? President Gonzalez. No. Or in favor five opposed. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, the motion fails. An amendment to is not adopted. So we'll go ahead and move to Amendment six. I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment six, recently distributed. Second second it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment six as sponsor of this amendment. I will just briefly address it and then open it up for debate and discussion. Colleagues, we talked about this quite a bit this morning. I just wanted to reiterate that I think that at the end of the day, it's important for the members of the public to know that this city council is committed to increasing the original proposal that we received from the mayor to ensure to mitigate against deep service cuts to our frequent transit network. Again, as we mentioned and discussed during this morning's council briefing, even under 8.15% model, even under a 0.2% model, which would have been the maximum amount legally allowable for us to to send to the voters. Even under the maximum taxation amount, we are still expecting cuts to service from King County Metro as a result of the COVID 19 economic crisis and the significant decrease in ridership. In large part because our system relies on people paying fares in order for it to be viable. And so I think it's important for us as council members to. Fairly and accurately communicate to our constituents that the Seattle Transportation Benefit District is not going to be additive if passed by the voters as it has been in years past. But instead it will function to be a base and to hopefully allow Seattle the flexibility to buy the services that we need. But we will still be reliant on King County Metro to provide those services and to and to and to commit to providing those available services. So just really quickly, at .15 percent, it will in essence, provide us with an additional $14 million a year, according to the Seattle Department of Transportation. This would allow us to buy about 30000 hours for West Seattle, and between 120000 to 165000 service hours would be available system wide, depending on some policy decisions that we will have to make during the budget and on community outreach and feedback that we would consider as a council before finalizing the spend plan. Once the levy is approved but with, we will also get the potential if we do the math there, it gets us to a potential total range of 150000 to 200000 total service hours in a 0.15% tax scenario, tax rate scenario with the currently available revenue forecasting. So for a sense of scale and under normal circumstances, 175,000. 175000 hours could maintain our current estimated investments in the frequent transit network, including 30, 15 and ten minute service and night owl functions. But again, with Metro's 2021 service being being still quite uncertain, we, I think, are being prudent in and going with the .15 percent route and making sure that we can make some specific decisions about the budget once the levy is approved, I think is going to be helpful. So the. Sorry about the interference there. Parenting while making an argument about an amendment. Love it. Okay. So I'm going to try to focus here instead of multitasking. So I really appreciate, hopefully, the support that folks can give. This potential amendment, Amendment six. I think it's a reasonable alternative. I do want to thank Councilmember Morales and her staff. I know Lakisha and Alexis have been working really hard in your office, Councilmember Morales, to advance the prior amendment. And so I think I think it is important for us to recognize that right now we're having a conversation about how much more revenue we can generate in order to mitigate against deeper service cuts. And I appreciate the opportunity to work with all of you on bringing this forward and on making the best case possible to our voters who will be asked to tax themselves in order for us to continue to fund really critically important transit services. And I'm really happy that one of the amendments that we will be considering that I think is really critically important is an amendment that would include essential workers in our low income program. I just think that is so important for us to do, especially given what we know about who essential workers are in our city. And so I look forward to folks support of both Amendment six and Amendment three that will be considering later on this afternoon. That being said, I'm going to pass it on and see if anyone else has any comments or questions about Amendment six. Councilmember Morales. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I know you and I had lots of conversations over the last few days trying to figure out what the best path forward is here. So I do want to say that I will be supporting this amendment, you know, for all the reasons we've been talking about for the day. We need to make sure that we are able to increase or preserve as much transit as possible, as much service as possible for our community. And I think this is an important step for us to take. So I do plan to support this. I think it gets more remote. I, I appreciate the support because when we say that I think you council president, I echo Councilmember Morales's comments. I want to thank the both of you again for continuing to make sure that there's additional dollars on hand in addition to Councilmember Peterson. Thank you for stewarding this through to this point so that we can have a final vote to the council president. I would very much like to support this amendment and if possible, include friendly amendments that we had not circulated before noon. And so I would love to have Amendment Six being in front of us if it's possible to suspend the rules to consider that as you consider Amendment six. Okay. Hold on here. Yes. I have one of my procedures script here. It would be appropriate for us to have. Consider your amendment to my amendment before we take a vote on Amendment six. So. So why don't we go ahead and go through those steps now, Councilman ROSQUETA? Thank you. Madam President, I assume that there is no objection. Then if I go ahead and make the motion to consider Amendment 60. Oh, thank you so much for that. I'm so sorry. I am needing more coffee today. Okay. Councilman Esqueda, I. We are going to go ahead and consider our amendment. Your amendment to Amendment six that was not circulated by noon that you would like to present, that did not meet the council rules. The council rule will need to be suspended before we can consider it. If there is no objection in the Council relating to the circulation of amendments, by noon will be suspended to consider Amendment six be. Hearing no objection. The council role is suspended and council members get it. Now you may proceed with moving your amendment. Thank you, Madam President. I move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented in Amendment six, which was recently distributed. Second. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment 60 and and consumers get a you may now address your Amendment six. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam President. Again, thank you to you and your office for your partnership on this potential amendment to Amendment Six. Amendment 60 proposes to increase the rate to 1.5% at 3.15%, as the council president has described it and as we discussed this morning. But it does not change the spending caps under 60. The spending caps would remain as they are in the bill as it came out of committee. And this means the increased revenue would be spent on transit services as well as the other items that are included in there. I really appreciate the conversations that we have this morning. We want to be honest and recognize that as we move forward in this recession, there obviously will be cuts of various nature together. This council member sorry, this council is working through these amendments to make sure that we're prioritizing key services, especially as Councilmember Morales described this morning, specifically in her district that are coming from more black and brown communities, lower wage workers who are especially reliant on transit right now to get to essential services and essential jobs. I want to thank Council President Gonzales for her Amendment three, which she just alluded to as well, which will specifically call out essential workers, which I think is a critical component of this proposal. Amendment six be in front of us really helps to make sure that we're supporting the goal of increasing the ability for individuals to access key transit services and making sure that we look at frequency and services as as this proposal moves forward or is implemented. I absolutely support the ongoing conversations around transit passes for low income individuals and essential workers. And I think that we have an opportunity to partner with the with the county. The county has an upcoming launch of their free and low cost fare program this fall, and that program will focus on leveraging existing lift infrastructure to fully subsidize metro services for customers who earn at or below 80% of the federal poverty level. So as we work in partnership with Metro, it'd be great for us to continue to promote our value as a council that we want more people to access transit services, making sure that the program can accommodate essential workers and have a better understanding where the needs are. And as we do so, I think that the amendment in front of us really make sure that we address what we continue to hear from a lot of the folks who call them today and community members around the city that we want to see how we can address the cuts in services and frequency that we're already hearing about. Folks who are concerned that low wage workers and especially communities of color are able to maintain access to transit services. So I'm really excited about this friendly amendment and working in partnership with the prime sponsor, Council President Gonzalez, to put forward this change so that we can really balance. I think, what we heard from in terms of the regional goals in the letter that came from the Council President audio about duty at King County and our ongoing commitments to make sure that we increase sorry that we preserve as many routes as possible and lessen the reductions in in key services so that we can promote ridership , especially for our most marginalized neighborhoods, so that more people have access to transit and essential services. Thank you. Councilmember Mosqueda, are there any questions or comments on this amendment? I do consider it a friendly amendment. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Yes. So my question is, is that given that these are caps, not minimum spending requirements, I'm not quite sure why we wouldn't want to increase the cap for access to transit for youth, low income and seniors. Given that our proposal that we are we have before us now is talking about an increase in overall revenue. If we are going to increase the revenue collection from 1/10 of a percent to 0.15%, that's going to result in an increase in overall transit capacity. And it seems like having a funding of of a funding cap of 10 million is based on a 10th of a percent assumption of revenue. So I just think if we are expanding the capacity of transit, we also have to be able to contemplate the expansion of access of these these populations to 2 to 2 transit. And again, the that the 23 million in Councilmember President Gonzalez's amendment isn't required spending. It's a it's a maximum number of dollars to be spent. And so I'm just concerned that we're not allowing ourselves to consider, for instance, $11 million in spending, given that we have this this this increase in encompassing capacity contemplated by the increase in the size of the tax. As a mosquito. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your questions. I would I would start by saying we know that even though it's just a cap, we know that those numbers can be very powerful. And we don't want to set expectations that we're going to have the ability to go to a certain level or that any money is going to be drawn away from other transit services in frequency. We also heard pretty strongly from community partners, including in transit and in labor, that services and frequency are some of the biggest priorities that they wanted to see invested in and. This is this is, I think, an effort to also say that there's ongoing investments in Pasos at our county level. So it would be a nice partnership to make sure that we're not drawing dollars over to certain areas, even though it's just considered a cap. I'm just concerned that if we're expanding frequency of service and numbers of routes and we're not also expanding the ability of low income people, seniors and young people to access that, that we may be doing ourselves a disservice. I'm not suggesting that 23 million as the cap is, is the right number, but it certainly seems like it should be something higher than the $10 million that was based on a on a 10th of a percent revenue spend. A customer must get any anything, anything else to respond to Councilmember Herbold at this point? No. I mean, I think these are the hard choices that were forced to make with very few dollars. I think that it's not necessarily and it's we are trying to preserve as many rounds as possible. We're trying to preserve frequency as much as possible. And we don't want to have folks have access to passes when the busses isn't coming, maybe every 20 minutes and starts coming every 40 minutes. I think the the we're making these tough decisions about access to passes versus frequency of service. And I think that when we partner with the county and we basically just lift the cap, we're able to then have the passes continue to go into effect with the county partnership and try to preserve as much frequency as we can with the number of routes and services that we have in place. So it was really trying to find that right, right. Hybrid between both making sure people have passes and that the busses actually came. And I know there's other members who have been working on this in the in the text of Morales's bill. I know that that was something that you were also grappling with. But I think that it's a it's both our need it and we're just trying to raise the cap so we're not drawing a line that we might not be able to meet. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on proposed Amendment six be. I would just say that I, I struggled with this question as well. I think really the policy question before us is whether we want to still stay committed to these low income programs. I think the answer to that is yes. And the question becomes at what level? And and I think that, you know, we could increase it by a little bit or we could increase it by a lot, which was my original amendment. But I think ultimately what the other policy question is here is what we want to see in terms of the overall health of the frequent transit network city wide that is accessible to to all transit riders, regardless of of income. And so I think I think for for that reason, I can understand why Councilmember Mosqueda is bringing forward Amendment six B, which leaves the low income programing intact, but at the level associated with a 0.1% proposal that was originally submitted to us, while still saying that the additional revenue generated from a 0.15% proposal can and should be used to focus on frequency and and and enhanced transit services throughout throughout the city. So so I'm you know, it's a it's a it's a tough call. But but I'm but I will likely support Amendment six B and favoring sort of a preservation of the entire frequent transit network through that model. So. Because remember Peterson? Thank you. And I don't know if it helps others making a decision, but the memo that we got from central staff breaks out the budget that Scott was planning going forward. They set the buckets, the categories at higher levels than what they're budgeting. So. They're only budgeting 7 million for the low income passes for on average. So the $10 million pocket is provides a lot of cushion for it to go up. If that helps folks today. That is helpful. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. That's a good good reminder. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other questions or comments on Amendment six be. Anything else. In closing remarks, Councilor Mosquito just wanted to thank you. You summarized sort of the tough policy decisions in front of us better than I did. I apologize for that couple colleagues, but I really appreciate working with your office and the council members here today to advance this robust proposal that you have put forward, council colleagues, and to continue as much as we can in this really tough economic time to make sure that we're providing as much access to transit services and support to access passes as we know that the recession will be long and these services are really critical. So I appreciate the work that we've done with your office council president, and thank you for your flexibility on this commission. Absolutely. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on Amendment 66 B, and ask the court to please call the roll on adoption of Amendment six, the Morales. Morales. Right. I guess. Okay. Thank you. Mosquera. I. Peterson. I. So what I. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez? Yes. Not in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay. Are there? The motion carries an amendment. Six B is adopted. Are there any other comments on Amendment six as amended? Okay. Hearing none. I think we talked about this a lot during council briefing. You've talked about we've debated it a lot here. So I'm going to go ahead and ask the clerk, call the role on the adoption of Amendment six as amended. Morales. Yeah. Let's get to I. PETERSON No. So, aren't I. Strauss. Yes. Lewis, I. Herbold. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. One opposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries an amendment six, as amended is adopted. Thank you so much. Colleagues, we're going to go ahead and move in the order I describe. So we are now going to consider, I believe, Amendment eight B and this is going to be from Councilmember Herbold. And please correct me if I got the the letter the letter wrong, but I do think it's eight B, so I'll go ahead and recognize you in order to have you move your Amendment eight B Thank you. I move to amend council bill 11 9833 is presented on Amendment eight B recently distributed. Is there a second? Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment eight. The Council member. Honorable. You are recognized in order to address the amendment. Again, much like I argued in the last amendment, this does not require additional funding. It increases the funding cap for emerging mobility needs related to COVID 19 response in recovery and the closure of the West Seattle Bridge in proportion with the increase of the size of the levy to from 6 million to $9 million. It increases the funding gap again for both emerging mobility needs related to COVID 19 response and recovery. So that that relates to the social distancing requirements of Metro, but also for the closure of the West Seattle Bridge and impacts to West Seattle and South Park residents. The estimate has indicated that the bridge, as we all know, will be closed through the end of 2021, at least. And that is if a repair is chosen. Obviously, much longer if a replacement is chosen. Last week they indicated repair could take even longer than previous estimates and or could last longer. Sorry, it could could last longer than previous estimates. And my my request to Metro was to give me some information about how it how 8.1% steady with the addition of service would be how how it how the emerging needs funding in in that particular scenario would sort of stack up to two service capacity pre COVID 19. And the response from metro is that with a 10th of a percent with the, the, the spending for emerging needs, it would be, it would allow for capacity that would be close to pre-covid-19 levels, but not at those levels. And again, we need in West Seattle and South Park to do a mode shift from 17% of people taking transit, just 30% of people taking transit. There's no way we are going to be able to meet those goals if we are only able to add capacity that is close to pre-COVID 19 levels. Some of the improvements that Metro has indicated would require third party funding, like additional STP, include upgrading the water service to two boats up to all day and all year round, adding 773775 water taxi shuttle improvements and or a new third route. Again, rapid ride C service frequency upgrades for both peak and off peak. Robust service between Admiral and downtown doesn't exist right now. And similarly, Route 50 service frequencies upgrades to the Sodo link station. These are all things that are going to need additional revenue above and beyond what we're contemplating right now. King County Metro presented last week before the West Seattle Bridge Community Task Force and noted that their plans do include adjusting service in the event that there is a high bridge instability and or long term closure of the low bridge, which could shift even more towards a need for the water taxi. So again, this is not allowing for the change in the in the cap does not require this level of spending. But it would allow additional it would it would allow for additional spending of an additional $3 million going from nine 6 million to 9 million. And again, that is 6 million to 9 million specifically or West Seattle bridge related spending. That also includes the COVID 19 response and recovery spending. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any comments or questions on a proposed Amendment eight be? How's my Rosita? Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I am sorry if you've already said this, but can you repeat for us what type of stakeholder has been done or conversations with the department about what impact this sort of earmarking would have on the proposed use of dollars already? So again, it's not it wouldn't be earmarking. It's not it doesn't require the spending. But there already is an emerging emerging needs category that is for both COVID 19 recovery and emerging needs associated with the West Seattle Bridge closure. We spoke with King County Metro last week about what the impacts would be and what what these additional dollars could be spent for spent on. I just gave the list of those things water, taxi, the shuttle, the shuttle to the water taxi. And let's see, what else should I say? Additional peak in off peak service to a rapid ride. This is all information from from metro and robust bus service between admiral going downtown which absolutely does not exist right now and depot frequency upgrades to the station. And so it's an additional maximum of $3 million. Again, not all $3 million annually for the emerging needs associated with the West, yet a bridge closure, but also associated with COVID 19 response and recovery, which is very focused on on making sure that there are there is is the ability to add service commensurate with the the needs to reduce the number of people who are on each bus. Colleagues any other. Questions or comments on proposed Amendment eight. The. Councilman Peterson, please. So, Councilmember. Horrible. Just to clarify, I know one of the themes here is where we're increasing more dollars toward transit service. And so the the concern with the different categories is that they might be for things other than transit service. But just to clarify for me, subsection E that you're you would be amending includes transit service. It is it is only transit service. These are only transit service. So I think the the issue is, you know, I think the policy question is, is do we want to increase the amount in the emerging needs bucket to what I think would be a total of 9 million if your amendment passes and I get that. Number right at a total of nine, up from six. From six. So it would increase that fund by $3 million for emerging needs. So I guess the policy question is, you know, would we rather have the additional $3 million? Go to emerging needs that are not yet known or or do we want it to go to sort of existing needs that we're aware of now in terms of transit services? I mean, again, we have we have to shift our are the number of people taking the bus from 17% who are taking the bus pre-covid-19 percent. So that is a very known need and perhaps emerging needs is not the right term. Yeah, I was just going to pivot to that by saying that that, you know, I think I think these are emerging needs appears to be the category of things that that are still developing, but that we are aware are a gap in how we are able to meet the transit needs of riders throughout the city. And certainly the points you make about West Seattle in particular are rather significant. Even in pre-COVID, with with maximum transit services being provided, most busses, if not all of the busses in and out of West Seattle were just packed to the gills. And so I think we're going to see even more of that in the future. So. So I, I am going to support Amendment b8b with the understanding that it is going for transit service projects that will help our mobility across across the city and with the understanding that capital projects and needs related to capital infrastructure is dealt with in a different part of the levy. And also we are looking at a lot of federal, regional, state, county resources to address that the capital base needs of them. So so I'm I feel comfortable after this discussion and in supporting Amendment eight, the. Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. I'd ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment eight be hours. No. Macheda. Rashida. Peterson. Yes. So aren't. No. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Council. President Gonzalez. Yes. Councilmember was get I didn't get your vote. Okay. Okay. So can you. I'm sorry. Can you call and council members get out one more time? Sure. Councilmember Mosquito? Yes. Seven in favor, two opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries an amendment. Eight B is adopted. Okay. We're going to move along now to Councilmember Strauss, who is going to move Amendment one. So, Councilmember Strauss, I will hand it over to you to make your motion. Thank you. Council President I move to amend council 1833 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda. Is there a second? Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. To adopt Amendment one. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized in order to address Amendment One. Thank you. Council President. I spoke at length this morning at council briefing for the viewing public reference. Understanding that we have lost the fourth today and many more agenda items on make this brief here. Six years allows for the continuity of service that four years does not provide. It allows us to have a predictable and dependable length of time for us to be able to fund our service. When we look at regional transit benefit districts, which I believe that we need to move to, there is still the opportunity for a regional transportation benefit district to be created in four years as well. And if that is the case, it is still important for Seattle to maintain some of its leverage within King County Metro, to be able to provide the level of service that Seattleites desire and require. So again, this is not in competition to a regional measure. This creates a continuity of service. If for you, if you have a habitat for years and the regional service, the regional authority was to be stood up, there would still be a six month gap in our ability to collect and implement the level of revenue and the services that we want. I do have another amendment to address that issue should this amendment fail and or pass. So we are able to make changes in the future. We are able to go back to voters. What we know now and today is that within this pandemic and this. It's. Static surprises, etc. It's hard to tell what next week will look like much less than four years from now. 2020 was set to be the year for a regional merger. I think that it is important that we have the 40. To run this Del Transportation Benefit District for six years. Even if we make changes in that. Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my remarks. If you can't remember. Strauss Are there any comments or questions on Amendment One? Council president, if I may, it's councilmember suarez. Yes, please. Councilmember. Whereas. Thank you. We had a lengthy discussion on this July 17th, if you'll recall, at ten in the morning, in which the motion to reduce this from 6 to 4 passed. And I was concerned then about reducing the term or the duration from 6 to 4 years. In light of some of the comments that we talked about before, the vehicle license fee in 1976, and my concern that Lou Seattle will expire and also some of the transportation dollars that we seek from the county and that particular election year also that the Transit Advisory Board wanted six years. And I tend to look to people who have subject matter expertize and who are pretty much waist deep in this stuff to advise us, hence the Transit Advisory Board if we are going to it. 1.1 people wanted to double the tax but lessen the year and then complain that this is a sales tax that's regressive or a tax on people. That seemed inconsistent to me. So in light of today's vote, we're now we have a compromise of we're going to the amendments that passed that we are not going to double the tax that we had a compromise. And thank you, GONZALES, Castro. GONZALES And look into that. We can look at a tax of .15 percent. And with Council Member Herbert's recent passage that we just did on her amendment, which I think was phenomenal, I again, I'm going to voice my support that this should have stayed at six years. And I can only say that it's a taxing authority. And our ability to have something on the ballot when we agree to tax ourselves is very powerful. And just a quick note. I know there's been a lot said today about a lot of things, and I'm not going to talk a lot because I don't think there should be an award show where we have to thank everybody in God. I just want to say that. I just a big proponent of putting things on the ballot when it comes to a tax. It doesn't mean that I'm against or for. It means, I think that people should decide and we should give them credit for that, that they have an idea of what's going on. The proposition that this council member me that somehow I'm against the police, against things and for the police is categorically wrong. Again, I'm back to a plan, a percentage. How we get there, what we decide to put out to the voters and what we don't, and that we have a respectful conversation about how that happens. And I'm sorry for that. Also, I note that, you know, I wasn't I wasn't able to be there this morning. So anyway, I am going to voice support for Councilmember Dan Strauss's amendment that the duration of this should go back to six years, not for for the reasons that were stated earlier. And Council President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to vent just a tad. Not at all. Thank you so much for your comments. Are there any. I see. I see more hands up. So we will now hear from Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Herbold. We'll follow him as well. Lewis. Thank you so much, Madam President. So, as with the other day, I remain committed to the four year. I mean, I think all of us can agree that this is not a ideal transportation benefit district, given that all of our tools are tied up either in court or they haven't been invented yet. I think forcing the conversation earlier, as I discussed this morning during briefing, is the better course forward to get what I think we would all like to see, which is the county wide transit benefit district with the $100 car tap fees and with a with a 1% sales tax that is more broadly assessed rather than only on taxpayers. I would like to see that sooner rather than later. I think that setting it at four years creates that sense of urgency, and that is why I'd like to stick with it. I don't want to see the the imperfect transit benefit district we're going to make. Last more than that. It needs to last longer than it needs to. Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you. I first want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing this back before us. I really appreciate this as somebody who voted in the minority last time in support of the six years. But we're having another another opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both terms. I really believe that a six year term will give us more leverage in negotiation. We can opt not to collect funds in years five and six in the event of a successful regional measure. If and as it relates specifically to us having more leverage in a regional measure, if this is a six year term, I think that's simply because if Seattle has funding in place, our bargaining position is better. And one of the reasons why this is so important is because our measure includes funding for programs to support transit, access to low income residents, seniors and youth core, including the Work Opportunity Program, which, as we know, provides transit passes for Seattle Public School students in grades K through 12, as well as students participating in the Seattle Promise Scholarship Program, as well, again, as programs targeted to seniors and public housing residents. I think, again, our bargaining position is stronger to preserve the funding for these kinds of programs with the six year levy. And if a four year levy is on the verge of of expiring. Also, if a four year King County measure failed in 2020 for the county or the city would need to go to the ballot. And perhaps very early 2025, as we had to do after the April 2014 countywide measure, failed with 46% of the vote that year. So again, that doesn't give us very much time to come up with an alternative measure. And I just I don't want to repeat the experience this year when we were hoping that the county would put a regional ballot on a regional measure on the ballot. And as as we've seen, we've had to scramble a bit here to to get our version on when that didn't happen. I served on the Regional Transit Committee last year, and it was definitely challenging for King County Council members who wanted to be able to move forward. I don't want our city to be left in the position that we were left in, in 2014 and again this year, when we had to vote on a really quickly developed measure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any other comments on proposed Amendment one? Casimiro Mosqueda. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to signal, as I did at the beginning of today's discussion, that I will be supporting moving from four years to six years again. I know that we are all committed to working on a regional approach. The resolution that Councilmember Peterson and I are bringing forward later today will help with that stated commitment as we work for both more progressive options and faster options in our region. The STV package of six years supports better long term planning for that, and nothing prevents the city from replacing us with a regional package in four years to those conversations continue with the county and that they go well. So I did support four years previously. Now that we've increased the amount and we have some progressive revenue in hand, I think it makes sense to go to six years and ensure that we have the substantial amount of work, that we have more money to help with some of our critical services as we continue to engage with our county partners. So I'll appreciate both of these items going hand in hand and I'll be supporting six years. Any other comments? Everyone else. Thank you. Just quickly, I just want to restate my concurrence with Councilmember Lewis. I do think that we need to have the opportunity to have the conversation sooner with our regional partners. I don't think even with the additional funding that we are going to be able to have now that this is the package that will truly meet the needs of our community. And I think the sooner we can move toward a regional solution and encourage a different kind of conversation about how we fund transit in the area, the better all of our neighbors will be served. So I plan to continue supporting this. Sorry. Continued support for years over six. Okay. Any other comments, colleagues? Oh. Councilmember Strauss. Close out debate, please. Just wanted to say thank you to you Council President and Councilmember Juarez for your grace and spaces we take at a large, important issues before us all, virtually. And while there is a series and layers of other crisis facing our nation. So thank you for your patience, grace and space with me as we delve into the duration of this. Benefit District. Thank you. Okay, colleagues. So I'm going to go ahead and close out debate. And I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment One. MORALES No. No. Sarah, I. Peterson. I just. So. No. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. No. Herbold. I am sorry. Yes. Suarez. I. Council President Gonzalez. Now. Five in favor, four opposed. The motion carries an amendment, one is adopted. Are there any further comments on. Oops. Sorry. Hold on a minute. Yeah. Motion carries and amendment one is adopted. We're going to go ahead and now move to Amendment. Seven. BE Which is Councilmember Strauss's amendment. So, Councilmember Strauss, I am going to ask you to make your formal amendment of seven B so that it can be before the council. Thank you. Council President A move to amend council bill 119833 as presented on seven feet. Is there a second? Second, it's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment seven. Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized in order to address the amendment. Thank you. Council President. I'm bringing forth this amendment. Technical correction. This is meant to cover the delay in tax collection that occurs in the Department of Revenue implements a new measure. It would have been useful in the last measure. And assuming the sale transportation benefit district passes at the ballot box, we will still need to have a collection. We will have a collection gap. And this amendment ensures that the next time we're faced with this choice, we will be funded through the implementation of the next measure. Which means that there. This will ensure tax collection from January 1st, 2027. The first 2027 income tax. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Any questions about Amendment 70? Okay. Hearing, then we will go ahead and call the roll. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the adoption of Amendment seven B or else. Yes. Must. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Excellent. Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS Yes. HERBOLD Yes. Whereas. Yeah. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries an amendment. 70 is adopted. We are now going to move to the to amendment three. So I will move to amend Council Bill 119833 as presented on Amendment three on the agenda. Is there a second? Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment three as sponsor of the amendment. I'll address it really quickly. Pretty simple, straightforward amendments. We add a recital clause that acknowledges that transit provides mobility to essential workers as they perform essential functions to combat the COVID 19 emergency. It also revises Section two, Item C, to allow the low income program a bucket of dollars to be spent and used to provide transit passes for low income medical workers, health care workers, first responders, pharmacy workers, grocery store workers, and other workers deemed essential by any state order. So so the effect of this is to simply include essential workers in that levy spending plan if the voters approve the levy. I'm happy to answer any questions or hear any comments on Amendment three. Colleagues. Any. Any questions or comments? Okay. Hearing them, I will ask that the clerk please call Madam President. Oh, yes, please. I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for bringing this forward. I think that it's really smart to include this amendment here today to make sure that essential workers are explicitly called out and that we emphasize our ongoing support, not just for the work that they're doing right now, but for programs to support them. And during this crisis that is covered, we know that there is increased need for us to continue to elevate this this type of work and make sure that we're not decreasing services there. So I just want to say thank you, because I feel like this amendment strikes a very nice, healthy balance of what we want to accomplish and the emphasis on essential workers. Thank you so much. Casper Mosqueda, any other comments on Amendment three? Seeing none, I would ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment three. Morales. Yes. Must get a. I. Peterson. I. Salon? Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Council. President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and Amendment three is adopted. And we will go ahead and now move to the substantive bill. There are no additional there are no additional amendments for us to consider on this council bill. So I will make a general call for any comments on the council bill as amended. And Councilmember Peterson, you will get the last word when we close out debate. Colleagues, any questions on the council bill as amended? Seeing none. Well, I'll go ahead and recognize Councilmember Peterson for final remarks, and then we will call the roll on this bill. Thank you. Council President. You sure the no more amendments? No, I'm just kidding. This is a good day for public transit. Many were concerned that with the turmoil and uncertainty of the COVID pandemic and economic recession, we might not be able to renew the funding for this transportation benefit district. In fact, our colleagues at King County had to temporarily abandon a regional measure as they shifted their attention to the public health crisis. So it was up to us here in Seattle to beat the clock before the money for transit expired. Fortunately, we share a common ground that public transit is an essential and affordable option to move the most people in our region. As we look forward to a vibrant economy and a healthy planet. And despite the divisions and conflicts that many people might see reported in the media, the mayor and the city council can pull together and row in the same positive direction when we direct our energy toward the hard responsibility of governing. It was healthy for us to have this robust, yet respectful debate on the tradeoffs of the various details and then to compromise to move it forward. It may not be perfect for each of us, but it is necessary for everyone. We are ready to send that Seattle Transportation Benefit District to the voters. Let's do this. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those remarks. I just wanted to before we have the clerk read excuse me, before we have to call the roll. I did want to take a quick moment to publicly thank Kelvin Chow from our council central staff policy analyst who's been working on this issue and really appreciate all of his work. And as you can, as the members of the public will see, we have kept it we kept him busy until the very last minute with all of these important amendments for our consideration. So thank you to Cowles. I wanted to thank my my own chief of staff, Brianna Thomas, for her work in shepherding the various amendments from my office through the process. So thank you all for the good conversation. And let's go ahead and have the clerk read excuse me, have the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended. Morales. Yes. Sarah. Yes. Paterson. Yes. Swans? Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Moving through our committee reports, we are now going to consider agenda item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record? The clerk might be on mute.

AN ORDINANCE amending the 2016-2021 Adopted Capital Improvement Program; authorizing acceptance of pass-through grant funds from King County; granting budget authority for expenditure of said grant funds; and authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to use such pass-through grant funds and to enter into agreements for the acquisition of certain properties and the design of habitat restoration projects along the Cedar River.

SeattleCityCouncil_02162016_CB 118623

The report reported the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item to cancel Bill 118 623 amended the 2016 through 2021 Adopt a capital improvement program authorizing acceptance of pass through grants. Funds from King County granting budget authority for expenditure of said grant funds and authorizing the Director of Public Utilities to use such pass through grant funds and to enter into agreements for the acquisition of certain properties and the design of habitat restoration projects along the Cedar River. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold So this is pretty straightforward. It is the authorization of some grant funds in order to do some much needed salmon habitat restoration projects. They're going to be looking at actually acquiring a number of properties, and that's some work that we're going to be having. Espe you come back to committee and dig in a little bit more as far as the location of the different properties in the potential scope of the work moving forward. Thank you. Are there any are there any comments other than the ringing noise? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. O'Brien So I beg your pardon? Burgess Gonzalez Herbold I Johnson Suarez President Harrell. I. Am favoring unopposed. The bill passes and the chair with signage. Next matter, please.

Recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission to revoke the new senior water exercise fee at Martin Luther King, Jr. Pool and Silverado Pool, as well as, all City Pools and report back to City Council.

LongBeachCC_10132015_15-1063

Okay. Now we're going to move on to new business. We have one item, which is item 24. Communication from Councilman Andrews, Councilman Price, Councilmember Wodonga recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission to revoke the new senior water exercise fee at Martin Luther King Jr. Pool and Silverado Pool as well as all city pools and report back to city council. Okay. There is, you know, can we back up the. Yeah. Councilman Andrews, I think it's your right. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know, on September the 17th, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to increase the fees of the senior water aerobics classes at King and Silverado. A new fee was established at $2 a class or 4 to $450 a year per year individual. The average income in the city of Long Beach is $26,000 annually, which is below the national poverty level. Creating this new fee places an unnecessary burden on our aging population, as well as creating a burden to the physical activities to our older adults. I am simply asking our Parks and Recreation Commission to revoke the fee for seniors and look into taking other steps to increase their mainstream attendance to offset the pool cars by promoting pool use with families or additional programs to increase the revenue. Okay. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN. Please cast your vote, please. Oh, I'm sorry about that. Councilman Price. Thank you. I just want to make sure that this would be to all polls citywide, correct? Yes. So that seniors would have the same. All the seniors. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Members, please cast your votes. Yeah. Yeah. Councilwoman Mongo. Motion carries. Thank you. With that, we have any final public comment. Anyone is in the audience seeing none and any new business that counts. I'm going to share with Councilman Andrews. Okay. He has nothing. That's a first councilman. Your anger.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into an agreement, including any necessary amendments, with the County of Santa Cruz, host entity for the County-based Medi-Cal Administrative Activities and Targeted Case Management Programs, at an annual cost not to exceed $6,500, for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025, with the option to extend the agreement for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07122022_22-0774

All right. The motion is carried. Thank you. We're going to now do item six, please. Item six A report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize city manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with the County of Santa Cruz, host entity for the county based medical, administrative, activist and target case management programs. I councilman's in has. If staff could give a brief presentation on this. Mr. Modica. Kelechi, please. Available. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. So this agreement is is actually a it's. A hosting. Agreement with the county of Santa Cruz to help in the administrative work of two very important programs in the health department. That's the Medical Administrative Activities Program and the targeted case management programs. These these programs allow us to draw down the modernization program, allows us to draw down dollars to help support different services. So the key places of support for these different services are through our medical outreach program. So conducting medical enrollments, outreach, other types of services, really removing the barriers to access for Medi-Cal. The other is targeted case management and we call it Rt-Cgm, which is really focused on specific programs for children under the age of 14, those who are medically fragile at risk of insulin institutionalization. Now also, those are at jeopardy of negative health or psychosocial outcomes. So that program is run through our Community Health Bureau, through our Nursing Services Division, and we work very closely to ensure that we can do outreach, case management and really connecting people to medical, social and educational services so that while this this is the contract to help us with that paperwork, it's a statewide contract that everybody buys into. The work itself is very important, and we look forward. To moving forward with that work. Thank you, Director. I just think that it was very important to highlight that program. Can you let our residents know where they can go or call for assistance on these programs? Please. Yeah. So this is actually located at the main health building at 25, 25 grand. And if we if you go online, you can find the different phone numbers for the different programs. But the assistance can come either by telephone and virtually or it can be in-person. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a motion councilwoman in a second on this item? Councilman's in Haas and second by councilman sorrow and the public comment on six. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item six in person, please line up at the podium. And if there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item six in Zoom, please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. Casey County Council member. Your anger. You queuing in. So I was just trying. To check on the motion, baby. Okay, it's all secondary. Okay. Roll call, please. District one. I district too. I disagree. I just took for. All right, District five. I. District six by district seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. The motion is Kerry. Niger. Great. Thank you. We now want to turn it over to our city manager to do a presentation. Yes. We have a presentation on our ADA and I will turn that to Heather. Okay. I think we're going to come right back to that presentation in just a minute. We are we're going to go ahead and move on to our fund transfer consent items you think are 23 and 24.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 35502 with Shree Ganesh, Inc., of Long Beach, CA, for providing temporary lodging and emergency shelter for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, to increase the contract by $1,028,785, for a revised aggregate contract amount not to exceed $2,778,785. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03222022_22-0331

Emotions carry. Thank you. Number 22, please. Item 22 A report from Health and Human Services. Recommendation to amend contract with Shri Ganesh for providing temporary lodging and emergency shelter for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Contract amount not to exceed 2.7 million CDI. Thank you. Just a brief, brief rundown on this, Mr. Modica. So these are part of our housing voucher system. So when we have ability to place people in our emergency shelters and we also have the ability to place them into motels, said this is what you're authorizing. And tastic. Thank you. I see one public comments and I can fill you up. Thank you, Vice Mayor, City Council. My name and I can say I'm the sixth district resident using some of the terminology of Mr. Soup Supernormal. I'm mystified that the city is interested in renewing this contract with three ganache, specifically because this motel is a known nuisance motel. It's Colonial. It's on PCH. For those that don't know, I spoke originally in 2020 when this item first came up, the contract first came up. It was for $350,000 on premise. That's great. The idea of housing our unhoused, our homeless population. But this space is a known sex trafficking and criminal entity with respect to who inhibits it, people in the community complained dozens of times. I'm actually surprised, compliance wise with the amount of police calls that are referencing this specific property, how this even was able to get pushed for a renewal. You know, I just think that all respect to the motels, the vice mayor a couple of years ago pushed for the Nuisance Motel designation with respect to, you know, getting rid of these types of entities. And this is a nuisance motel. So if the city is going to, you know, push forward with my my understanding of the RFP program, this was a minority owned business. So I think that's probably why I was able to skate around some of the compliance issues, but $2 million to essentially put people who are trying to recover from living on the streets into a space where the streets are central. And it doesn't really seem like it's cost effective with respect to the state. And I just I'm just concerned with people in the community. I'm a part of a neighborhood association called Central Neighborhood Association Committee, and we've written letters in the past about this space. And so it's just concerning that Colonial will be able to get more city funding to, you know, push criminal elements into our community in central Long Beach. So thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Councilwoman Sandy has. In Mango. The motion is carried.

Consider Approving a Resolution of Support for AB31 - “The No Tampon Tax Bill” (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC_03052019_2019-6592

What? Where do people think we could bump it up ahead of the agenda of the next agenda item? I don't think to take too long, but I'm only one person. How many speakers are there, Madam Clerk? 515. So our high school students. Or high school students equal right now anyway. So you have 3 minutes to speak. I mean, we. Could reduce the image. I know we have a bunch of staff. I get that. But anyway, it's up to you. And I don't spend too much time discussing it because that would defeat the purpose of moving fast. What do you think? I have a sure. Let's do it. I need one more. And then we could call it a majority. I think the is narrows we need for right. And I think the proper time to do this was that item two agenda changes. But I'd be in favor of it without limiting the time. Okay. Oh, I see. Limiting the time for this. Without limiting the time. Yes. Okay. So if I could propose we go ahead and take item nine A now and speakers, I would just ask you to limit yourselves. Don't feel that you have to repeat the same thoughts that the person did before. But we love hearing from our high school students and their teachers and parents, whoever are here. So, okay, let's do that with minor apologies to our fire personnel there. But I just, um, I feel bad sometimes when we get to the end of an evening in either parents with children or the kids themselves are still waiting. So. Oh, do we need to vote to do that or. I think I think we reached consensus. I kind of think it was unanimous, wasn't it? Okay. So with that item nine A. That's Rosemary Knox, a member of L.A. mayor. Maybe. Maybe you guys should take a vote on it in my motion, and that's good. I didn't want you just sitting there observing. All right. Okay, let's have a motion. He's going to move that. We have to amend the amended agenda to move. Second O favor. Okay. Passes unanimous. Thank you. You. Okay. Consider approving a resolution of support for Assembly Bill 31. The No Tampon. Tax. The. Councilmember. Are you doing this for honor? I will. I will start. This bill has a new it might have a new number, but it is not a new concept. And I think the purpose of it is pretty clear. It's the no tampon tax bill, HB 31. And this bill has come forward a couple of times unsuccessfully, and we're hoping to see it come through. You know, tampons, menstrual products are essential items. There's no reason they should be taxed. There's a lot of things that are essentially exempt from from various sales taxes. And these aren't luxury items. These are essential. I'm wearing a shirt right now that says equality, period. It's really about menstrual equity throughout the world. And while we are doing pretty well in terms of making sure that women don't have to stay at home or be isolated and confined while they're on their period, we could do a hell of a lot more for a first world country, and I think that starts with taking a step at not taxing items that are necessary for women to go about and continue their lives. It's part of overall equity equity relative to access to schools, to learning to work, all of those different things. So I'm proud to be carrying this tonight with Vice Mayor Knox White. And what we are asking is that the city council pass the attached resolution in support of this legislation. Thank you. Are there further council comments or shall we hear speakers? Two quick comment, quick. I just want to note that the four primary authors includes our Assembly member, Assembly Member Rob Bonta, who has prioritized this as one of his top items of justice this year. It's rather dismaying to know that the. Sign this, but. Okay. So we're going to go on to. And they are and you see a stick Ellison followed by. It's not just. Yes. Sorry to say so. Mayor and council members. My name is. Mayor and council members. My name is Joe Synergize Blue and I'm a freshman and Snow High School and I'd like to say items like condoms, Viagra, hard liquor and men's razors are not taxes items that are luxury. Then why are necessary hygiene products? Tampons and pads are taxes luxury items with an extra 5% tax for every box when around 46% of students from and still qualify for free and reduced lunch. It is unfair to expect those kids and their families to pay an extra tax for something uncontrollable. The pink tax is the only sex specific tax in the country and perpetuates institutionalized misogyny reflecting outdated sexist views. The average woman menstruate for around 40 years. Let's say the average period is six days long and use three pads a day. A single box costs $7 without tax and comes with 36 pads. A single period would use 18 pads, which would mean that every two months you would need to buy another box. It costs $42 a year without tax to just buy pads. It is $1,680 for a lifetime. With tax, it is $1,800. That's almost $200 more because of an unfair tax. Pads and tampons are health necessities and should not be taxed as luxury items because periods are not a luxury. Please vote to endorse AB 31 a bill that will end this unjust tax. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, my my rule. Everybody in my classroom, we don't applaud. We don't cheer. No matter how persuasive the argument is, it just helps make the meeting go more smoothly. And for some public speakers, it's really intimidating because they don't know if they're going to get booed or cheered. So you didn't know that, but now you do. Our next speaker is Zoe Erickson, followed by Lilly Carnival. Zoe, hi. Good evening. I'm Zoe Erikson, and I'm a sophomore at Antonella High School. I'd like to say that putting a tax on products women need as a direct consequence of their biology is fundamentally sexist and unjust. And in the tampon tax will help ensure that all people who need menstrual products can afford them. This tax unfairly penalizes women, and considering nearly half of the students at my school qualify for free and reduced lunch, the tax penalizes those struggling financially, which directly and greatly impacts my peers and many people in the Alameda community and around the world and in our state. Okay. Uh. Sorry. Uh. The first time I had to buy my own menstrual products was when my parents were out of town. They had only left me with a certain amount of money, and paying for these menstrual products cost over half of what they had left me. They were only gone for a night or two, but I remember being absolutely devastated that I couldn't order in pizza or garlic bread that night. Since then, I have heard complaints and I have seen directly how unjust the tampon tax is. I urge you all to support this resolution. Followed by Red. Hello. Members of the City Council. Mayor Ashcroft. My name is Lily Carnival, and I'm a senior at Onslow Junior and Senior High School in my sophomore year. My friends at Nicolosi Allison, who is here tonight, Sarah Scarth and I organized a period products drive for the existing legislation to end the tampon. We worked very hard and had some incredible conversations along the way. When I think about the possibility of AB 31 on a statewide level, I'm incredibly excited. I think about the many girls around the state of California who will no longer have to worry so intensely about affording necessary period products. I especially think about the young. Tax on period products is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Those of us working to advocate for what we call menstrual equity call for safe, sustainable, convenient and affordable products in all schools, jails, shelters, and other public places like this building. Ending shame and stigma at school and at work. Period. Education for everybody as part of a healthy approach to learning about what it is to be a human being. Now I recognize that we have a climate emergency, a devastating housing crisis. We've heard again about tonight a fragile, malfunctioning health care system and a democracy best described as under siege. We also have our local issues to grapple with, including how to reflect our values in our city's budget and how to be the community of kind and loving people that we want to be. I'll work alongside all of you on those issues, too. But I ask tonight that you do one thing. Through this resolution. Tell the women and girls of Alameda and our legislators that your allies, that you understand that gender equality can only be achieved when girls and women can be free of the burden of discrimination and stigma. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for all your remarks, everybody. I'm just going to lead off and say that I think this is just kind of like a no brainer. I don't really know why it hasn't been done yet, but I'm completely behind us endorsing the measure. And I think the resolution there is three great points in the resolution, while many but three that leapt out at me. One is and it was raised by the speakers, a disparate, disproportionate negative impact on women, which largely impacts women in low income brackets for whom sales tax constitutes a larger proportion of their income. And several states have already taken this step, including Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Jersey. I also think Ms.. Jordan just raised that. It's something I've read about lately. There is really shameful treatment of women prisoners in terms of making menstrual products available to them. So when all of you in political and proud out there as an ally want to take on yet another issue, look into that one. Just my suggestion. But anyway, any comments and then a motion because we we are waiting for our next item to so comments. A vice mayor in Knoxville because you were the coauthor. So just quickly, I'm glad I didn't speak before the speakers because they couldn't have done a better job. So I just wanted to encourage our vote. One of the reasons I wanted to coauthor this is that allow me to just enacted its own five cent or a half cent sales tax. Yeah, locally. And we have no control over what is taxed within that. Only through a 31 can we change that. But I think that we actually are in a place to to show leadership on something that we've actually our community has already taken action. And I think it's important for us to show the way. So I think all of these fantastic people who have contributed to the resolution, that's before you written it and encouraged us to move it forward. Thank you. You know, just check in with the acting city attorney. You would agree, would you not, that this item has been sufficiently an agenda to consider approving a resolution of this work for AB 31 that we could take a vote tonight? Yes, I would agree. Yes. Okay. Um. Councilman Brody, think you had some quick comments. Thank you. For all of the speakers that came out. You know, Rosemary, you've been emailing me for a while on this, so I'm glad that, you know this bill, hopefully this is the year it gets across the finish line. But, you know, it's just a start. I mean, we do provide some of these products to low income students. But, you know, we need to provide these to all students. You know, we said apparently passed a resolution today, but yet we don't do anything in our restrooms in city hall, which I think is something we need to do. And, you know, you mentioned the impact on on low income families. And, you know, that's something that that that's the next step in this battle is to make sure that these products are provided to all low income families and people that do have, you know, federal aid are able to spend that money on these products. And, you know, I think it's also important that we, you know, consider the disparate impacts on our LGBT families, because if you have two women in a family, you know, you're both, you know, family members are paying. So I think this is a great step and I appreciate and applaud the activism of these young ladies. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember de so great. Well, I just want to be brief in saying, you know, tonight was a very exciting night in the sense that young adults from Alameda High School had pushed helped push the pool issue. And to see young adults coming from Encino High School I myself graduated from. It's in our class of 1984. Right. It's good to see that, you know, young adults from Imperial High School also pushing this very important issue. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a motion? So moved. Do we have a second? Second? All in favor. I ask the motion to endorse AB 31 passes unanimously, and you will see to it that that information makes its way to Sacramento. All right. Perfect. Thank you. All right. I'm just going to pass this along. We have some buttons about AB 31, if anybody would like to take one. They are more than welcome today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice work, ladies. Okay, we are moving on to six C. Thank you for your patience on this. And Chief Reggie Rodriguez, you're presenting. Yes. Okay. We're going to say similar. Oh, I was going to read it. But then I did a resolution amending Master P resolution 122191 to add new and revise existing for our department fees and a resolution approving a workforce change and a resolution amending the budget. Okay. Thank you, Mary. Members of the council and members of the public. Before we get started tonight, if I can draw your attention to our staff report, I do want to make one clarification for the notification of the Council on the Staff report. I'm looking at the top of page four. I don't know if you have a printed copy or an electronic copy, but if everyone's on page four at the very top, you'll see the top bullet points and then the sentence that begins with the current annual cost. Everyone there. Okay. So I know this has come up in a number of questions that I've received from the council, and I'll read it as follows. The current annual cost of adding a fire marshal at the division chief level is estimated at 300.

Recommendation of the Personnel and Civil Service Committee to receive and confirm appointments and reappointments to the Civil Service Commission (1 appointment); Parks and Recreation Commission (4 appointments) (2 reappointments); and Water Commission (1 reappointment).

LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0440

Item 20 Communication from Council Member Gerry Ship's key chairperson and Civil Service Committee Recommendation of the Personnel. Personnel and Civil Service Committee to receive and confirm appointments and re appointments to the Civil Service Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Water Commission. Chair Ships Key. Thank you. Robert Foster On the recommendation of the Mayor to the City Council, Civil Service and Personnel Committee, we met and approved the following recommendations for the consideration of the full council. First, as the Civil Service Commission, it's a new appointment for Ric McClinton Glamor. He is from Council District three Parks Recreation Commission New Appointments. David Sonata Council District eight. Stacy Morrison Council District seven. Rudolph Galindo Council District two. Ron Sievers County Council District four with two appointments. Ron Antoinette Council District five and Benjamin Goldberg Council District three. And last but certainly not least, the appointment with the Water Commission with John Allen of Council District four. I some of the seconds. Okay. I think you just can have those people that were named that three or stand up because I want to just thank you for your past service. Your future service. Thank thank you so much. I really appreciate it. People don't realize it's a lot of time people put in in the city could not be as effective as it is without their help. So I want to thank you all. Vice Mayor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also want to congratulate all the commissioners that are coming in and those that are being re appointed. I absolutely look forward to working with all of you as we build and continue to strengthen our city. I particularly want to thank, you know, you know, Rudy, Dave, Rick, I know we've all had a chance to have separate conversations about the city. And and I just really in particular, I just want to congratulate the three of you who have been so patient but so committed to to Long Beach. So thank you all. Well, we have a motion in the second members cast your vote tonight of 20. And again. Thank you, everybody. Council member, Austin. Motion carries seven zero. All right. Thank you. Members will go to item seven clinical read. Thanks again, everybody. Regulations. Ivan seven Communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships key recommendation to receive and file information about the wing winged Wonders Banner Project at Eldorado Park Duck Pond Council Memberships.

A bill for an ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 2, 2021 election. Approves a companion ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 2021 election. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0868

Eight eyes. Eight I's Council. Bill. 924 has been ordered published. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 868 on the floor for publication? Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, dash eight, six, eight, be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 868. Black Hi. CdeBaca No clerk. All right. Flynn, I. Herndon, I. Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One. The 11 eyes. 11 Eyes counsel bill 868 has been ordered published. There being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary for a lease with Killing Fields Memorial Center, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, for City-owned property located at 1501 East Anaheim Street for the development and operation of a community memorial garden. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0382

Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Clerk, if we can go to item 21. Report from Economic and Property Development Recommendation to execute a lease with Killing Fields Memorial Center for city owned property located at 1501 East Anaheim Street for the development and operation of a community memorial Garden District six. We have a second. There's been a motion and a second. Yes. Yes. My Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Before we get started, I'd like to do a staff report on this. And Mr. Mike Conway, would you please? Thank you. I'd like to introduce our director of Economic and Property Development, Mike Conway, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of the City Council. This item relates to former RTA property located at 1501 East Anaheim Street, the northeast corner of Anaheim Street and Peterson Avenue. The property was originally purchased for use as a community garden, Open Space and Killing Fields Memorial to commemorate the victims of the Cambodian Genocide. Killing Fields Memorial, Inc, a California nonprofit organization, seeks to develop this property at its cost into a memorial that includes a memorial structure, restroom facilities and storage area, along with open space and garden areas. The nonprofit organization intends to raise funds in order to construct the improvements and proposes to operate and maintain the facilities as a public open space. Staff has negotiated terms and conditions of a lease that provides for rent of $1 per year during a fundraising period of three years and an additional two year period to allow the nonprofit organization to construct the improvements. If either the fundraising or the construction is not diligently pursued to completion within the stated timelines, the city may terminate the lease. However, if fundraising and construction proceeds within the provided timelines, the nonprofit organization will then have an option to purchase the property for $1. If the option is exercised, the land will be conveyed with a covenant in perpetuity, requiring the nonprofit organization to offer the property as a public open space to maintain all improvements and fund all capital reinvestment. Failure to comply with the covenants could result in the reversion of the property back to city ownership. This structure provides an opportunity for city residents to enjoy a public open space serving as a Killing Fields memorial with all construction, maintenance and capital reinvestment reinvestment funded by a nonprofit organization. We had a behind you on the screen some images as conceptualized by the nonprofit organization providing, again, some open space. Some garden areas, structures related to a memorial killing fields memorial commemorating the genocide of the Cambodians and kind of an aerial vision as well. So this concludes my report, and I'm available to answer your questions. Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to just speak on this item because the fact that I think is the first killing feel memorial outside the state of California. So these are the things that I think I really wish most people would take time to take a look at, because being that the Cambodians have been here for 30 some years, and I think this is something it's very something I totally support because this is the project will be the first in a memorial outside of Cambodia. And many of our Cambodian refugees will never go back to Cambodia. But with this memorial, they will be able to have a place to heal, to reflect, to meditate, and to honor those that they have lost in the war. This is a memorial is for them. And because the fact that this I would like to have a mr. SA who will come up and speak on this issue very shortly. See you on Thursday. Good evening, Madame Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Pauline Sot. I am a member of the Killing Fields Memorial Center. Our organization is dedicated to commemorating the Cambodian genocide. Every April 17, we pay respect to the victims of the killing fields and hope to bring public awareness by making a program, the Genocide Awareness Month. For many major genocides namely the Armenian genocide, the Jewish Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide. What a great night from a dream. Yes, a little dream of her. When your rock or a tree to walk around, to worship, to touch, to have to cry on, to feel the suffering of our innocent people with, to remember and pay respect at. You have made this dream come true. Now we have a place we can call home. The Killing Fields Memorial Garden will be adorned with landscapes and waterfalls. It will be a gathering place decorated with Cambodians artifacts and designed and built by Cambodians. The Killing Fields Memorial Garden will be the first of its kind outside of Cambodia in our beautiful city of Long Beach, the third largest city in the US, the seventh largest city in California, and the greatest city to the largest Cambodian community outside of Cambodia since 1975. This will be a great place of love and kindness. It will welcome people from all walks of life to come in and enjoy peace and tranquility. Find solace and closure. Learn about the history of the killing fields. Learn about the Khmer culture and worship. Remember and pay respect to millions of victims of the Cambodian genocide that became well known as the killing fields. Thank you, Councilman Lee Andrews. You made it happen. Your life and legacy will live forever in our hearts. Thank you, John Edmonton, for voicing the dream ten years ago and for making it happen a reality tonight. Honorable Vice Mayor and members of the City Council, the spirit of millions of victims of the killing fields. They are descendants, friends and supporters of the Killing Fields Memorial Center. Forever grateful for your decision tonight. This may seem a small step to some, but it is a giant step in a world that clamor for peace and above all, kindness. On behalf of the survivors of the killing fields, we thank you for standing up for humanity and kindness. So. Morgan Palmer, thank you very much. God bless you. God bless. Long Beach. And God bless America. Thank you. Thank you, Pauline. I would just hope that everyone in this city and all the other cities will embrace this memorial for all the people to have a chance to come and see that where people can sit down and pay their tribute to someone who was such a tragedy. And again, I'd like to say Jimmy Blair, welcome. Probably, yes. Yes. Give us 1/2. Council member Urunga. Yep. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to hear from the public regarding this project. Or you want. Yeah. Let me hold for 1/2 now. Let me hold for 1/2. I know that we'd like to take a photo. Yes, but. But we can. Let me take the councilor comments. Do you have comments? Thank you to the vice mayor. I too want to lend my support for this project. I think it's a wonderful one. I was, as many of you might know, especially those in the cabaret community, I participated in a groundbreaking ceremony back in 1978, actually 80, 82 or 83, when the UCC center was was being built. It was a at that time a Latino center. It was the the North it was the Long Beach Neighborhood Center, the Centro de la Raza, it was called. And I was I was very proud to be part of that transition. And it was the center that opened up that welcomed the Cambodian community into Long Beach. And since then, we know that the community has grown significantly and that it is the largest community outside of Long Beach. And I'm very proud that we're here today, that I'm here today to welcome you back, welcome you here, keep you here , and to help you get this project off the ground so that we can start the healing that we need to do and the healing that should have been done a long time ago. And I think that this memorial would be a big step in that direction. And you mentioned some other tragic events in our history, in the history of the world. And I think that your dedication to those tragic events, as well as your own, is what happened in the killing fields is a make it a big testimony to your commitment for humanity and for making and building a better world here in Long Beach and around the world as well. So I want to lend my support to this project as well. Let's go ahead and hear comments from the public and then we'll take it behind the wheel. Thank you. Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor, Member City Council. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Brian Bell, reside at one sixth of Ohio Avenue in the fourth District. As a survivor and currently president of the Killing Fields Memorial Center. I'm honored to be here tonight to offer my sincere appreciation and gratitude for the decision you will make tonight toward the Cambodian Genocide Memorial Garden Project. According. To the RAND Corporation study ended in 2005 in the Cambodian community in Long Beach by interviewing more than 500 survivors Senate. The study found 62% of the Cambodian people have post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and 51% have major depression disorder. The action by the City Council today further strengthened our city commitment to diversity. The Cambodian Genocide Memorial Project will not only be a place for. The Cambodian to reflect on the journey that brought. A to our new home, but it will star them space for a community that share similar story of struggle and survival. The Cambodian Genocide Memorial is an immigrant story. And from our mayor, who is an immigrant from Peru to the residents who live and work in the city, the memorial paid tribute to our heritage. And so to demonstrate that diversity, our strength. This is a major step forward in a long journey from the killing field to the promised land. It is a step toward healing and uniting our community. By approving staff recommendation tonight, you will have a hand in waiving. The Cambodian experience in the rich tapestry in our great city. Furthermore, I would like to share with you a brief history of the Cambodian genocide. Madame May. I would like your permission. It might be a little bit longer than three minute. In your comments? Yeah, just a brief. Can you make it brief? Okay. I think. Thank you. Between 1975 and early 1979. The Khmer Rouge, headed by pulpwood, supported Cambodian citizens through arena terror, aimed to create a truly Marxist utopian society. This societal experiment quickly turned into a nightmare of warfare. Execution, starvation for hard labor. Brainwashing. Political repression. Physical appearance, threatening asphyxiation and or the kind of torture that claimed the life of. An estimated 1.5 to 3 million or 20 to 40% of the entire population of Cambodia. And that attacks on a Cambodian were forced to flee the party to the Cambodian border, losing their home and their homeland. And resulting in the further breaking apart of family. They face additional traumatic experience during their life threatening flight to Thailand. And many live for a year in condition characterized by material scarcity, poor sanitation violation and certainly in the camp children. Who sometimes spent a year in this camp. Opportunity for normal childhood. In early 1980, approximately 200,000 Cambodian displaced refugees live in the United States. The single largest concentration of the Cambodian anywhere outside of Cambodia reside in the Lilongwe area. Relocation to a new country entailed foot separation from family isolation and further stress related to adjusting to a new country, language and culture. Cambodian have exhibited tremendous courage and resilience throughout this trauma and challenge. We are not allowed Cambodian refugees a limit among the general public and also among the younger generation of Cambodian living in Israel that did not live through the Khmer Rouge regime themselves or were very young when they left the country. Frequently, though, survived the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime, period. I found it too painful to share their experiences, even within their own family. There is strong desire among many Cambodian in Long Beach to educate the younger generation and the Cambodian about their family and community history, as well as the larger public. At this moment. I would like to recognize and thank you on behalf of the board of the director. To the people that who work very hard behind the scenes to restore information experience. Please help me give warm welcome to the champion, newly reelected. Councilman Andrew. Former Councilwoman Tonya Durango. I see you here. Thank you for being here. And our chief of staff, John Edman, and Republican. And Attorney Bill Shibley. And especially the board of directors. Yeah. I'm leaving friends. I could. Thank you very much. Thank you, Brian. Next speaker, please. Interview. Well, I hadn't planned on speaking, but I just had to come forward. I'm Francis. Some of the in Paris. And I was inside in district one. Councilmember Dan. Thank you for all your diligence and passion, love, understanding. And moving forward on this matter. And what a phenomenal way for the city owned property to have the Killing Fields Memorial Center. I hope that everybody that's watching this on TV and of course, all of you that are here, I have a heavy heart. I'm kind of visualizing what all happened. But I believe that the Killing Fields Memorial Center, when people see it, hopefully. They'll take a moment and they'll think about what happened. And then they'll move forward to try to help bring love, peace and understanding among our men in equality. And the gang members. Maybe you'll start looking at things a little different and look at the fact of what you can do to individuals and the fact it has on them their families and society. So I want to commend you. And this this is an absolutely historical moment. That's the reason why I was sitting there and I saw, no, I won't come forward to speak, but it's such a historical moment. I had to speak and say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So you. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'll be brief. I'm simply honored to take part in this historic moment. It's no question that this project will certainly add to our rich cultural tapestry in our city. And it means a lot to see that the whole, you know, that this community is really and embrace this and champion this. Over the last decade, it seems like. So this is really a good statement to your leadership. Councilmember Andrews And the fact that this was former redevelopment space that is going to be, you know, a vacant lot that's going to essentially become an amazing, amazing landmark in the community. I think it's fantastic. So I'm honored to cast his vote in support of this tonight. Council member now. Thank you. I am too honored to support this vote. I'd like to thank Councilmember Andrews for bringing this project forward, and I look forward to the fruition of this project and a ribbon cutting. I also like to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for allowing my friend Bryant Bennett to take a little extra time speaking. And it Bryant Bean, thank you for speaking tonight. Thank you for your service to the Cambodian community and to consider the service you continue to provide to our fourth district community. You were in my newsletter last week, so just proves you're still doing things today. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilman Andrews for his consistent attention to the needs of the Cambodian community. He has ever since the moment I met him, he's advocating for the community and trying to make us all more educated about the issues that are of importance to his constituents and to such an amazing group of individuals who always come out and so gracefully and respectfully share your thoughts and your positions. And I really appreciate that. As someone who sits here and makes decisions, I really appreciate the manner in which you advocate for things. So it's it's something that is very respectful. And and certainly this is a huge accomplishment. So congratulations to you as well. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I'm glad that we're able to honor the Cambodian community. I know that it's been so very long. I'm looking at a lot of these reports and it's going back to 1998 that you had been starting this work. I'm sure it's been much longer than that. So congratulations on all of your hard work. And also to my colleague, Councilman de Andrews and his staff, who I know has been very dedicated to this through and through. So congratulations again. Councilman Mongo. I want to agree with my colleagues and what an example you are to members of the community that have a cause. You unite, you stand together, you turn out the numbers and you work together no matter if the issue is controversial like a few weeks ago or today. And I just want to tell you how much I respect each and every one of you. I'm in your opinions, and you're always welcome here. Thank you. And I also wanted to extend my congratulations to everyone that has worked very hard to bring this forward. It has taken a very long time, but it's the next installment in our shared narrative. I know that this particular memorial is to recognize the suffering as well as the prosperity of the Cambodian American community, despite the challenges that it faced and being here in your new home. But it is our shared narrative. It's a shared tapestry, as Councilmember Richardson mentioned, of our great city. I want to thank you for honoring us with the dignity, as Councilwoman Pryce mentioned, as well as the opportunity to share in your story and giving us the opportunity to celebrate together . What a dedicated and motivated and inspired group of people can do despite the hardships for all of that. Thank you. Bryant Bean. Thank you. Thank you to all the members of the community that are here, as well as those that are not here, that have been working very hard to have a place here for the Cambodian American community. Starting well before Cambodia town and going back to the U.S. in the seventies. And for your tenacity and for your stamina. I thank you. With that, there's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Yeah. So I know that many of you were here for that item. And if you did not want to stay with us till midnight, you are free to go if you'd like, or you can stay and hear the rest of our items. Madam Clerk, I think we go back to item two. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. There's no oath required. So I'd like to turn this over to our assistant city manager, Mr. Tom Modica.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Legislative Department (LD) by $8,000, offset by the Second Council District One-time District Priority funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department (XC) to provide funding for a Second Council District Internship program; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Citywide Activities Department (XC) by $8,000 to offset a transfer to the Legislative Department.

LongBeachCC_02122019_19-0111

Vice Mayor Andrews. Motion carries. Now remove item nine. Communication from Councilmember Pearce. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund in the Legislative Department by $8,000, offset by the second Council District one time district priority funds to provide funding for a second Council District Internship program. Councilmember Pearce. Great. This is in partnership with Cal State, Long Beach and the MSW program there. And so we just want to make sure that we have a couple of interns that are going to be working on mental health related policies. So thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. I support this. Occupy and we have many people coming on this side of. Very good. Cleric as he addressed the contents of chief of having interns is very, very good. There's no question about that. But in the instant case, given the uncontroverted police records relative to the manifest lack of mental stability on the part of the councilperson for the Second District, that failed to understand that one does not. It is inappropriate to go fishing off the company pier with one of your interns or one of your staff members. Indicates a mental instability that exposes the city again, like in the ninth District. You've got to have your head examined to do that. So I would suggest you refuse to do that. In fact, if you get inside of it, it has some of the same ring tones. And I would guess that he, the councilperson for the second District, probably had serious conversations with the demented individuals from the ninth District. So you should reject that. All right. Please understand, Long Beach is now in the. Particularly with the mayor now moving up into you to go to prison. And I know you've all been busy and haven't had a chance to to read the latest news on that. But the Ninth Circuit has handed down their decision relative to Baca. That's the same Ninth Circuit Court that reviewed Camila Harris, the sidekick of Garcia. So he's going to be soon on his way to prison. We need mental stability in this city. This the action before you here does not even suggest that that's a possibility. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Good. The animal public comment on this item. Now please cast your vote. And told me one go. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report back to City Council in 90 days on the feasibility of establishing a percent for arts policy as an ongoing funding source for public art in the City; and report back on similar models cities across the nation use to fund public art programs.

LongBeachCC_01262016_16-0067

So thank you, guys. If I can have the curve, please read the first item. Communication from Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Andrews. Recommendation to request the city manager to report back in 90 days on the feasibility of establishing a percent for arts policy as an ongoing funding source for public art in the city. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilwoman Price. Thank you. This agenda item actually was initiated by you, Mr. Mayor, during your comments at the state of the city. So I want to thank you for initiating this item in this conversation and getting it started. And as you said, at the state of the city and as I wholeheartedly agree, a city cannot thrive and be a place where people visit and live and offer exposure to the youth without a strong arts programing, without strong commitment to the arts, and without a wide variety of options in terms of different types of arts that people can enjoy and participate in in the community. So the purpose of this item is really to get the conversation started and to ask our city staff, led by our city manager, to look at all the different models that are adopted around the nation to support arts programing in various cities. And my intent with this particular item is to really focus not on a particular organization or a particular type of art, but really talk about how we can bring about more support for the arts in their totality. Visual arts, theater, arts, music, everything that we would put under the umbrella of arts, we as a city should be supporting, regardless of the organization or the entity or the the person that's pushing it. We really should be focused on how we provide arts programing and arts opportunities for our residents and our communities. So this is obviously something that is very important to me and my council colleagues. On a personal note, my family and I partake in just about every arts opportunity that we have, the opportunity and the and the time to participate in our kids. It's there growing up with arts in their life and they are very lucky to live in a city like Long Beach that has so many great programs already and so much potential for additional growth and outreach in terms of the great work that we already do and that we have the potential to do. So I hope that my colleagues will support this particular item, which really just asks us to be educated further and gives us some options on how we can go about getting funding for the arts. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I know you made that. You made the motion, Councilwoman Gonzalez, to me the second. I also want to thank the mayor for this. I think during State of the City, I counted all of the different responsibilities he gave us as a city council. But this is one that I'm most excited about, and I'm glad that Councilwoman Price brought this forward, and we had the support of our other council colleagues in bringing this forward. I, too personally share the passion of arts and theater. I serve on the board of the ICI tea. I absolutely love discussing art and music with a lot of our downtown residents. I just did my first my holiday pictures with my family in front of the Powell mural, because I just absolutely love the fact that we have these places here in in the city. I'm going to have a first birthday I made in Long Beach. So that's also very exciting. And I think all of you here collectively have given so much to the arts and have made our local community so much more vibrant than it than it can be. And I see so much more potential with that. So I am wholeheartedly as well, like Councilwoman Pryce supporting this item. I think it's an opportunity and an avenue for us to get more information back to see what is possible. I know with our former blue ribbon committee there have been discussions. Our Arts Council, our local grassroots community associations like Kalb. I see a friend here and so many of you have also participated in our local events. So this may be an opportunity as well to see how we can support continuing local events like Day of the Dead and like other events that have happened so very often in our city. So I look forward to this. I look forward to seeing the information come back from our city management staff. And I thank you all for being here. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank Councilwoman Price for including me. In this motion, many of you in the audience have been working on having the city. Adopt and include an envelop more of the arts in the various projects that we're able to do. And as many of you know, we had an opportunity to do that when we had redevelopment and when we were doing far more projects. And you have, in the absence of that, found ways to continue to show a vibrancy in our community through the arts. We can feel that in the texture of the different projects are working on. So I'm looking forward to finding a way for us to include this as part of just the way we operate. It needs to be a part of the way we operate. And I know that it's the present for the arts program is active in at least 27 states around this country. There's no reason why the city of Long Beach can't do it. And I look forward to hearing back the different options on how we can bring this back because we won't have redevelopment back. And so we'll have to look to ourselves to be able to find this beauty and enrichment and culture in all of our public facing efforts. And and for that, I thank you thank you for your patience and your guidance on this issue. Thanks. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next up is Councilmember Yaw Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. Ah, gracious. Right. Art, for art's sake, MGM, the lion. I want to thank the mayor and council members Priceless Northern Solace and Andrews for bringing this forward. The art is huge in terms of not only Long Beach, but for our communities as a whole. Having been a former community college trustee. I also see the importance of programs in our schools, in our in our K-12, as well as in our community college and in our university. Because that's how we learn and that's how we keep students busy. I don't think I need to harp on the fact that when we keep young people busy with either playing music or acting in theater or painting or doing any of the numerous parts of arts and crafts and and other things that are that are important in the arts world, that we lower crime, we we divert their their attention from hanging out and being not laden with gangs and making them do something creative or helping them do something creative. So I would want to. Include. In this study that as we move forward, if we can connect with with the schools, with the K-12 and the community college and university to help them with their programs. We hear every year that when there are budget cuts in education, one of the first programs to go always in the schools are arts programs. And so we need to find a way to support them as well in regards to being able to sustain their programs and keep them going and not have those programs be the first to go with it because it's a low lying fruit. We need to keep arts is important. It's important to our community and it's important to public safety as well as all aspects of our community life. So. Just want to throw that out there in terms of when we continue with the study city manager, if we can also be inclusionary of our educational entities as well. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mia. You know, first of all, I want to thank Councilwoman Price for asking me to sign on to this item. You have a number of great artists living in Essex this week, and I know that they would agree with me in saying that public art is very much needed in our city. It creates an attachment to one community and inspires others. It also reflects the unique diversity that Long Beach is made up of. With that said, I'm looking forward to hear a report back from our city manager. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Richards. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank Mayor Garcia for introducing this idea. I want to thank our council colleagues for bringing this forward. All of the very familiar faces we see in the audience who are engaged in one thing or the other related to art. I personally believe that art is a core and critical element to any urban revitalization, urban renewal effort, and we throw this term around all the time. Uptown Renaissance art is core to this, is key to this. I unequivocally support this. I think public art also sends a message to the public that, you know, you know, we are alive, we're vibrant, we are engaging, we are communicating. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this feasibility. But what I'm really looking forward to is figuring out creative ways to utilize art and specifically public art as a tool to help revitalize some of our neighborhoods, like I've seen in Philadelphia has a mural arts project, which is really cool, where it's like areas of town that had a bunch of vacant space and blight. And they began painting murals. And now they have one of the best mural programs in the nation where you can literally go and see 4050 murals is a month backlog just to go to these neighborhoods no one would ever enter in just to see, you know, 70 foot mural of Wilt Chamberlain or whatever. Right. Really cool art. So this is this is what I see as a as an effort for us to get serious about art the way Philadelphia has. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I know I've met with some of you and talked with others of you at community events. And I think that one thing that is constantly forgotten, but not in my mind, is the impact and role that arts play in our economy. Arts are linked to jobs. Arts are linked to thriving business corridors. Arts are linked. And I don't just mean arts in the typical way that some people believe a mural or a sculpture. Though I would have appreciated an ice sculpture in the median at Wardlow instead of bike racks which were controversial. I mean, it would have been great to have had a fun to pull from at that time. It's also important the arts that we talk about that are linked to our job readiness programs and the arts that are linked to our we go to programs and many of you have been partners in a lot of that. And so I first want to thank you for all you've already done. Many of you know that there's hard budget times ahead and we have to look at what we get a return on investment with. And many of you know that I've written some some things on the impact that the arts have on the economy and jobs . And so I believe arts are an area similar to infrastructure where you get that return on investment more quickly because it really impacts the neighborhoods more quickly with those things. So thank you to each and every one of you if you haven't already read the L.A. Aces report on how arts drive the economy and museums drive the economy and tourism. Please do. It's remarkable, and I hope that it's all in our minds and ready to go when we have to make these tough decisions. Thank you. And Councilmember Austin. Thankfully and I think I'm last, but I wanted to also weigh in and thank the mayor and my council colleagues for bringing this item forward. Creativity drives everything in our city, particularly today. But I think arts also help us maintain a balance here in the city of Long Beach. And, you know, it's so part so much part of our identity and our DNA as a city to have creative residents, but to also to to honor and and support creative efforts of artists of all types in our city. In Eighth District, we also obviously have the Expo Arts Center, where we we profile art and we try to push a lot of events to to bring the community into who can benefit from such arts. We have Long Beach Arts and I mean, obviously we're extremely supportive of our Arts Council City wide. I'd just like to just echo all of the comments that have been made here and and ask the staff in their, their efforts to provide us a report back on options that you be artistic and creative because we understand that this may not be something that is a line item in our general fund, but there are, I think, options out there that will will meet that that need as well. And so I would just ask that you do that and you know, thank you for the arts community for coming out and being supportive of this. If it's 1%, we'll figure it out. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'm going to make a few comments before we go to public comment, which we'll do here in in a minute. But let me just first start off by thanking Councilwoman Pryce, as well as Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Gonzales and Councilman Andrews for authoring this item. I think that for a lot of you out there and I know most of most of you that are out there, this is something we've been talking about now for probably a good year, a little over a year. And it was a commitment I think I made to all of you early on that we would get here and that this was important not just for me personally, but really for the city and every great. City in America has a thriving art scene. That's just a fact. And you can't have a successful city without artists being a important part of that and and the culture that comes with with artists. I want to just begin by saying thank you, because I know that we're passing an agenda item tonight, but it's also a culmination of a lot of work. And I don't want to, you know, pass on the night without recognizing some of the efforts that actually got to this point because this didn't happen. You know, just because I woke up one morning and wrote it into a speech, it happened because a lot of people worked really hard for many years to advocate for this, and sometimes with not a lot of support and other times with community grassroots support. And I remember the blue ribbon commission that was started years ago, maybe five or six years ago, that made a recommendation in this direction. I think about the recent Arts Council conversation around 1% and the information and report that came out of that study as well. And I would hope also, Mr. West, that as we do the study and you kind of look at best practices, that we look at those two recent contributions to the debate as starting points as far as ideas as well. And so I think what the we'll make sure that that's something that that's included. And I also want to just thank you for, you know, keeping the the hopes alive. It's been a I think, both exciting but also very difficult few years for the arts. And there's a lot of transition happening. I mean, the economy is better. We're starting to see some good news coming out of of people reinvesting. But there's still a lot of support. And 1% for the arts program, by the way, is very common in most large cities in the United States. This is not a unique phenomenon. This is this is excelled in most big cities. And we had tight hours in the past directly to our redevelopment agency fund. Most cities weren't doing that. And so we did that for us. And it worked for us for a time. You know, it could have worked better in many ways, but it was what it did, its job in some respects. And now we don't have any sort of percent for the arts now. That's not to say that the city doesn't commit itself every year to putting money towards the arts. And it does. And in fact, in the last two budgets I've proposed and this Council has been affirmatively increased modestly, but increased funding for the arts, which I want to thank the Council for doing for the last two years as well. And so what we're really hoping is that and I think what Councilman Price mentioned is we're going to take a broad look at what a 1% for the arts policy to get, kind of what the best what the best ones out there are. So we can maximize this into something that really works for us. The more that we can do, the more inclusive it is. I think we all agree is better and we want it. We want to have the model 1% for the arts program in the country. We want this to be the model for for the country. And just to. And just to close, I think that what's exciting to me is that this program should really be about all of the arts. And it's it's not just, you know, it's not just the symphony and the Long Beach Museum and I city and the opera , but it's also Cal State, Long Beach and the University Art Museum over there and the work they're doing. And it's also. KALB And the individual artists that are kind of working. Some of the guerrilla artists that are out there and doing other work, you know, in the neighborhood. So I think it's really for for everyone. And I think a good 1% for the arts program really supports all and whatever we all end up deciding is the funding mechanism and the process will get there. That's not that decision is not done today. That will be done months from now with plenty of opportunity for conversations from there. So just thank you all again. And I'm going to open this up now for for public comment. So please come forward. Just say your name, please. For the record. I'm Victoria O'Brien, the executive executive director for the Arts. Council for Long Beach. I have the pleasure to work in District one. And live in District two. And I'm here just to say such a huge. And heartfelt thank you. Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor. Lowenthal, council members, city manager West and. Esteemed other staff and leaders here tonight. I could not be more thrilled. We are so appreciative. Of your leadership. In bringing this item forward. And by we, I mean. Everybody. Would you all. Stand? Everybody who is here for the arts tonight. Stand. But this is just to show you a small representation of what we believe the feeling. Is out there tonight on behalf of the arts and cultural community. In Long Beach. Thank you so much. This subject has floated ever since. The last 1% for the arts went away with the redevelopment agency. As you've. Mentioned, it's come up time and time. Again in studies and. Surveys in research. And so we're just here to say that we will do whatever we can. To support, facilitate help in any way that we can to add to the research, to facilitate discussions. We just want to. Continue to work with. You and to express our appreciation for this great step tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. Excuse me. Good evening, Mayor. City council members and city staff. My name is Antonio Ruiz, publisher of Plaza magazine. Com. I want to thank all of you for considering this motion to explore percent for the arts as a funding stream. I was a member of that Blue Ribbon. Task Force where. This very issue was discussed, and I'm glad to hear that even though it says in the motion public art, which is traditionally meant a lot of a lot of things to a lot of different people, I'm glad to hear that you're talking about really a very broad definition of it. We did discuss in that task force and in other meetings the the importance of including in that discussion funding to arts for arts, education for artists, community arts organizations, arts support resources, performance and exhibition venues, and a very long list of other needs that we've identified over over time. In addition, the task force recommended that an arts and Culture Trust fund be formed to receive the money and dispersant. And there are numerous models around the country that can be studied. I'm hoping that you'll take a look at those models. Craig Watson, who's the executive director of the California Arts Council and a former executive director of the Arts Council for Long Beach, has indicated that he would be happy to send us more information on trust funds because he, in fact, was the person who brought it to our brought it to the task force. Therefore, I want to thank you again for the motion and thank you for supporting the arts. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. My name is Mark Zeder. I own a gallery here. A lot of honorable council members. Mr. Mayor and Mr. City Manager. For me and many artists, this is the beginning of a very important conversation. Setting aside percent for art in Long Beach would be a great start. I know that spending money for art is a huge challenge and at the same time it's a great opportunity to make smart choice dialog between art community and the city government is crucial. Art is a nature given people's ability to self express themselves. We know it as visual arts, performing arts, literary arts. No matter how we defined a monetary need for self-expression, it has to do with helping people and people's ability to be engaged in creating art. Kids, youth. Adults and older generations. Hands on creating art. In the past, money for the art. Was often. Spent on things like public entertainment. Strange looking objects in the middle of our streets or on abstract decorations, questionable space enhancements, and many other things which in result did not help to activate the community in creating art at all. All good inventors, all good intentions were present. However, facilitating the development and maintenance of environments where art processes can be practiced is rarely addressed. Yes, I believe facilitating environment for art is the most important cultural need in Long Beach. Just to make things even more worth of study, one more element a basic requirement to engage in art are love for self-expression, money and space. All in once, please think about the answer to the question How many residents can engage in art right now? Who has that ability to afford space supplies and exhibition location at once? My answer is not enough. Therefore, the role of government support is imperative. Percentage for the art idea is a fantastic start. Myself and many of my artist friends would like to make ourselves. Available to all of you. For dialog. Let's sit down and work together as a language community. That cares about our cultural. Reality as a token of an effort to educate and inform. For over a year, every Sunday at a lot of gallery, we host the lecture at 3 p.m. and discussion called What Is Art? It is offered free of charge to anyone interested in the subject. And with you I think you have on your desk introductory page of that class. And of course, you're invited to join. Now lastly, I think society expects people to be creative, competitive and full of passion to work outside the box. Yet the very source of those abilities, the process of creating art, has been neglected. Let's change that forever and for better. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Mr. Moon and the council. Excuse me. I'm Renee Simon, a resident of the third district. I'm here to speak in support of the proposal to establish permanent, consistent funding for the broad range of arts offering in Long Beach. Written Art, performing art, painting, sculpting, dance, design, art. I've got a terrible cold and probably others I can't even put a name to today. As a member of the former redevelopment agency. During the nineties, we created the program of 1% for the arts. As it applied to the downtown area, developers were asked to set aside 1% of their total development costs to provide some kind of public art generally associated. Oh, thank you. Generally associated with their development project, we enlisted the Arts Council of Long Beach as our partner in helping to select and recommend projects. You can see some examples of the result in, for example, the lobby murals in the landmark Square Office Building, which was, I think the first such project, as well as various sculptures along Ocean Boulevard. That program established what can indeed be adapted as a workable model for another funding strategy. To my knowledge, we had no significant resistance from developers. The reason, I believe, was that as investors. In the city, they could see the value of this public art in increasing the value of their properties. Today's issue is somewhat different in seeking a funding strategy for arts programs in general, but I believe the concept is perfectly adaptable . By encouraging the expansion of our strong, diverse arts culture in Long Beach. You'd be increasing the value of investing here, increasing the city's attraction as an arts destination, and increasing the quality of life for all our residents as our city continues to welcome new development. Attaching a percent of that growth for art assures a steady stream of public funding and a strong message that Long Beach finds value in the cultural growth of our city. I would hope that you would consider carefully the two most important elements of such a funding strategy. And we're running out of time. So I'm going to let you finish with one more. Absolutely. Go ahead. One that it will provide consistent, dependable funds for our present and future arts programing. And second, that it reflects the Mayor and City Council's strong policy support of the arts in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you so much, Renee. Next speaker. Good evening, council members. My name is Daniel Calzado with Coldwell Banker, Coastal Alliance. I live in Belmont Shore. I want to thank you for the forward thinking of Long Beach and how. The Downtown Association of Long Beach has done a phenomenal job building the downtown area to capitalize on what we're talking about for the arts and give young kids a chance to show their art and create a career doing so, helping their lives for their entire life. I could totally see shutting down Pine Street for one month a night, having downtown Long Beach, Artwalk. It'll help the local economy. All the bars and restaurants. And it'll also be a family affair so local artists can sell their art and have bands playing stuff. I could also see a public gallery where local artists can exhibit their art publicly and also have the chance to sell their art. And if done properly, these two ideas could be cash positive. Everything I'm saying is all to attract vibrant, young, entrepreneurial millennials into this city, which will bring companies and people who want to live here for the rest of their lives. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kelly Torello. I'm the executive director of the Long Beach Symphony. I'm also the volunteer president of the board of directors of the Association of California's Symphony Orchestras Helping California's Orchestras Thrive. I've been a proud homeowner in District five for 18 years, and I've lived in districts three and four for a decade before that. But I work in District two. And as you know, the Long Beach Symphony is a world. Class. Ensemble, the only symphonic orchestra in the region and the seventh largest in the state of California. You may not know that we. Serve 50,000 residents of Long Beach every year, 10% of our population. From every single one. Of your districts that totals tens of millions of. Residents over our 80 year lifespan. And we're not going around. We're not going anywhere. We're going to be here a very long time. We are proud to be a major force in this city, in the. In the. City's arts and cultural offerings. We look forward to expanding and being part of your renaissance to meet greater meet the needs of more Long Beach citizens. And I wanted to thank you so much on. Behalf of the board of directors, our musicians. And the tens of millions of residents we will serve. Thank you for making this a priority. I personally am offering my services to make sure that our mutual dream comes to fruition. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Very good. You are fully supportive of this measure. With the exception of a couple of things. First of all, I wouldn't do a 1%. I'd go at 2%. Number two, for immediate funding, easy source will cut the mayor's travel budget by 50% and the council budget by 35%. Which is very much. I want to make sure that the arts organization and I saw some articles in the paper without engender doing this, that the arts organization comply fully with the California Public Records Act, as well as the Brown Act and keeping any records that may contribute to that. I'm a big fan of opera. And I really think we should push that. And a lot of people mistakenly mistakenly avoid opera because oftentimes it's in a foreign language. You can't understand it. Pavarotti. I think it was about five years before his death demonstrated that you didn't need to understand that language. After he finished, I believe it was don't quote me, I think it turned out and at the Met, he got a tremendous standing ovation, as always. And then he as an encore, segway into and without telling anybody, saying 11 and a half pages at the Hartford New Haven Railroad Times schedule, timetable, and no one knew the difference . As a matter of fact, it was the first time in the recorded history that a two and a half minute standing ovation over the fact that the 605 at a Stanford would be arriving 20 minutes late period. So it makes no difference what the language is. But I think we really should push for opera. Thank you. Thank you. We have a great idea if you guys saw the front page of the calendar section of the L.A. Times today. But Lobby Chopper was on the front page of the calendar section of the L.A. Times today. So. But fantastic. Their show right now is amazing. Next speaker. Good evening, everybody. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and the city council. My name is Jan Hauer and I'm the president of the board of directors for Long Beach Camerata Singers. We are your choral organization and I have both board members and singers here tonight supporting your measure. We're very grateful that this is being considered, and I think you'll find both economic return on investment when you do your study, as well as return on investment in terms of the city's reputation. So in closing, I would like to say we sing your praises for this measure. Thank you, guys, next week. Good evening, Mayor. City council members. My name is Tasha Hunter and I am currently on the board of Directors for the Arts Council of Long Beach. I'm proud to be on the board of directors and I want to first say thank you for making this a priority. The 1%, yes, of. Course, we would love more. But thank you. That is a tremendous effort. I also have the honor of currently working with Long Beach Community College, where I see so many students every day who are artists and to know that they potentially have a job in the arts because we're raising community youth that are so creative right now. I have one right here that is a young artist and I can say without the arts, there's a lot of energy that could be spent in a bunch of different ways that could not be could be in effective ways. But the arts help strengthen young people, all people. And bringing in Long Beach is so beautiful all the way around and seeing the joys in the arts that we have here, it will not only bring people from other parts of the community, other parts of the city, state, country. If we continue this, it will definitely be a premier destination place like some other cities that we have. So I want to say thank you and I want to let you know that Long Beach and art matters. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Sayan Supersu. I'm a member of the Arts Council here, the Language Arts. I also work with the Cambodian community and partnering with the Arts Exchange. So I want to give you a personal story about how art saved my life when I was growing up here in the nineties. If you've been around a long beach that long, you know what took place at that time. So I'm not going to go into detail about it. But for me, being involved with the art literally saved my life because it inspired me to stay focused in something creative. And now I'm back in the community to actually teaching high school kids salaries here with the art and partnering with the arts exchange to teach them how to be an artist and what careers they could have by bringing other artists in to present and do a workshop. So I'm here to push for the 1%. And, and and thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yes. Hi. I have some correspondence copies that I would like to submit for each of. It just reinforces what I have to say tonight. And my name is Paula McComb. I'm a resident here of Long Beach. I've been here many, many years. Grew up here. And of course, I am an artist. I paint abstract, representational art. And I happen to be a member of. Of the Cultural Alliance for Long Beach. I just want to say, dear Long Beach council members, please give some conscious consideration of voting for the arts proposal that's placed on tonight's agenda. Though our great city, Long Beach, has undergone many cuts in programs in the recent past due to California's economic challenges. I believe that it is now an optimal time to seek new ways of providing. A new portion of the city's budget back to the arts. Several artists in our community, including myself, have collaborated in groups through nonprofit arts organizations. Such as kelp. And we did this to promote many of our artworks over the last several years. The proposed additional funding to the arts from the city government will assist artists more readily in the creation and recognition of their art forms and that support spaces of audiences of Long Beach to. To appreciate. An experience. I'd lastly like to speak of my daughters. I had two daughters that have attended Long Beach School System and who are now young women. And they have gone onward to pursue careers in the art field. So there's no doubt. That our younger generation of artists will benefit from the establishment of a percentage to the arts policy as an ongoing funding source for the public. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And City Council members. My name is Kenny Allen and I'm the managing director of Evolve Theater. I'm here just to say thank you so much for your support for the arts. And and I have a short statement to read on behalf of the art exchange. And the 1% for the Arts Fund has historically had a huge impact on the amount of art produced in Long Beach and consequently improve the quality of life for its residents for decades. This new legislation will again guarantee that art be stitched into the very fabric of our city. One development at a time. The many enduring, successful projects and programs previously created around town with this fund are a testament to the importance of these dollars. And I am very grateful to the mayor and members of our City Council for their support of this endeavor. And that was from Nico Galvez from the Art Exchange. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hello. My name's Rene Tanner. I'm an artist and a resident here in downtown Long Beach and my professional life. Previously, before I moved to Long Beach, I was a public art project manager in King County, Washington State. I worked for an agency called For Culture, and I'm here to say it's one of the oldest and most established public art agencies in the in the country. And there's not a project that goes down that the first thing people say, whether it's a dump or a road or a jail, is where's our public art? And that's a little bit what we need here in Long Beach. I was shocked when I moved here that percent for art went away. And I'm so proud, Mr. Mayor, that you've reinitiated this concern and that it's on its way. It's going to happen. I'm one of the people that's like, if you really want to model, let's go for 2%. I tried to change my sign, but I didn't have an aggressive let's go for 2%. If you want to model and let's be realistic about what public art funding is about. It's 1% for the 99%. It's 1% for it brings the thinking of artists into every public endeavor, every construction dollar spent, whether it's a park, whether it's this or that. Artists are at the table and artists are engaged and they're bringing community identity to the forefront. This is how you do it. This is what a great city does, and I'm so happy that this is on the agenda. It's my mantra and I'm a believer and I'm back in you 100%. What do we got to do to make this happen? Final word. We got to have it in the civic center and it's not too late. We cannot build this civic center without a percent for art. And we can we can make it happen. Whatever you got to do, make that be the catalyst for this program. Bring it into play before we start construction on those projects. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor and city council members. And fellow Long Beach residents and creative community American Luna, Long Beach artist and volunteer member of the Cultural Alliance of Long Beach. I want to thank you for your support for this 1% for the arts. And from sitting here and here and everything sounds like we're all on the same page. And this is great news. I know it's early in the process, but you know that I would like that we consider all areas of art and that's been mentioned before. That it supports all the creative community, creative organizations. Also that it supports our youth. Our youth and our education is very important. I myself am a product of the Long Beach. Educational system and arts was fundamental for me. And having been away from from negative things in my environment growing up. So I'm here and this is for me, this is very personal. I would like to thank. The community. For their support and everyone that's here and that we continue this dialog that 1% is a start and that it's a necessity so that when the economy goes bad that it doesn't go. Hopefully the economy doesn't go bad, but that this doesn't go away. Instill this in our youth. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Brian Trimble and I am the interim director of the University Art Museum at Cal State Long Beach, which is in the third district. And, you know, I just wanted to say, since I'm representing Cal State Long Beach, that we have a university here in town that boasts one of the largest schools of art in any public institution in the nation. And as a university, we train artist. And, you know, the arts are an economic juggernaut and especially in Los Angeles in the southern southern California region. It is a multibillion dollar industry. And so what we do with this 1% is we're actually modeling for these kids and these students that are growing up here in our city, that they can work in their fields, that they can become artists, that they can be able to live their lives as creative people and make a living and contribute to their communities. So. And Long Beach State is a great partner in the arts to this city. And I really encourage you that when you approach this project, that you do tap into the expertize that is in this room, that is in our community, because we do have it here. And hopefully they will help you find your way in this. And I'm going to I'm not going to say if we do the 1%. I'm going to say when we do the 1%. Okay. And lastly, I just want to say, I really agree that we take this broad based approach to looking at 1% of the arts and that we don't just focus on something like public art, that we do bring in other elements, that we look at education, how we connect to the school districts. And I really want to make sure that when we do this, that we focus on bringing public art to every district in our city and that we don't just focus on the downtown area. Okay. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Maha AFRA. I didn't prepare a speech. I'm talking. From my. Heart. I'm the director of the resident dance company at Camp, the Cultural Alliance of Long Beach. And I'm the chair of the dance department at Cypress College, and our students go to Cal State, Long Beach. Okay. It's amazing school. I'm here to advocate for this education because I feel that is. Like the poorest member. Of the arts. We've been operating at SCAD as a dance company, not only dancing, but also offering classes to senior citizens, to children and to youth. Out of the grace of Mike Wiley, the owner and the volunteers of Camp. Please, please help so we can expand our classes and our community outreach, not only at Cal, but other districts. That's not only art, but also dance makes a big difference in people's life. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Honorable mayor and. Honorable council members. I Karen Dhesi, artistic director, producer of International City Theater. And I want to thank you for your support of this idea and your shared understanding of the arts and from what you've expressed and how much you also value what we all do. And I hope it's not just. Public art but fine arts and performing arts as well, because we all make a difference. I produced Produce. Five main stage productions and six education. Programs that serve. Every district. And every demographic from 4 to 104 in our great community. And I think Shakespeare might say. The arts. To think. Perchance to dream. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, bigger piece. My name is Cheryl Lake and I am a resident of Long Beach. I'd like to thank Councilman. Eric Garner. For speaking up in behalf of children. I have been involved in arts all. My life and in very much everything but painting. I'm not talented in painting. But I do understand that each person, each child has this inner ability to express themselves in art. They need that opportunity. I pledge my self as a volunteer to help in any. Way I can, and I do. Appreciate children and their their impotent help, their potent talents that are inside themselves that they would desire to express. Thank you. For the 1%. And please do not forget their children. Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Liza mitchell. Many of you know me, the founder of Artists Art Program and the curator for the Hotel Maya currently. I'm thanking you as well because it's economically something you guys are going to be able to translate from the arts to how it can be reality by this 1%. I look back on these six years. I've lived in Long Beach right. Before the. Crash. I moved here. And I was able. To do what I did. I just closed my 38th gallery and empty buildings. About two months. Ago because a vibrant artist was able to earn enough money to rent it and and live there and make it a studio. I did that with a small stipend of $250. A month from the. Dolby. And because I sold a painting, I bought a Warhol when I was in college for $900. And I sold. It for $55,000 when I got laid off as. The GM of a media. Company during the crash. So I would say something I want you all to. Think about as well, that you're not only investing in the intangible of your children's futures in the art, but I believe. Detroit got out of. Trouble by selling four paintings. It is something that if perhaps you had a commissioner that oversaw all of your assets. That you're going to be creating with this. 1%. It's something I. Really, really. Thank you, Mayor. You've been such incredible supporter, Suja and Linas as well especially. And thank you for bringing this up and following through. On your thoughts and your your beliefs in the years. That I've known you. I really appreciate. It. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Sylvia. This is our last public speaker. And we'll go to the vote. By Tom Stout live in the Wrigley Information File. Art is important. I was a shop teacher. My major was industrial art. Sort of a stretch, but it still was. There's a lot of mechanical arts that are pretty amazing art. Elementary, middle high school are like most art programs are suffering. Same as industrial arts programs. Money gets tight and music art are some of the first programs that disappear. And they're not the ones that come back very quickly. You know, so, you know, there's public art, private art. I mean, I like a friend of mine's a sculpture. He has three sculptures at Long Beach State. His name is James Russell. He's got sculptures in Cerritos. He's got sculptures in a city of industry. Matter of fact, he has them all over the world. Are polished stainless steel. They're beautiful. I traded them a car for one of them. He got divorced and he didn't have his wife got the car, so I built him a Volkswagen. So I you know, I'm not wishing them ill health, but. It's, you know, art's important. I mean, industrial arts is just important to me. I mean, there are if any of us ever have an option, go to the SEMA Auto Show in Las Vegas if you want to see rolling art. They are there. I mean, there was a stainless steel sculpture that you actually drove. It was polished stainless steel. It was amazing. How in the hell the guy had enough time to do it? I have no no idea. I mean, every piece had to be polished, then welded in place, and this thing was made up of a thousand different pieces. And I just wish vocational arts had as much support as the arts do. You know, Lombard City College, thanks to Miss Turanga. Cut out 13 vocational arts programs. I think automotive, when you figure you watch Barrett-Jackson, you have cars that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars. They're rolling pieces of sculpture. People value them. I value people that are craftspeople that can build and rebuild cars. I mean, they are truly artist. A friend just displayed a car at CMA GTO. The owner spent $400,000 on it. Why? Beyond me. But it was a good payday for him. So. Arts are important. Support them. You know, it's one of the first things to go. And it's one of the more important things. I mean, anything you can learn to do with your hands has meaning, whether it's woodworking. Auto body programs, whatever. So, you know, we'll this thing, you know, I hope it survives. You know, and there's a lot more people, you know, on the high end of this district that really support it. So do what you can. Thanks, Tom. Well, thank you. Thank you for that. We're not going to go out and go to go to a vote. Members, please go and cast your votes on the motion. Motion carries. Great. Well, congratulations, everybody. Again. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. I know you have been working on this for a long time, so thank you all. We'll all be in touch soon. Thank you. We're going to transition into our next our next item, which is item three.

Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2014. (Finance 2410) (Continued from January 20, 2015)

AlamedaCC_02032015_2015-1273

Okay. All those in favor I oppose abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. All right, next item. Recommendation to accept the Treasury report for the quarter ending September 30th, 2014. Don't go. Away. Sorry, but. Our office also manages the investment portfolio for the city in conjunction with the advice and consent of the elected city treasurer Kevin Kennedy. State law prescribes the requirements that we must that must be applied should a local agency governing body choose to invest unneeded cash and receive reports on those investments. Since the inception of this law, Alameda city councils have chosen to implement these requirements. The elected treasurer, Mr. Kevin Kennedy, chairs the Investment Advisory Commission Committee, which oversees the portfolio portfolio as managed by two investment advisors, Chandler Asset Management and Public Financial Management, Inc.. These two firms report their management activities on a monthly basis as required by state law. The Investment Advisory Committee reports quarterly on the results as stipulated in the law. The compliance with the investment policy and the cash coverage for the ensuing six months. While the state law states that the report will be made within 30 days of the quarter, close Alameda Sunshine Ordinance precludes presentation until the second month after the quarter end. Could you just explain why that is? I read it about six times and I can't figure it out. So quarter end September 30th, we don't get the data until, well, almost to the middle of September. And then by then, the 27 days prior to a meeting date has already elapsed. So we can't get it in until. End of October, beginning of November. Help me understand the 27 days I thought. When staff reports are due first within hours. So it takes it's 12 days to be publishing. But then it's. Okay. More time. So. So it's not just the Sunshine Ordinance. It's the time that's required to prepare to comply with sunshine. Or is that correct? Yeah. The the new sunshine ordinance merely added to the existing procedure. The existing procedure has always been 15 days before it was you had 15 days you published three days before was 18. Now it's 27. Thank you. I'm so out of it. Pardon me. Part of it is because every report, as you'll see as a review from the city attorney's office, the finance office, as well as the city manager's office. So a department prepares a report. It's got to be checked by three other people, three other departments before it actually gets published. Thank you. We have. Your privacy. You're literally trying to find a way to make it work and it it just doesn't work. Calendars and we count it and it just isn't going to make it. Well. If I may. Yes. It does. It actually, I'm going to take issue with that. It does work. It's what it takes to make sure everything is being checked properly. Yes. It's the price we pay for having a longer system and triple checks. And that's part of why this city has very few problems in terms of giant mistakes being made, in terms of what's in a staff report. That these continue. Almeida's statement of investment policy was last updated in February of 2014. The first principle therein is the is safety of the portfolio. The second is liquidity, quick access to cash and finally yield. That is what the investment earns. But all of these principles must also comply with the limitations listed in state law regarding the type of instrument, the credit quality and the length of the investment. All of these limitations are intended to preclude the use of public investments in risky investments over long periods of time. The city's statement of Investment Policy is located on the city's website in the finance department with a special button in the lower right hand corner. This report before you this evening contained. As contents are determined by state law as well in the staff report, a short summary of the of the portfolio is displayed. The investment types are listed for most liquid to least liquid. Cash we can get right away, cash that we would have to sell an investment in order to get the money. Market value is provided by the investment advisers and reflects the market on the final day of the quarter being reported. It is compared to cost or book value for review purposes only. A negative number indicates that the market value is less than the book value. The average duration is the average age of the investments. 146 days divided by 365 days equals 1.22 years. The limit by state law is five years or 1825 days. To measure the performance of the portfolio. The U.S. Treasury bill rate is used as a comparison. In this case, the report that you have before you the portfolio performed about 0.03% better than better than the Treasury rate. The exhibit contains the detailed investments by Instrument. The advisory firms report on credit quality and the return for their individual portions of the portfolio. We divide the portfolio into short term and long term. Public financial management manages the 1 to 3 year terms and the Chandler asset managers the 3 to 5 year terms. So they they have different instruments and they look at different pieces of the market and try to make sure that their portion returns better than the U.S. Treasury bill rate. So in this first quarter investment report. You will see that there is a big number, but a lot of that number is restricted in its use. It's not available for unrestricted uses of the general fund. The majority of this is debt service or other special revenue funds. Those funds are run. Are those funds not totally restricted? Are in the general fund and the internal service funds. Cash is managed on a daily basis with the goal of making certain that six months needs payroll accounts payable debt service will be met. Historically, Alameda has had two investment advisory firms. And both firms must comply with the investment policy, which includes the types of investment, the credit quality and duration as stipulated in state law. The policy also prohibits investments in companies which receive more than 51% of gross revenues from cigarets alcohol or gambling products. This chart is taken right from the report. And it it basically shows you. Where our money is invested and what the market value was. And the -237 says that the market value was less than the book value. Investments with bond trustees or those funds required to be held by the trustee by the bond covenants. The duration of one indicates that they are very liquid. The trustees are keeping them liquid in order to be able to meet any demands that we don't otherwise fund. The local agency investment fund is managed by the State Treasurer's office. The maximum investment that we are allowed to make in that pool is $50 million. Between these funds and cash on deposit, the six month cash needs are met. The certificates of deposit are a safe instrument for holding small amounts required to be maintained for a variety of purposes. The remainder are instruments managed by PFM, Public Financial Management and K.M. Chandler Asset Management. This quick thumbnail gives the reader a quick view of the elements of the portfolio how the book and market values compare the duration and the average yield. And that ends my report. Any public figures? No. Speaker. All right. Of counsel comments. Brody. I have a couple of quick questions again. Thank you for the report. Can you go back a little bit and talk about the investment policy? And I think you mentioned we don't invest in cigaret alcohol or gambling. So is that a counsel discretion or. Yes. So the investment policy is actually a document that comes before you each year and should be coming before you soon. Okay. And it is reviewed by Mr. Kennedy and I and the staff. And we look at any new laws that have been passed. Anything new that. Ella Fournier dead advisory commission is recommending or the Treasurers Association is recommending be included in those investment policies. We then look at those and bring a revised policy before the Council. One of the issues was several years ago that we were asked to create that restriction rather than making it. You cannot invest in any company that does that. It's just if they get 51% of their gross revenues from one of those products. So it's just those three. Issues that we try to restrict. Oh, but if we thought there should be more than the council because a couple of things you know, stuck out to me on that on that report on page six were actually investing in Walmart Global Notes. And that kind of disturbs me. You know, you look at the investment policy and it says, you know, we shouldn't be. I was at sea. Investments which serve only to enrich a few to the detriment of the people, will be strictly avoided. And I would hardly classify Wal-Mart as one that, you know, benefits small businesses, benefits workers, benefits working families. And, you know, I know Peralta went through this a while back. We have Chevron, you know, and Occidental Petroleum in there. And, you know, we're investing in fossil fuels. At the same time, we're all trying to sit up here and figure out how we're going to fight global warming yet, you know, we're we're helping fund them. So, you know, you're in the state. You know, the state doesn't invest money in gunmakers that actually produce and sell the guns that are banned here in California. So I'm hoping that, you know, has as we get to look at this bar, you know, we'll kind of be a little more socially responsible with, you know, where we invest our money. And before you answer that, that that really is an issue for the council. It's that's a pure policy question. The job for the investment people is to balance off safety of the investment versus return. If there are things you don't want to participate in. It is absolutely the council's right as an expression of the democratic process. But staff is not going to bring those forward as ideas. So, for example, there's a political question, and I'm not by the way, I don't happen to disagree with you on this question, but it is a political question to say Wal-Mart doesn't benefit working families , may not benefit the working families who work at Wal-Mart particularly, but many working families get low cost goods via Wal-Mart. That's a policy question. It's a value judgment. It's not appropriate for staff to intrude into those types of judgments. I don't think we want staff going down that road. So I would just suggest when the investment policy comes forward, that counsel bring up exactly those kinds of issues, which is appropriate in the council's role, but not in the staff's role. Yeah, I get that. But I didn't see, you know, cigarets alcohol and gambling in the investment policy is being restricted. So I was just kind of curious on how that how that came about. It came about as a policy action by the council, by the council many, many years ago. Well, I'll save that for another meeting then. Member de SAC. Well, thank you. I think it my take on this quarterly report, which is important, is always to take a look at, you know, how do I do my own? 401k And when I do my own 401k, maybe I'm not following the typical rules, but I'm always looking for security and safety to me over returns. So I'm always looking for things that granted, you know, will have really low volatility because even if it means I'm going to get, you know, small returns. To me, it's safety and security that that matters the most. And when I look at the instruments now tonight and as it has always been the case, your office, in conjunction with the city treasurer, from what I can tell, has always followed that. I mean, you look at the abundance of federal type of instruments, whether it's Fannie Mae or or Freddie Mac. I mean, or frankly, all the U.S. Treasury notes. I mean, you've got so much invested in cash. I meant. For the most part, I can't I can't remember if the U.S. if the buck was broken when we had a historic downturn. I can't remember. But it was a big issue. And and by that, what we mean is it's a safe holding. And and we are, for the most part, I think, investing very. So with safety in mind. So the take home, I think, is to make sure that we don't ever do what happened to Orange County in the mid 1990s when we start playing around with money and making, you know, an unwise and I know, you know, for all my years that I've been here, we've never been down that insight. But I think it's always worth when when this report comes up, it's always worth saying that over and over again so that we never do go down that path. I'll I'll the state laws that I referred to this evening or as a result of what happened in Orange County. Yeah. I will say, though, it is interesting to see who we are invested in when it comes to like long term instruments for the nonfederal agencies like Berkshire Hathaway. We've got a few things with Berkshire Hathaway, i.e. Warren Buffett. So it's it's it's interesting. Thank you. Thank you very much. There. Just a question on the book value versus market value is, is there a alert limit or an alert point? That were were tracking to see how close that should be. That's right. You mentioned the $237,000 under. And is that something that you track to or the Treasurer tracks to make sure that it. Doesn't grow enormous. Yes. Yes. The asset, the portfolio managers track that to make sure that they're within reason and there isn't an exact number. But if the market starts to drop, they're going to start liquidating. Can we get a little statement in that, at least in a conclusion, statement in the next report that says where our trend is that we're within the expected limits or we're going to recommend some action or take some action. I can discuss that with the investment advisers and try to include so it won't be in the next report. But if there's something if there's something that can be to address that, whenever it's feasible to put in, I think it would be helpful. Thank you. Remember ASHCROFT? No, I was just because I agree with the vice mayor. That would be interesting information for us to have it. At what point was the determined determination made to liquidate? Yeah. Thank you. And I'd like to add that as part of our quarterly investment report, it does provide that our city treasurer, Kevin Kennedy, reviewed the City of Almeida's Treasury report for the quarter ending September 30th, 2014, and found that it complies with the investment policy established by his office. So thank you. And do we have a motion to make? I'm level. Oh you move all second. I'm acceptance of the Treasurer report for the quarter ending September 3rd, 2014. A second. All those in favor. I oppose abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And our next item is 60.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary documents including any necessary subsequent amendments, with Tevora Business Solutions of Irvine, CA, for the creation of the Resident ID Management pilot system for residents to access multiple City of Long Beach services, at no cost to the City, for a maximum six-month pilot period. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0429

The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. And then we'll hear item 13, please. Item 13 is a report from technology and innovation. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the manager to execute a contract with Tavira. Business solution for the creation of the Resident ID Management Pilot System for residents to access multiple services at no cost to the city citywide. If a motion by councilmembers in Dallas and Councilwoman SA councilman's in Dallas. Thank you, Mia. I would like a brief staff presentation on this, if possible. Yes. I'd like to introduce Lia Eriksen, our new Our Tide director, to make a brief staff report on this item. Thank you, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. With the approval of the City Council, the Technology and Innovation Department will be engaging in a small pilot project to enable single find on access for two or more of the city's public facing applications. The ultimate goal is to create a community friendly, web based portal for accessing resident facing applications and to provide the one beach community with the ability to sign into multiple city applications while eliminating the need for a separate login information for different city services. This initiative stemmed from a city council action in late 2019 to explore opportunities to streamline resident connectivity and access to city services. In the aftermath of the COVID 19 pandemic. Providing simple and accessible digital. Services is critical for all Long Beach stakeholders and residents. This pilot opportunity is part of the city's 2021 Smart City Challenge, which follows the principles of a challenge based procurement, where city staff articulate their challenge without prescribing how they want to solve, and interested submitters have the opportunity to respond with a proposed solution. City staff reviewed submissions from. Multiple vendors before landing. On to More Business Solutions, which is an established leader in cybersecurity and identity and access management. Tibor is partnering with OCTA, an industry leader in identity management solutions for the pilot. The pilot services by two board business solutions will be provided to the city at no cost. The pilot period will last 4 to 6 months, at which point the city will make a determination based on pilot success and IDs of funds available with how to proceed. With that, I conclude my report and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much for that staff report. Leon. That was very helpful. I know I've been getting calls about this item in my office, so I really appreciate the staff report. Thank you. Councilman, sorry. When you think. That I just support the item. Any public comment? Mayor Garcia? Yes. Thank you. Yes, absolutely, councilman. Thank you. This comes from a couple of community input things that happened back before the pandemic, where we discussed the challenges for residents when they have so many different systems. I think that this, along with the potential to merge other systems into one, is really a way for us to have one footprint moving towards what I know the mayor was very, very supportive of, which is a 24 seven online city hall available to residents at any time to make requests and recommendations and reports. So I really want to thank the tie department and all of their work. I think that we are moving forward and making it more accessible for residents to interact with the city and the more accessible that we can be, the better we can provide service. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilwoman. Attorney public comment. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 13, please line up at the podium. If you were in the zoom, please use the raise hand feature now. In person. You have 3 minutes. Thank you again. Thank you for the staff report and for requesting it from the council. One of the things that was mentioned is that after the Orange County Transit Authority is one of the partners with this pilot. That's interesting. And what's more interesting is which specifically which public facing applications for the applications that have unique and sensitive resident data we're talking about specifically, are we talking about gas bills, talking about sewage bills, water bills? Are we talking about being able to call the city with the city calendar? You know, like, what is this for? But also, you know, I mean, the Smart City Challenge bid process, you know, I mean, there's a lot of different way to do these things. But but generally speaking, I mean, you know, why is it that this just happened to be the first real action coming out of the data privacy initiative by this very same city commission? Presumably, there's simpler ways hiring people. To achieve these same goals during the six month maximum pilot period. I personally, I think this item should be opposed and not even not even voted up. Thank you. Hello, Karen Reside. I'm the president of the Long Beach Gray Panthers. And all these technology issues that are coming forward, we have a lot of concerns and our members have a lot of questions about what's involved. We would definitely like to see more community outreach and discussion on these initiatives, particularly for low income seniors who don't have access to technology. They're being left out of so many things. The event that was held by the DLP, you could only go if you responded to a QR code and no information was distributed to the senior buildings and a lot of the seniors, only 10% of the people that live in the senior buildings have access to technology . So last I looked, I thought we were members of this community too. And all these things that are leaving out the seniors we are objecting to. And seniors need to understand more about what these initiatives are going to involve. And I'll be speaking later on the fire incidents. So, I mean, there are so many gaps for seniors and we need to start addressing them. This is just not acceptable. That concludes public comment. We have a motion in a second to approve the item roll call vote. Councilwoman Cindy has. I am. Councilwoman Allen. I'm Councilwoman Pryce. Councilwoman Price. I. I. Councilman Sabino. I. Councilwoman Mango. Hi. Councilwoman Sara. I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you very much. We have a fund transfer items 28 and 29.

A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of SCD 2U LLC for the vacation of a portion of the alley in Block 6, A.A. Denny’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle in the Seattle Downtown Urban Center, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314320.

SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_Res 31697

Agenda Item. Agenda Item 13 Resolution 316 97 Setting the public hearing on the petition of s c d to you LLC for the vacation of a portion of the alley in BLOCK six A.A. Dennis second edition to the City of Seattle and the Seattle Downtown Urban Center. According to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Code and Clerk file 314 320. Council Member Brian. Thank you. Washington State law requires that the council set public hearing dates for street and alley vacations by resolution because there are no substantive decisions related to setting this public hearing date. The legislation was introduced directly to full council. The public hearing for the vacation will be on September 14th at noon in the Sustainability and Transportation Committee meeting. Note that that is a special committee meeting. This impacts project at second and University, often referred to as two in you. Thank you. Are there any further comments about this resolution? I move to adopt resolution 31697. Those in favor of adopting the resolution code i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution as adopted than Sherrill signage. Next agenda item, please.

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Rent Review Advisory Committee, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission.

AlamedaCC_06062017_2017-4369

And it's because I'm only nominating it'll come back where council have the opportunity to them but we're not voting tonight so for that so for the nominations there's only there's three of the different boards and committees that we've been able to interview for it to date. Public Utilities Board are being nominating the reappointment of the incumbent and McCormick. Grant Review Advisory Committee. There are two seats open. I'll be reappointing the incumbent, Christopher Griffiths, as a tenant position and the housing provider of being nominating Sarah Murray. And then for a social service human relations board, there's one seat and, um, of the nominating Claudia medina. Those are the three. Maybe those are the three. I'm sorry. Okay. And on page four of. I don't think we have done the interviews on that one yet. Those we haven't. Finished interviews on. So, no, there's a lot of there's a lot of these that so and I do want to share that we always have a lot of people apply, and it's a tough decision. And those are my nominations. And now I will adjourn the meeting at 1242. But is it now? It must be Wednesday, June 7th. Thank you and good night, everyone. Thank you.

On the message and order, referred September 29, 2021 Docket 1011, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars and Fifty Six Cents ($1,768,378.56) in the form of a grant for the FY22 State Elder Lunch Program, awarded by the MA Executive Office of Elder Affairs to be administered by the Age Strong Commission. The grant will fund nutrition services for up to 284,394 meals for older adults in the City of Boston at $6.24 per meal, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed.

BostonCC_10202021_2021-1011

Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1011. Thank you. Do I get 1011 message? An order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and extend an amount of $1,768,378.56 in the form of a grant for the FBI. 22 state elder lunch program awarded by the Mass Executive Office of Elder appears to be administered by the Eight Strong Commission. The grant will fund nutrition services for up to 240 284,394 older adults in the city of Boston at a cost of $6 or $0.24 per meal. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The chair recognizes a very busy council is Braden, chair of the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities. Chair Berrien, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I think there's a slight correction. It is not 206 elders, individual people, elders. It is that's the number of of lunches that will be delivered, not the number of people we're serving. So I think that's a correction that we should probably. Make a fair point. We will, uh. That's. Yeah, yeah, whatever. Thank you. Thank you for the correction. Thanks for those paying attention. Just to provide a clarity sake that in the packet it says Docket 1011 will find nutrition services for up to 284,000 1390 for older adults. And that is actually about meals. Meals rather than individual older. Adults. Thank you. But I. Think we have ballooned the population of Boston significantly for that. Number. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. So again, we have this hearing on October 18th. And so we were joined again by Commissioner Shea and the administration and finance director Francis Thomas of age strong. And it's sort of self-evident this this these monies were a grant from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs, which will also provide funding for the city's elder nutrition program in addition to the previously mentioned Grant. At this time, it's my recommendation to the council that this matter ought to pass. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilor Braden, chair of the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities, seeks passage of Docket 1011. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose nay. The ayes have it. Docket 1011 has passed. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0849?

Recommendation to: 1) Adopt resolution calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the ballot of the June 7, 2016 Regular Election to adopt a Transactions and Use Tax for a period of ten (10) years, and also calling for the placement of another measure on the same ballot establishing a Budget Stabilization ("Rainy Day") Fund;

LongBeachCC_02232016_16-0185

Next up is item 12. Item 12 is actually four items. And so this is the resolution work that the city attorney prepared after last week's vote on the June measure. So there'll be four different votes. Madam Court, do you want to read the first item, please? Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to adopt resolution calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the ballot of the June seven, 2016 regular election to adopt a transaction and use tax for a period of ten years. And also calling for the placement of another measure on the same ballot, establishing a budget stabilization fund. Before I turn this over to the city attorney also, are we can we take public comment for all these in one or do you want to separate those out? You can do public comment for all four items at one time. Okay. Did you have a mr. City attorney general comment, if I. May, may or members of the City Council pursuant to your request on February 16th, this office has prepared the following documents before you this evening. The resolution, as introduced by the clerk, calls for the placement of two items or questions on the June seven, 2016 ballot as part of that resolution attached, or to ordinances that must be approved this evening by a minimum of six votes by the Council. And the ordinances will return next week for a second reading as requested. The first item is a temporary transaction and use tax on the sale and use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the city. The t, u t as it's called, will be for general purposes at a rate of 1% for six years, declining to one half of 1% for four years. The tax will sunset after ten years. The ordinance requires the establishment of a citizens advisory committee consisting of five members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council . A Draft to you. The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the State Board of Equalization, which will collect the sales tax if it's approved by the voters on behalf of Long Beach. Pursuant to Proposition 218, a majority vote of the electorate is required for the passage of this measure. Attachment B to the resolution is an ordinance which creates a budget stabilization fund or a rainy day fund. If approved by the voters. This rainy day fund would require 1% of any new general tax revenues to be placed into this fund to offset the impact of future recessions or financial hardships faced by the city. It also governs the expenditures from and the administration of this fund. The second item that you will be asked to vote on tonight is a resolution indicating the Council's priorities for the use of the t u t funds for infrastructure repairs and the restoration of public safety resources. The third item that you'll be asked to adopt is a resolution calling for the ballot arguments pursuant to the election code. And then the fourth item would be the resolution requesting the county consolidate these items for the city's election with the state primary election on June 7th of 2016. So to recap, the first item before you this evening is to adopt the resolution calling for the placement of the two items on the ballot, approve the language of the two ordinances, and adopt the ordinance requesting that t u t be administered by the body. The Board of Equalization. Thank you. Thank you. So want to go and do public comment on these items? Is there any public comment? Please come down. Please. Hello, everyone. Laurie Angel, Eighth Council District. I've come out pretty publicly on this and I did speak last time. My concern is that this measure came forward very quickly. First of all, there was infrastructure needs. I know that there's like a $2.3 billion backlog. It's been growing over the years. It's substantial. I understand that we don't have enough police services. Then we came up with a list of a laundry list of possible revenue changes. And then the next thing I know, we're doing a sales tax increase, which if I had my choice about what kind of tax to do, this would probably be the last one on the list, mainly because it adversely impacts business, it adversely impacts the economy. I would think that a measure like this that will impact business would have come before your Economic Development Commission first. This is a pretty serious problem and it's not very well thought out in terms of accountability. I appreciate that. Council member Mungo suggested a an oversight board, but it looks like an oversight in the language. It's supposed to look at revenues only appointments by the mayor. It doesn't really have any teeth. It isn't as though there is a distinctly outlying list of things to be done, and this is how we'll do them. It's going to be very difficult for the taxpayers to accept what you have on the table. I would like for something to be successful, but they need to see due diligence first. And I think it's unfortunate because just as with the last tax measure, it came too quickly that the public was not engaged. And I'm afraid that there are too many issues with it for to be successful. Rather than rush to get this on the ballot in June, it would be a much better idea to engage the public and find out what they would be, what they would more likely to support. Because I'm not quite sure that a sales tax is the answer. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, John. Each 3600 Pacific Avenue. After last week's meeting, a call to question, call into question your claims of having done polling that showed strong support for this. I'd like to know more about the details of that polling. I did some polling during the whole of this whole past week, polling my neighbors walking around the neighborhood asking people I could not find a single household that had any support for this sales tax measure. None whatsoever. And they all threatened to flee with their dollars if it does pass. So I think you're off the mark there. The other thing that came up was why are we not seeking parity with Signal Hill on our oil extraction tax? It's nuts not to be there. We're barely at half of what Signal Hills will attract and taxes. I found 100% support for that. People volunteered that idea to me. Did you pull that? Or did you try to sell them on a sales tax measure? A push poll. There are 95 million people permanently out of work in this country in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Well, certainly no huge percentage of those live in Long Beach, but I'm sure there are a ton of families here that are still smarting from the Great Recession. There's a good many families that are now single income families that used to be two income families. How do you think you're going to pay for this if they choose to spend their money in Long Beach? Not everyone in Long Beach. Has a lot of money left over to give to you. I also am concerned, as is Laurie Angel, about an exodus of Long Beach sales tax dollars to other cities, most especially Carson with its new mall. They didn't get a football stadium, but they had a plan B. They're going to have a freeway centric shopping mall that'll probably rival South Coast Plaza. Now, people who live on the east side of town where my sister lives are already flee with her money to South Coast Plaza. People on my side of town, I guess, are going to be welcomed and herded into the new mall in Carson. How is that going to work for you? Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Tom Stout. The last proposal that it was brought up this evening was a measure on poorly written, poorly implemented, didn't pass. And I guess, you know, you guys did learn something which was surprising that you can fool a lot of the people, but not 66% of the. So now you're down to 50.1, and there's a lot of people that can be fooled out there. Just look who's been elected to sit on the council. This is a this council represents less than 20% of the actual voters in the city. That's pretty sad. Now with regard to. The 1% sales tax, you know, get off the thing only saying $0.01 tell the truth. That's going to be 10%. If the state puts some attacks on there, they want 2%. The county wants a half percent. The college wants 800 million more. This unit, Long Beach Unified, wants more money. Where is it all going to come from? Do you ever look at the add ons on your tax bill? It's amazing. It's truly amazing. There's never, ever going to be enough money to feed this machine. You added something to this wording and maintain service and maintain general services. That's a free pass to spend my money on. Anything you want. That's pretty pathetic on your part. Not unusual, but pathetic. And it just cost too much money to run the city. Compensation is always going up. CalPERS says they want 10% a year starting, I don't know, this year or next year for five or six years. That's about $150 million at the end. Plus we got an $8 million a year pension bond. So that's even more. So we're looking at probably close to 150 million. And that's not even given any raises away, which I'm sure coming or there wouldn't be this 1% sales tax on the agenda. You know, we talked about community centers. The Kroc Foundation wanted to give us a world class facility in the Andrews District. Yet he and his staff and the people sitting over here dropped the ball. $15 million. At the bottom line was what we needed to come up with. We couldn't. Yet we came up with $24 million to subsidize the families pensions. 1983, that subsidy started and it went on for 30 years. Thank you, Mr. Stout. You know, talking. I don't talk to you. I just come up because somebody sees it on TV. I know you guys don't give a crap. Thank you, Mr. Stout. Next speaker, please. I echo and embrace what the previous speakers have said. I haven't listened to anybody I've talked to and listened for their feedback. All of them are opposed to this. We are in a very we're surrounded by other opportunities where people will spend their money. We'll miss those taxes. We'll miss those dollars. The only possibility that you can exist. In my view, passing this tax is to make it abundantly clear that 100% of the money will go for r0atis and streets. Nothing else? No. Rainy day fund. Period. And it really nail it down. You will promise to fire the city manager. Put those two things together and that would pass overwhelmingly. Period. And that's a good beginning to start with. I don't what proposing this. I'm not sure you people understand where your city lies and what is beckoning on the borders. Only a fool. Would make a major purchase within Long Beach when 5 minutes away they can make significant standing and a significant savings period. So reword it. Put it. Make it very clear that it goes for a-roads streets only. Period. Or highway roadways. Period. No. Rainy day fund. Fire. The city manager. And I'd even raised the specter of saying, if people want to reduce the number of council seats. I think we may be faced with something within the Mr. in his district that may have to close shut down. He may have to fire himself. Using the same logic that he fired. The Coastal Commissioner director. Now. He, of course, can blame it on previous council people in that district, but that would be an interesting conversation. So again, if you want to paston limit it to roads and highways via the city manager. At the basic minimum, you'll find no support for anything else. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment? Well, take this back behind to the council and close public comment. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. I just wanted to reiterate my support for this item. I know that I've said this before, but I know it's a it's a little bit scary of a thought for many people. But I truly do believe that this is something that we need to do and allow our voters to be able to make that decision as to whether they'd like to go forward with this. I want to thank our city attorney for drafting this material and this information. I think it goes step by step as to what we are able to do with these funds. Should we get them? I do this for all of our city residents, especially those in as many people know. I like to advocate for areas that certainly need it the most. I have the historic neighborhoods. I also have areas that have very high crime rates, and we need this opportunity. And so I will just continue to read or write my support. I want to thank the city management team and city attorney for drafting this again. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So I've said it before, and I've and I'm going to reiterate it now. I think this proposal is modest. It's reasonable. I think that, you know, I don't know what the voters are going to do, you know, but I think they should have an opportunity to help determine their fate. There's no question that, you know, our infrastructure is failing. There's no question that we need to double down on core sort of core public safety services and, you know, our emergency response times. But I don't know that there's any solution is the perfect solution. So I think this is modest. I think it's reasonable. I think it does have so far, it's it's demonstrated there is sort of broad support for this. So that said, I think we need to send this to the voters. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. How? First of all, I'd like to say I don't disagree with the speakers on many of their points. To Laurie Angell, if you went back and watch the videos several weeks ago, I made the very point you did. I asked staff, do we have enough time to educate the voters? They couldn't answer that. That's not within their purview. But. But here we are tonight. Here before us tonight. Politically, the easiest thing I could do is stand on a minority vote, go down in flames on a minority vote and grandstand on that. And a week ago, I just didn't have a good feeling about that. I don't sleep better at night if I'm on the wrong side of an eight one vote. So I read in the Longreach Business Journal and the Press Telegram the idea of an oversight committee. And so I spent the Monday holiday and all day last Tuesday working on that. And Councilmember Mungo brought it forward. And then after that was. Read. I asked the city attorney what would the next step be? And he said, it's going to I'll have to write that up and bring it back tonight. And that's where we are in terms of a need. I've said it many times before. There's no question in the Fourth Council District, we're the only district without a fire engine. We've had just anecdotally three houses that were total losses in my district due to fire. In terms of infrastructure. I have an entire western side of my district where only one street has been paved in 12 years. So we have some tremendous needs. But then the folks are cynical. They're not sure if we'll get this money, if they all get done anyway. All I can say to my constituents is new sheriff in town. We're going to address these things on an ad needed basis, not geographically. I really appreciate what the city attorney did. I think he's got a good proposal here. But I would just like to beef it up a little bit with a friendly amendment. And I'd like to read that now. This initiative will include a requirement that a citizen advisory committee will be formed to support the oversight of the expenditures from the proposed sales tax revenue. In addition, the Citizens Advisory Committee to have the Committee, the intent of the Council action shall be considered in any future expenditure of these moneys to ensure that expenditures are consistent with the intent of this body. Any budget recommendations regarding expenditures associated with the sales tax shall be presented to a financial to financial management for analysis and review. Financial management shall then prepare a report to the Budget Oversight Committee discussing the recommendations and their alignment with the legislative action that has been taken, by the way, of this motion. Further financial management will provide council with a quarterly report outlining the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee, as well as any approved budget expenditures. Although the action of this Council Mayor cannot bind these actions of future councils or mayors in regards to the expenditures of the proposed sales tax increase, this Council can state very clearly the intent of this action and expect that the public should hold accountable all future legislators in in regards to expenditures associated with these proposed sales tax increase revenues. And with that kind of language, I just think that's stronger than maybe we'd have with a different type of attack tack. So that's my motion. And Councilwoman Gonzales, would you be willing to accept that friendly, please? Yes, absolutely. I'll accept the friendly. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova and Councilman Richardson, you're okay with that as well. Thank you, Mr. City. Attorney. Mayor, members of council, Councilmember Cooper and all the I believe what you've added as the amendment would be included in the duties of the Citizens Advisory Commission, and I know that there's additional requests from staff in there to how we would address that is should this motion pass tonight? Our office would bring back a resolution, as we do with all commissions, establishing the Commission, and we would include your friendly amendments and requirements in that resolution. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. And and customer support. I'm very supportive of that. I want to thank you for for strengthening that. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I have and I agree with the amendment that was just made. I do have a question that's come up quite a bit in the last week or two, and I don't know who the best person to answer this would be, but what is the difference? Or can you explain the 1% versus the $0.01 issue? Mr. City, Terry? Yes, it depends on how you read it. It's $0.01 on every dollar or 1% of the sales. So you see it written both ways or either way. And so it in in the way we've presented it, it's the $0.01 when we have in parentheses 1%. And we've run that language by the Bowie, the Board of Equalization, and they're fine with that language. But it is it's one way or the other is a 1% increase. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Yes. I want to thank Councilmembers Hooper not for strengthening the language. I think that our intent last week was to ensure that the voters have the say and the oversight that is necessary. I know that we're working really hard to be more transparent in terms of providing details to our council items in advance. And I think that seeing the detail of the budgets and expenditures in advance is a big component of that. And I think that another component of that is ensuring that once the money is spent, that it was spent on the things that we said that it would be and that there are components of that that taxpayers have control over because they shouldn't need to get their information through a public records request. Many know that if you ask of certain things from our office, we put a lot of staff time in responding to those. But this actually puts that on the city staff, which relieves us at the council office level for providing the constituent services in the district better. So I appreciate the strengthening of the language. I think it's an important part of our ability to grow our transparency and accountability to residents and the citizens. So thank you for that. Thank you, Charlie, for doing the best practices. I know we talked about a a couple of different scenarios and I'm looking forward to that coming back with Councilmember Supernova's added language. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Casper Castro votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Item two, Madam Clerk.

A RESOLUTION adopting and approving an application for surplus federal property at Fort Lawton, including a redevelopment plan, and authorizing the City of Seattle Office of Housing to forward an application to the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in response to the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center.

SeattleCityCouncil_06102019_Res 31887

Agenda Items 436. Resolution 31887. Adopting a Peruvian application for surplus property at Fort Lawton, including Redevelopment Plans Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Council Bill 119 535 relating to the Fort Lunt Redevelopment Plan application, the committee recommends the bill pass cancel 1195 ten relating to land use and zoning. The committee recommends the bill pass. All of these items are interrelated. Thus we read them into the record together. So I'd ask Councilmember Mosquito. Is it mosquito. Or. Yes. Okay. That's a mosquito to describe them all. And then we'll vote individually if that works with you. That would be great. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited about today, and thank you for giving us a little bit extra time to describe these three pieces of legislation as they all hold together. This is really an incredible opportunity for us to celebrate the culmination after 15 years. This is about a community vision for affordable housing to be developed at Fort Lawton. Take in community engagement, planning and advocacy advocacy. As I mentioned for 15 years, that is now going to create a variety of homes, including homes for seniors and veterans experiencing homelessness, affordable rental homes for families and individuals, affordable home ownership opportunities for low income buyers. And with housing costs soaring and displacement crisis at a very high levels, as we just talked about, there is an intense need for these homes to be built now more than ever. And as we do so, we've talked about as we create greater density in the city, one of the most important things that we can do is also preserve and expand access to greenspace of the Fort Lawton land that we are talking about. 60% of this site will be dedicated to parks and open spaces, complementing the natural beauty of the recreational space that is right next door at the Discovery Park Park. This is wildlife habitat at Discovery Park. And the area that we all love to enjoy in Councilmember Bagshaw is district that will not be touched by the development at Fort Lawton's or will be complementary and all but up to the existing land at Fort at Discovery Park and this Fort Lyon housing will be a complement for the neighborhood. And by creating affordable homes in a very high cost area of our city, Fort Lawton will further expand our commitment to exactly what you were just asking about our commitment to fair housing, creating greater inclusion and advance opportunities by opening access to more families to be able to live in a very high cost area of the city that has previously been out of reach for very low income communities, especially for communities of color and low wage workers. So I want to underscore today is a win win. It's a huge opportunity and it's a rare opportunity to gain access to a significant portion of public land from the federal government. At no cost. At no cost if it is used to build affordable housing and services, especially for homeless. It's a win win for Seattle's highly competitive retail I'm sorry, highly competitive real estate market. And over the course of several evening hearings and I will over the last few years and especially five public hearings at the Housing, Health , Energy and Workers Rights Committee just this year, we've heard from community and interest in doing a couple of things. Number one is expanding access to bus services in the neighborhood and increasing school capacity. We heard from Scott and folks from Metro that they will engage in a process for looking at the frequency at which busses should come and how to potentially add stops or routes to the area. Over time, we've heard the desire for increased school capacity and actual school buildings for teaching. What we've heard from Seattle Public Schools today is that they will engage in that process of looking at additional facilities for classrooms. But the most pressing issue that Seattle Public Schools has right now is the need for more play fields. And that's exactly what we're creating here. We're also creating more space for wildlife habitat. And as you heard, I think from some of the folks who presented today and in previous committees, we've heard the desire to make sure that there's more space opened up to wildlife habitat and that we reduce our surface parking lot streets. In today's package, we have a really great amendment that came directly from the coalition that was working with Fort Lawton and in the neighborhood that they brought to our attention the desire to reduce the surface parking space by at least a third and to work with communities so that we could create more public space, especially for wild wildlife habitat, including the blue heron population. So I'm really excited about the proposed package that you have in front of you. The amount of work that has gone into making this these three pieces of legislation that you just heard described come together is really important. And, Mr. President, if I might, I think there's a few details as it comes to housing that I'd like to underscore for the population, for the community. That'll be very helpful. Thank you, Councilman. So there is. About five buckets that are critically important. Number one, homes for seniors. This is 85 supportive housing units for seniors, including veterans who've experienced homelessness. On site, there will be house housing, case management, residential counselors and housing stability plans created so that we're really not just creating a door and a roof, but we're creating the ability for folks to get stabilized. Thanks to the support of services in partnership with Catholic Housing Services and United Indians of all tribes. This is not just creating a house, but it's truly creating a stable home for folks. Again, that land will be at zero costs. The second bucket is for individual and family size rental units. These are 101, two and three bedroom apartments for renters earning up to 60% of the area median income. So you can imagine this is greater space for families to grow and thrive, opportunity for community, space for those tenants there . So it's not just going to be homes and units, it will be actual community space. And this housing is being developed by Catholic Housing Service. The land is coming at an extremely discounted price. The third bucket is homeownership opportunities. And having been a person who just went through the process of trying to become a first time home buyer, it is very cumbersome, it is very confusing and it is very stressful if we're going to create equity in this city. And by equity, I mean racial justice, equity, economic equity. We need to also create the ability for folks to buy their own first place so that they can create greater equity in their pockets, in their bank accounts, so that people can get out of generational poverty without universal guaranteed retirement security. Often the ability to own your own place is one way to pass on a wealth to future generations and to get out of generational poverty. As we create homeownership opportunities, especially for our low income communities, this is one of one way for us to achieve our commitment to equity. And this will create 50 to 3 bedroom townhomes and row homes for low income buyers. Low income buyers between 64 to $86000 a year for two or five person households. So that's our missing middle housing. That's our low income, middle income housing to create greater self-help so that people can create sweat equity and create opportunity to have true equity in their pocketbooks. Thanks to the folks at Habitat for Humanity for working on this portion. And again, the land for this type of housing will come at zero cost. Further, we have included into the requirements the requirement for green building standards, which will be required for all of these new homes at Fort Lawton. And finally, as we heard before, it's important to preserve access to green space and public, public play areas. So 60% of the 34 acre site for park will be maintained for parks and related uses. That's 13 acres for passive recreation, six acres for two multipurpose fields and surface parking lots, five acres for forest land incorporated into Discovery Park. And the existing building where they have the parks maintenance facilities. Parking lot will be reduced now by a third. Again, this land will be at zero cost for the open public spaces. So, Mr. President, with that, I just want to say a few. Thank you, if I might, and perhaps I should hold those. Thank you. Until other folks have a chance to say a few words. Thank you. Consumer Indicator Customer Bagshaw Thank you. Councilmember Mosquito just said about 90% of what I was planning to say. So this is going to be very abbreviated. But I do want to acknowledge our neighbors from Magnolia. Thank you for coming again. And I tried to get your questions answered at the committee and having people address them. And I have been involved in this for way more than the last couple of years, the five committees that we've had in Fort Lawton. And I really want to acknowledge Steve Walker. Thank you. And Emily Alvarado, Tracy Radcliffe from our council central staff that have worked so hard on this. But truly we are getting six acres more of active sports field. That's something that we negotiated with the Seattle Public Schools. There's going to be 60% more of this land that's going into parks. We're not taking more of Discovery Park, Fort Lawton is asphalted right now. We're going to be turning that into housing and a great portion of it is going to go into parks. As Councilmember Mesquita said, the whole idea that it could be an either or. And as I mentioned at the committee meeting just the day before that committee meeting, I'm hearing from folks that are saying, well, look, we've got a really good idea. Let's not do it in Fort Lawton and let's put it down in inner bay. Well, frankly, we are going to have to be looking for space all across the city and all across our region to even begin to scratch the surface on the amount of affordable housing that we need. And it strikes me that, yes, after 15 years, this Fort Lawton plan is one that we have negotiated with the neighbors, with the neighborhood, and I'm very pleased that we're moving forward with it. And I respect the fact that people say there's change. You bet there's change. Seattle is changing everywhere and no neighborhood is really to be swept. Created from this. We need to incorporate, hear the voices and be inclusive. And I believe that in this particular case, over 15 years that we have done that. I also want to acknowledge more Marty Marty Cloister, who was here earlier, I think he's left. But Habitat for Humanity is giving people the opportunity for home ownership, and we know that that's really the step forward for so many families. So I'm very happy to be joining you in this councilmember mosquito. Thank you for bringing it through your committee. And also, I want to acknowledge the United Indians of all tribes, Catholic Housing Services and all those who are helping us get here and bring this across the finish line. Thank you, Councilman. Make sure you have the questions or comments before we turn it back to Councilwoman Mesquita. Customers want. Thank you, President Harrell. I want to start by acknowledging that we are on the Indigenous land of the Duwamish people, and I'm specifically acknowledging that because we are discussing in this item in the next two items the disposition of Fort Loudon. As everybody knows, in 1970, courageous activists of the United Tribes of all Indians occupied the military base on Fort Lawton to demand it be returned as indigenous land. And it was through that struggle that the DAYBREAK Star Center was one. You know, in other words, the result of a resolute demonstration of civil disobedience. Once again proving that when we fight, we can win. And it was a big victory, even though the movement did not win all the demands that they had. Today, we are voting on approving a plan to transfer ownership of Fort LUDDEN from the federal building for the from the federal government, I'm sorry, to the city and to approve a plan to build some affordable housing there. I will, of course, be voting in favor of the these items because I support building these 237 units of affordable housing on Fort Lauderdale rapidly, as rapidly as possible. And to build more, there would require a new environmental impact statement, which could take years. So I support these agenda items. However, I think we also need to be honest that this has been for years and not not necessarily by the current council here, but in general has been a monumental missed opportunity that could have allowed us to build far, far more affordable housing than we now have in our hands. When former Mayor Ed Murray had city departments conduct the year for the Fort Lauderdale redevelopment, they studied different alternatives. But the maximum affordable housing they studied was 237 homes, which makes that our legal maximum at this stage. The mayor made that decision without consulting members of the public. I'm sure that after today's vote there will be numerous press releases from the political establishment doubting this Fort Lawton redevelopment plan as a triumph. Absolutely, we should celebrate every affordable home that gets built. But I think there's a danger that that triumphalism is such an exaggeration that it does not. It belies the bitter realities that we face in terms of our affordable housing crisis. For comparison, Fort Lauderdale will have 237 affordable homes on 34 acres. In comparison, affordable housing activists on First Hill in District three successfully won sound transit poverty to be used to build affordable housing on a parcel of Madison Street. That one parcel will have over 300 units, more than all of the 34 acres of Fort Lauderdale. My staff calculated the ratio and the first affordable housing project will have over 100 times as much affordable housing as Fort Lauderdale relative to its area. Similarly, the North Lot affordable housing redevelopment of the Pacific Hospital PDA will have more affordable housing than all of Fort Lauderdale. Similarly, the same housing affordable housing project in the central area near Pratt Park will have more than Fort Lauderdale. The list goes on, and all of those properties are on single parcels and not on the vast 34 acres that Fort Lauderdale sits on. So I will be voting in favor of this plan because I want every affordable home that we can get. But I also my message is for affordable housing activists that we should not let up for 1/2 in demanding as massive a possible expansion of social housing in Seattle. Because, you know, as we have these tiny projects heralded with a lot of fanfare, they are actually falling far, far short of what is needed to truly address the affordable housing crisis in Seattle. We will have to tax big business and the super rich to raise the funds that will be necessary to build social housing on the scale that is needed. That is in the many thousands every year, not in the hundreds. And we also need rent control to stop the continued hemorrhaging of existing affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Councilmember Mosquito. We'd like to cancel Ramon Gonzales, please. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to echo my thanks for everybody who has been working on this issue for for so long. I think one person who was left off the thank you list is the great Kenny Pittman who just retired last week. He has been instrumental along the way for continuing to advance the relationship between us and the federal government, to allow an opportunity for us to even be having these conversations around using the surplus property in this manner. And I just wanted to underscore that when you read about the efforts, the 13 plus year efforts around for lot and it's it's it's striking to me that when the city initially proposed development in this manner on Fort Lawton and that was in 2008 and the original proposal actually proposed 415 units of affordable housing. We're now down to about 50% of that. Part of that is because of construction costs and because of, you know, so are other realities related to the process. And I think it's really unfortunate that we are now here over a decade later in a situation where we have half the amount of housing units we could have had in 2008 had we been able to proceed as we wanted immediately before the recession. So I think this is a while we're well, we aren't getting those full capacity of housing units that I think all of us would really, truly want to see in this in this uniquely situated neighborhood. I think it's important for us to acknowledge the work that has been done to allow us to be in a position now to accept the 200 plus units of affordable housing that will certainly meet the needs of many families in the in the city of Seattle. So I really want to thank Councilman Mosqueda for bringing us across the finish line and Councilmember Bagshaw, for your dedicated service to District seven, to be in a position where you're finally seeing this over the finish line must feel pretty tremendous. So congratulations to you as well. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Customer Worse. I will be a little bit brief and I'll probably be showing my age here, but some of us were there in 1973 when we took over DAYBREAK Star, and we didn't actually have the movement, but we did it and we got it done. Anything else? I want to thank the CEO, Michael Tully, who just walked in, who is the CEO of United Indians and also my cousin, always involved in Indian Country and the struggle for Native American people. But I want to add that this goes further back than 2008. Back in 2000, when we were trying to build the People's Lodge, which would have included housing units, a cultural center, an elder center, and more low income housing and medical services for not only native and urban people, but other people who would require those services. Those neighborhoods fought. I was on the board for almost 30 years with the United Indians and work with Bernie White Bear, and I was also legal counsel for 15 years. Those neighborhoods fought us tooth and nail for 13 years. So the historical perspective is this well before nine well, since 1973. Our efforts that we did in 2000, what we tried to do in 2008, I am proud to sit here today and thank customer Mosqueda and Councilmember Bagshaw that we kept at it, that our compass was clear about what we wanted to do with that property. You've heard me say this before. Sometimes just because you chant, When do we want? We want it now. That's not how the world works. You have to keep marching forward and clear and what you need to do for the community. And sometimes you don't get everything you want, but you get to that point where you can actually take a vision and have it transferred into brick and mortar. So I want to thank Councilor Mesquita and Kenny Pittman and again, Councilmember Bagshaw for being relentless and working in the district and Michael Tully and the other CEOs that have worked before him, that we worked hard on this. And also Michael Reichert, a Catholic Community Services. Liz Taylor Cowlitz I could go on and on and on. This has been a piece of property that the tribes have worked on for many decades. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Whereas, Caspar, I'm a skater. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. And you're damn right we're going to send out a press release after this, because this has been 15 years in the making, and that does not make anybody establishment. But that means we're celebrating a small components that together, woven together will actually help create more affordable housing throughout the city. We're sending out a press release because we're quite literally demilitarizing a parcel of property that was publicly owned that should be put to the public's use so that it can be used for the public good, not a military base. We are absolutely celebrating the fact the. We're creating affordable housing for seniors and for vets. We're creating apartments that will be one, two and three bedrooms so that more families can live in the city. We're creating first time home ownership options, and we're preserving 60% of former military land now for parks and public spaces. Yes, we are celebrating. And yes, we also know that this is one small tool in a very large toolkit that we need to address the crisis of housing in every single one of those opportunities that we can to build on public land. We will take advantage of it. Last year, with the first piece of legislation that I passed was making sure that every parcel of publicly owned property that is not being used for the highest and best use that we've determined is surplus and no longer needed by the city. We should preserve that public land and stop plugging budget holes and actually build affordable housing. This is an extension of that commitment on every parcel of land. We should be working to create housing and community services and the ability for more people to live in the city so that more working families can have the chance to grow , live and thrive in the city so that more seniors have a place to call home and don't get displaced. So that vets who are sleeping homeless on our street have a place to call home. That's what we're celebrating today. I'm incredibly proud to be working with our colleagues to get this over the finish line. After 15 years in the making, after five committee hearings this year, after the opportunity to work with those who wanted more space for the blue heron to get rid of surface parking streets. We are going to celebrate this and then we will keep working and organizing. We also know that when we reduce the cost of housing by building on public land, we make it more affordable by 15%. That's a smart use of the public's dollar. This is a smart use of public land. We are also making smart investments for future generations and for our elders. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who helped to make this day possible. I'm looking at Director Walker and his team, Emily Alvarado. Thank you to the Office of Housing. Thank you to the folks at the United Indians of all tribes for being there from the very beginning to help advocate for turning this military land into better public space. Thank you to our partners at Catholic Community Services and Habitat for Humanity at the Housing Development Consortium and so many others from the housing world who've been advocating for this for so long. And thank you to our team, Traci Radcliffe and Kettle Freeman from central staff for your ongoing tenacious work on this, along with Kenny Pittman, who Councilmember Gonzalez mentioned earlier. He retired last week. He got to see this over the finish line. So we are so happy that he was able to celebrate that committee vote and we wish him the best in his retirement. Finally, thank you to my staff, Erin House, who has been working on this over the last few months to really make sure that we had all of our eyes dotted and t's crossed and we won't give up. We know that we need additional housing. And we also hear you in terms of the need for more transit and potentially schools in the future and will be there to work with you to do that analysis. So, yes, look for that press release because it is coming and congratulations to every one of our colleagues for all of your work and the community at large, for your tenacious work to turn this parcel into housing. Thank you. Councilmember ROSQUETA, I think that's a good cue to vote on. We're going to vote on three pieces of legislation. We're going to take them individually or do the resolution first. And so those in favor of adopting the resolution that resolutions 31887, please vote I, I oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it on council bill 119535. Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. PACHECO All right, so on. I beg John Gonzalez Herbold, I Suarez Ms.. Gather by President Harrell. I know I've done a bunch of. O'Brien's a lot, but I'm going to say I. Myself, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. And regarding council bill 119510, please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. I did go sarwan. I begged sr Gonzalez Herbal Juarez Mascara. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor not opposed. The bill passed. And Cheryl sign it. Please read the next agenda. Item number seven.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA), with Eddie N John #1, LLC, a California limited liability company, and Youna Kim, a Sole Proprietor dba Eddie's Liquor #1 (collectively "Seller"), for the purchase of certain real property located at 6841-6845 Atlantic Avenue, Assessor Parcel Numbers 7116-019-029 and -036 (Subject Property), in the amount not to exceed $9,591,540; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for a Lease between the City of Long Beach and Eddie's Liquor #1, for the use of the Subject Property; Adopt Negative Declaration ND-02-19; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Economic Development Department (ED) by $9,591,540, offset by the sale proceeds from the Broadway Block Site B and transfer of HEAP grant revenue from the Health Fund (SR 130). (District 9)

LongBeachCC_02052019_19-0092

Report from Economic Development and Health and Human Services. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary with Eddie and John number one and Eddie's Liquor Number one for the purchase of certain real property located at 684136845 Atlantic Avenue in the amount not to exceed 9,000,591 540 and execute a lease between the city of Long Beach and Eddie's liquor. Number one for the use of the subject property District nine. I think I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a result of at least over a year of negotiations to try to impact our homelessness issue here in the city of Long Beach by creating not only a winter shelter or rainy day shelter, but a year round shelter. We've been working very closely with the property owner there, as well as Councilmember Richardson in the neighborhood. So at this stage, I'm going to turn this over to our director of Health and Human Services, Kelly Collopy, who will be joined by Mary Torres with John Kiser, the Director of Economic Development. So Kelly. John Castle. I'm sorry. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. On July 24th, the Council approved an item requesting a city staff report on revenue options to address local homelessness and housing shortages in the city. And in August, city staff presented a strategy to create additional housing and respond to homeless issues. On that night, multiple council actions were taken and those included, among others, an analysis detailing a strategy for identifying potential revenue and a plan to use recently received state funding toward the purchase of a facility that would be utilized as a year round homeless shelter. The subject property that we're discussing tonight was used in the past as a winter shelter by the city. This is located at 684136845 Atlantic Avenue as a potential site for the development of a year round shelter, as well as a long term plan for the state of the art village style campus for homeless services and support. The subject property is 99,000 square feet total, with three buildings located on the property of a total of 28,000 square feet. The property is located adjacent to the Los Angeles Riverwalk. Southern California Edison, right of way and adjacent property owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Staff has negotiated the sale of the property for an all inclusive price not to exceed $9,491,540, which includes the land and improvements. The liquor license for the. The existing liquor store. Inventory, furniture, fixtures and equipment. Goodwill and compensation for relocation benefits, which were acquired by state law. As part of the sale, the seller has requested to occupy the front structure. The liquor store as a lessee from close of escrow until January 5th of 2020. Upon termination of the lease, the third party will conduct a review of the inventory and city will compensate the seller for an amount not to exceed $400,000, which is included in the purchase price that's being recommended tonight. The year round shelter is is what we're looking at as the first stage of this project. City staff, including the Health and Human Services Department, will work with the community and partner agencies to develop a case study and example for a village style homeless services campus. On November 13th of 2018, the City Council authorized the city manager to execute an agreement to receive and expend grant funding from the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council in the amount of $9,387,420 for homeless emergency aid program. Continuum of care allocation of the amount awarded 8 million is designated for a year round shelter and has been appropriated in the health fund in the Health and Human Services Department. So to cover the fiscal impact. The sales expense includes the total acquisition cost of the property, which will not exceed $9.5 million. Approximately 9.4 million approximately is the all inclusive purchase price of the subject property, with approximately $100,000 anticipated for acquisition related costs. The funding sources that staff has identified for this acquisition includes $8 million that were appropriated in the Health and Human Services Department as part of the heat funding grant and staff recommends funding the remaining 1.5 million $1,591,540 from proceeds from a recently closed sale of the Broadway block property site B, which is located on Broadway and Long Beach Boulevard. In addition, there will be less revenue associated with the liquor store for the remainder of the year of $6,000 per month, and that will accrue to the general fund in the Economic Development Department to help offset some of these administrative costs associated with the transaction. Finally the recommendations staff recommends approval of the purchase of 684126845 Atlantic Avenue and the execution of a lease for the subject property. The recommendations are as follows Authorize the city manager or designee to execute any and all documents necessary, including a purchase and sale agreement with Eddie and John Number one LLC, a California limited liability company and unit. Kim, a sole proprietor. Otherwise known as Eddie's Liquor. Number one for the purchase of certain real property located at the Subject Property Address, and the amount is not to exceed $9,591,540. Additionally authorize the city manager as designee to execute all documents necessary for a lease between the city of Long Beach and Edy's liquor number one for the use of the subject property. Recommendation three adopt a negative declaration and be 0 to 19 and increase the appropriations in the general fund in the Economic Development Department by $9,591,540, offset by the sale proceeds from the Broadway block site B and transfer of hip grant revenue from the health fund. At this time, I'd like to conclude my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Why don't we? Is is is Ms.. Collopy also adding to this or it just that piece? Good evening. I'd like to share a little bit about ah the shelter opportunity. Um, so within the Everyone Home Long Beach Task Force report, we determined that there is a need for approximately 500 shelter beds across our city. Within that report, the report, you know, made a recommendation. And really a goal is to build at least 200 shelter beds and expand in the city in the next few years. And this shelter, we're looking to have 125 beds, which really creates a lot of progress for us. It would be the first municipally owned year round shelter that we have had in the city of Long Beach for many, many years. And the site has operated as the winter shelter. So that within the shelter what we see is a space for adult male and female adults. There's opportunities to have families are on the street. Well, it's not a family shelter. It's an opportunity for family to to participate, to come in until we can connect them to a family shelter system, provide jobs or a job and employment training, case management. There'll be, you know, showers and the opportunity for meals and just really the host of social services that are needed to be able to connect people to supports to help them to be successful. So we are we're very excited about this opportunity is certainly need within the city. And I would like to say that I've had an opportunity to talk to many from the Hamilton neighborhood in the surrounding. And we've had very just really kind conversations and very good questions. And I truly appreciate the many that I see here in the audience as the support. But and that also I appreciate, you know, all that's been able to do that we've been able to have in the conversations and to express concerns and to be able to address those as well. So with that, I conclude my report and I'm open to questions as well. Thank you. I know we have we do have a motion in a second. I'm going to make some some comments as well. And then I'm not sure if. Councilman, did you want to go do you wanna go to the public first? Okay. And then we'll turn over to Councilmember Richardson. So I want to I just want to just begin by just noting that I think we're all aware that homelessness is a statewide crisis that we're all facing across the state of California. It is certainly the the number one challenge, human challenge that we face here in the city of Long Beach. And I think if you talked and spoke with most cities, they would all say the same. This is not a city. This is not a challenge that just exists anymore in urban communities. But it is up and down the state of California, Long Beach, as a as a city, I think as a city council has also identified this at the top of our list of something that's important to us. We understand the incredible need for shelter, for people to have access to not being on the sidewalk. Honestly, some of the the signs that are there. And we're very much committed to it. And I want to just begin by by noting a few things. I'm really proud that that the City Council has adopted and passed numerous initiatives around homelessness. The Everyone at Home Task Force, which was referenced by Ms.. Collopy, was a a almost year long process that was led by Jen Connelly at Cal State Long Beach. And I see Andy Kerr, who was a vice chair and other members of that task force that were here as well. And a big part of that task force was setting out targets and also talking about the larger goals of how we solve homelessness across our community. One of the key components of the task force recommendations, as was also and I mentioned this at the state of the city about a year ago as well, was to ensure that we have we set a goal of trying to acquire 200 more shelter beds across across the city. This is something that we we know as a city, we we have needed. But it was also good to see that reinforced by the professionals, the service providers, the academics, including folks that have experience homelessness, which are also on the task force. And it was it was good to see that a recommendation. So tonight's proposal gets us to 125. And I think that's a huge step forward in looking at those recommendations and seeing the importance of those as well. I also think it's important to recognize, because we're back at the table again this year, this purchase is almost going to be done entirely because the state of California and the governor, Jerry Brown, at the time provided significant resources to the city of Long Beach, about over $10 million to do additional work on issues around homelessness. I believe, Mr. Hoppy, that 8 million of those dollars is going to actually purchase this project. Is that right? 8 million. That's true. And that and I want to and I and I want to thank and I think it's important I want to thank the Big Ten Mayors Group which sponsored those those resources and that legislation and lobbied the governor to provide this additional funding for cities. I say that because, well, we were a great recipient of those dollars, actually allowed us to. The buy the shelter or this land. We're back at the table this year. And we're hopeful that that the governor currently and the mayors are back lobbying for a second year of this type of funding so that we can continue to do this kind of work. And so I'm just grateful to the leader of that group, which was Darrell Steinberg out of Sacramento, who was the essential key in leading us and getting this additional funding for this purchase. And again, I want to and I do want to thank this city entire city council for their commitment to this issue and for all the work that's been occurring at this dais and at the staff level. But I especially want to thank, first and foremost the North Long Beach neighborhood and the community. What I have seen from the north Long Beach neighbors and the community, honestly, has been so moving and so touching to see how you have all stepped forward and embraced what will be a campus that is going to be there to help people and to help those people in our community that that need our help so desperately. And you see this happen in other cities, in other places. And I've seen the reaction that other neighbor neighborhoods and other cities and other communities have had to similar projects. And what you all have displayed is is inspiring. And I'm so proud I'm so proud to be mayor of a city where folks like all of you are stepping up and being part of the solution. So thank you for all the work and the advocacy that you have all done. And I also, of course, as part of that, I do want to thank Councilmember Richardson. It is not easy for elected officials to say, yes, we welcome these facilities and provide leadership on these on these issues. And I think he's done a stellar job of working with all of you and the many meetings that have happened for this site. And I want to thank him for that as well. And I also want to thank the county of Los Angeles and Supervisor Janice Hahn, who is going to be a great partner in ensuring that there's funds to maintain the actual operations of this site as we move forward. And there's a big commitment from the county on that issue as well. And so there's a lot of thank you that will go around tonight. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done. But I think that it's important that we recognize all of the folks that have been involved this, this, this, this body as a city council, but also the staff. You guys have done a great job of getting us to this point and this negotiations as well as I want to thank the property owners who have also done a great job of being partners with us on this site. And so just thank you to all I know. We have a big discussion tonight, but I am really proud that we're here at really what is a turning point, I think, for our ability to try to find solutions to this real challenge. So thank you. And with that, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'll say. You know, it's hard to say thank you right now because this is the beginning of a large, large undertaking, a large endeavor. And I don't want to minimize that. I want to be completely honest with North Palm Beach community. And I want to thank you for, frankly, stepping up and allowing us to even begin this conversation. So thank you to all the leaders who have talked with us, met with us and given us the preliminary okay to even get started with this conversation. But by no means is this the end of the discussion. This is the beginning. So have a lot of comments and a lot of questions. Many of these questions are questions that were raised to me, and I think that they should be elevated here at this discussion, even if just so much as to save a question that you might be asking at the dais. Maybe we can answer some of those questions here for you today. So I just want to acknowledge all the different partners and residents who are here, you know, to get their questions answered, to express support. And all the partners have really stepped up to help organize this effort, both conducting outreach on next door to let people know that this is happening. People who have talked to their neighborhood associations. I see signs that says beds, not sidewalks. Those in print themselves don't acknowledge the the United Way folks who have stepped up to really help drive this conversation. You know, recognize in the work that's happening around everyone home, which is sort of our our hallmark for our homelessness campaign here in Long Beach and a lot of the work that's happening around our economic inclusion work . I see a lot of intersectionality here. A lot of the efforts that we're working on in the city are aligning to really talk about this conversation of inclusion and access and working together. And that's really what I see here tonight. Okay, so a few things. So let's see where I want to start here. Okay. So this has been an ongoing conversation for about eight years in North Palm Beach. This is not a new conversation. I began eight years ago when my predecessor, Councilman Neal, took on the winter shelter when the site was at the old West Coast Choppers site, the Jesse James site. And then for whatever happened, it moved to North Long Beach and we partnered with the rescue mission and had been there for a number of years. So this has been an ongoing conversation with North Long Beach community. We all know the mayor's done a good job at sort of underscoring the stakes here with the homelessness this homelessness issue. We've recorded more than 1800 people living on our vehicles, on our streets or in transitional and emergency units. But who are these people? Who are we actually talking about? There's a lot of expectations that it's all, you know, drug addicts and people with mental health issues. That's a part of it. But the great deal of homelessness is actually caused by poverty, and it can impact a great many of us here in Long Beach. So who are we talking about? So currently, half of our Long Beach residents are rent burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Half of the people who live in Long Beach, a quarter of the adults in Long Beach working full time, live within 200% of the poverty line. So these are our neighbors. A quarter over and over 20,000 Long Beach households are precariously housed. We have overcrowded units. We have agent, aged, housing stock, a lack of new and affordable residential development. And all of that is at the root. These are root causes for the homelessness in the housing insecurity issue. Are homeless population includes working families and includes college students and includes veterans? And these are very uncertain times. You know, we just watched, as, you know, as a number of federal employees all around the country went 35 days without payment. Right. So the reality is this can happen to anyone. And it's a very complex issue that can affect anyone. The cost of living is high. Our vacancy rates are low. The social services net is feeble, limiting our ability to support every homeless person in Long Beach. So we had a conversation with some of the Hamilton neighbors where we talked about, hey, this might be a possibility, a reality about six months ago. And then when the when the property owners said, yes, we're willing to move forward with the whole kit and caboodle, the liquor store and everything. We sat down with them again and said, this is a possibility. Can we expand this conversation and sort of include some of the larger District nine North Long Beach leaders? We did. So we expanded the conversation to the North Long Beach Leadership Council and some of our education leaders like like you would walk, Jolene Talk and Megan Kerr. We had a conversation at our District nine field office, the old fire station. This included the District nine commissioners and every neighborhood association who was invited. The Leadership Council was invited to this conversation. Kelly Colby was there, a director of health department, a director of economic development was there. And we had a honestly, a really inspirational conversation about really about what it needs, what we need to do to actually address this issue. And then last night, you know, there was a lot of chatter on next door. And fortunately, one family stepped up and said, you know, can we talk? And we reached out and we said we set up to go over to their home last night. And so I want to thank the Bass family for opening up their home. We went to their home last night and talked for about 2 hours. Kelly Colby joined us. John Keisler joined us. We had a great old time. We talked about a number of things. We found a lot of things we had in common. But the main takeaway and we'll talk about some of the things, but the main takeaway from that discussion was really centered on honesty and building a foundation of trust with this community. There's a reason why not a lot of neighborhoods are stepping up on this issue. And in North Lawn Beach. I'll tell you, I was reminded last night and over the course of the last few weeks, I was reminded of a number of instances where we did not deliver for North Long Beach in the nineties, when the police department was contracted out to the sheriff's wharf, Long Beach felt abandoned. In the year 2010, when our rescue was cut north Long Beach excuse me, Mr. Mayor, it was really hard to focus in 2010 when the police when the fire rescue was cut North Long Beach felt abandoned. These things we need to address and actually talk about. Frankly, for the past eight years, we've had this conversation about homelessness. In the context of the emergency shelter. For eight years now, North Palm Beach has welcomed busloads of individuals from around town and sheltered these individuals through the winter. Both districts, nine and eight, have done this using the Atlantic Farms site for six out of those eight years. Now the problem with it, and they've done it willingly, the neighborhood association stepped up if talked with folks. We worked with the health department has done a great job. But the question is never asked and the opportunity was never been given to these residents is a question that many neighborhoods take for granted. That question is, if a shelter were placed in your neighborhood, what would your neighborhood need to make it successful? And because we've been operating every year on an emergency basis, North Long Beach has never been asked that question. What does North Zombies need to make this shelter operation successful? And so by moving forward tonight, we get to finally ask that question what does North Palm Beach need to make this work? Frankly, this is not a lot just at stake for North Lawn Beach. There's a lot at stake for the whole city. Here's why. This is a test everybody's watching. There are key performance indicators that we need to monitor. Is the property value in the neighborhood going to increase at a faster, slower rate than other neighborhoods? Everywhere is increasing is an increase at a faster, slower rate if we add permanent housing support. What's the impact? How do we track public safety and the investment, the commitment to public safety? How do we track that key performance indicator? Right. The amount of homelessness in and around the shelter that counts. How do we track that key performance indicator? If we can demonstrate that this can work by connecting with wraparound services and really making the investments necessary, then maybe we can explore additional sites. The report tells us that there were, you know, 200 somehow shelter beds needed. We have 275 in the city. It's an additional 125. We're going to need 7500 more shelter beds in the city to make this work. So this isn't the end all be all solution for the city, but it's at this is at stake for all of us to make sure this works. So in that conversation with the residents, a number of a number of things came up that are that we need to talk about. So by approving this, this allows us to do a few things. So one, we're able to acquire and cancel the liquor license. There've been a lot of questions about, yes, you're acquiring liquor license. What's the intent? The intent is to surrender it. It will not be transferred to another site. The liquor license is being acquired. There's been a prior to the North Flambeaux committee for a long time. It will be surrendered. That's that's the goal here. We're not just committing to a shelter. We're committing to doing the hard work and investigating wraparound services and the quality of life mechanisms needed to make this a center that works not just for the homeless community, but the community at large in the north of 91 area that is, you know, has issues in terms of access to open space and other things. So we're going explore those things and partnerships with L.A. River, partnerships with some of the L.A. County equestrian facilities, partnerships with Southern California Edison, and the right away that's adjacent. We're going to support those things. And we're going to and we're going to do what's necessary to make sure that the community is involved through this whole process. So some of the topics have come up through this conversation is, one, we need to make sure we're tracking the key performance indicators to make sure we fully understand the impact and that we can be very transparent and open about that process. With respect to, again, property values, public safety and homeless activity surrounding the area. We need to make sure that there's an ongoing neighborhood advisory committee directly connected to the permanent shelter to ensure stakeholder engagement for the long term. We need to make sure that there is a well vetted out, detailed security plan and safety plan associated with the campus and procedures for how people, how the intake process goes. And if someone rejects services, what happens is they wander off into the neighborhood. These are very legitimate questions that we want to make sure we have well vetted out and thought out solutions to make sure that these things are addressed. We want to talk about traffic calming measures. We know that Atlantic Avenue, north of the 91 Freeway, doesn't have any traffic signals. And when it veers off and turns into that V, there's it's very difficult to make that left turn. And that's right where the entrance to this site would be. So we have to evaluate traffic calming. Traffic calming measures. These are some of the things offsite to make it make sense as a site. We have to explore lighting in the area. They're very dim areas and we have to explore the investments into lighting and those things. We have to get creative about public safety deployment. It gets you know, there are challenges where we you know, in Northland, we should border Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, Rancho Dominguez, Compton. And I remember circumstances where a crime happens in one city and they run into the other city who's, you know, whose job is it was the question. All those things the community needs to be comfortable in the conversation, on response. What response times? We need to make sure that we're on top of those and understand what the real emergency response times are in that area. We need to be creative about, you know, we just funded a quality of life position. That's a police officer who's dedicated to homeless services in North Palm Beach, which is funded this. What is the relationship between the quality of life officer and the new shelter, the potential shelter? Can we create space for this officer? What's the relationship between we have a met team. A mental health evaluation team in our police department is four, right? What's the relationship with one of these met teams with the North Miami shelter? What is the relationship here? What's that going to look like? There are a number of different operations. They all need to be vetted out as a part of this conversation. What about clean team safety? Right. We have a clean team in the city. You know, we've got special districts in the city. We should look at what's required in terms of cleaning up the site, making sure that there's services to keep it, keep the site clean, safe team is private security. Eyes on, you know, eyes on the street. These things are available in our business improvement districts. We should explore those types of things around our shelters. Totally possible. I created the business improvement district. Others have. It's possible we can explore this. And so there's a number of things we need to explore which tells us we need to make sure that we have a process to go through that, to vet all of these things. So at this point, I'm going to ask a few questions of staff. So first, there was a lot of conversation about the value, and I think you did a good job outlining this. But I want to elevate this is, you know, this conversation. Can you talk about the the appraisal when that appraisal will be released, what the value of the price is based on? And in just for a walk us through that that thing in case there are questions. So Mr. Keisler, would you mind walking us through the transaction a bit? Councilmember Happy to. So, so the city, whenever conducting an acquisition of a property, will contract with a third party appraiser who has the proper certifications. In this case, we contracted with Harran in MM, a local real estate appraiser from Southern California, and they followed all of the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice. So this is a national standard and they certify these appraisals. They're willing to to to back them up in court if necessary. And so the methodology used for this particular appraisal, because this property includes a unique set of buildings, a retail space, the liquor store and interest in industrial space, which is the warehouse and a residential space on the same campus. This was a little bit unique, and so there were two primary methodologies that were used to provide what's called a reconciled fair market value of both the sales comparison, a comparison of similar properties, similar uses in the, in the in the vicinity, as well as what's called an income capitalization appraisal. And what that means essentially is what can what kind of revenue can be derived from this type of property, given that it has all three uses associated with it. And so the appraiser in this case had spent a great deal of time looking at 21 individual sales or leases that had been executed between 2016 and 2018 and used that as a basis to come up with both the sales comparison and income capitalization value for the property. Essentially what we have is about 28,000 square feet of Leasable space over the last four years or so. Really what we've seen in the city is a acceleration or an increase in value, particularly around the Long Beach and the Port of Long Beach when it comes to industrial spaces in particular. But generally real estate has become much more valuable throughout the city. So taking that all into account, the appraiser developed the income capitalization value and sales comparison value. It comes out to be about $250 per square foot, which is somewhat in the middle, slightly above middle of of where these types of properties are. In the North Long Beach submarket, we saw properties, in fact, which is included in the appraisal. All of this, of course, will be a matter of public record after the close of the sale, which means the close of escrow for us and available to the public after March May 31st. But ultimately, I'm happy to answer any questions about how they derived the $7.54 million purchase price recommendation. Okay. So the seven and a half to sum it up. Vacancy rate is down. There's increased demand in the port area. And with the changes in the cannabis law, all of those created additional demand that made warehouses a little bit more attractive in the community that sum it up. A lot more attractive. In fact, the cannabis ordinance which was passed about mid 2018, that put an incredible value on industrial properties located in what's called the eligible buffer zone. So we're seeing this kind of price pressure in Long Beach in all of our industrial areas, areas that are away from schools and parks and other things. And it's it's also put pressure on on the Long Beach industrial market, because we're one of the only cities in the region that allows for this use. So we've seen a whole new market evolve and really place their attention on the city of Long Beach. So what about relocation or if, you know, are we saving money by not going through eminent domain? How does this compare to if we did process, as we've done in the past during the redevelopment? How does this compare to that? Yeah, so so as you know, there are a number of requirements. Any time the government makes a purchase of private property, when we solicit purchase, we have by state law the responsibility to do relocation benefits. We have to pay for inventory and furniture and other things, equipment and other property of the owner. So that that actually the the market based appraisal is seven and a half million. But the other roughly $2 million in this this particular acquisition will cover relocation of the tenants. So we not only have the residential property where they have relocation benefits under state law, but the the liquor store in this case decided to go with an all in settlement instead in lieu of relocation. So that that actually saves us a tremendous amount of time and resources to provide for in-kind relocation advisory services, possible either lease or purchase of other property. And of course, the price for the liquor license, which was a priority for us and given that we want to focus on health services rather than alcohol, so our all in price settlement was was an option for this this owner. If this had gone down the path of eminent domain, we would have added significant more time, maybe 12 to 18 months, a tremendous amount of legal fees. We probably would have had to also accept, you know, an appraisal from the attorneys of the the the property owner and then probably have some sort of resolution or adjudication of the final settlement. So this saves us a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of cost by doing. And we feel like the resident business owner, these are all members of our community. So we really love when we can do a cooperative sale and make everybody whole great. So thank you for walking us through that once more. And again, this would have been possible if we didn't have those cheap dollars will state down the $8 million and $8, is that right? Yeah, that's correct. We actually it broke this this particular acquisition. There's there's two pieces. The state funding covers the vast majority of the cost. And then fortunately, as we have sold properties from our former redevelopment agency, as well as some properties that are associated, we've been able to generate some proceeds and that that will help from the sale of a recent property in the downtown will help us to to finalize this deal. So so both funding sources, the city and the state are helping to make this work. Great. Thank you. I think some of the questions have been raised, been fair, very fair. And, you know, we've done our diligence to make sure that we we address those questions and that we talk about when the appraisal will be released and that justification. We talk about that. I did mention that we we we we never release our appraisal publicly during negotiations. And in terms of of the sales process, we will be executing a purchase and sale agreement, but that's just 1/1 step. So we'll go through a process of about a 90 day escrow, would conduct a due diligence. We'll look at any environmental or engineering issues. We'll make sure that both parties are doing what they said they would do, and then we'll likely close escrow at the end of May. So May 31st, if we both satisfy the requirements of the purchase and sale agreement, then we would make the appraisal a matter of public record because during this time it's still a matter of negotiations. And finally, there are there is, you know, personal information of the seller, the property owner, other people that have owned the property over the course of its history. And so we'll have to look at making sure that we protect their their identity and their information as well. So after May 31st, hopefully we'll be able to close escrow and release all of this to the public. All right. So we're following all of the laws, the Public Records Act laws that we're required to follow. We're answering all the question, the reasonable questions. There are some, you know, ridiculous questions out there that really I don't believe that the pressure should have run, implying that, you know, the council has a financial stake. Just so you all know, I have no financial stake in this. This is a big undertaking. I don't I don't make money off of this, and neither does Mr. Keisler. Is that right? Mr. Keisler, you have no financial stake in this? That's correct. We have no conflict of interest. This is about walking the talk. The North Long Beach has had this shelter for eight years and we haven't make the investments necessary to do it right. That's what this is about, you know, finally making good and building some honesty and building truth and congruence with our community. Some trust. That's what this is about. Okay. So next, let's talk about the future now. So we move forward tonight. I really see that there's sort of two paths to conversations. One is really focused on the operation of the shelter. What does that look like? How are we going to engage with it? How are we going to be able to scope it? So I really see one timeline there. And then there's a conversation that's really about real estate and services, wraparound services, you know, what are the opportunities for affordable housing? Who are the partners we can bring to the table? Lobby, City College and Lobby State have both reached out interested in being a part of this. Some of the best affordable housing developers in the city have reached out expressing support. Nonprofit groups have reached out expressing support. Southern California Edison is wants to meet with us about partnerships with the with the right away. The county's been a tremendous partner and so that's a very separate conversation about the highest and best vision and how we can really be comprehensive about this. So it might get confusing since there's two processes in the way I really want to sort of understand it, narrow it down is that Kelly Colby in the Health Department leads the conversation on the shelter. The broader piece is really Mr. Kaiser in the Economic Development Department, but Mr. Keisler, Ms.. Collopy, if you could just shed some light on what you see as potential process and next steps in terms of engaging the community and both of these conversations. Certainly. So we have been spending a lot of time thinking about what are the best practices for a year round shelter. And so what we'd like to be able to do is to bring what you know, what we've been thinking in terms of what those practices would be. And I've shared, you know, some the different service models than others with you along the way. But the other piece was certainly to have a community a community volunteer group or a sort of a group that would be willing to engage with us about what would you need to make sure that you feel that this success is successful in the community? What would you need to feel like? You know that the community has supported through the process and also as as it is being implemented, which our goal is to have it open before June one, 2022. That's about a year, year and a half. To really design the rest of this before it fully opened is that, you know, if you see things that aren't working for the community, that you are in contact with us as the as the city, so that we can help support and make sure that you are comfortable moving forward and be able to really engage in that back and forth. So we'll certainly be looking for a group who is willing to work with us in that process moving forward. Thank you. John, the the separate visioning process. Yes. Council members are typically when when we purchase a property and we're looking to develop that property will engage in in both a visioning process which will involve extensive community engagement, will request information from various potential partners that could include the nonprofit, academic, private sector, capital funding agencies, even governmental agencies like the county or the state. And we'll identify a whole process which will put in writing and recommendation to our city manager to then bring back to the Council for review. Ultimately, what we hope to do is through that process, get a sense of what's possible and then put those specifications into some sort of request for proposals or requests for letters of interest from potential developers. That usually serves as a way to attract capital, as well as the private sector and nonprofit service providers and developers that can help the city respond to the community's needs. And I think that ultimately it's about getting a really robust list of both the concerns as well as the opportunities from the community that will drive the creativity and ultimately the project that we're able to develop in partnership. Okay. Well, I'm prepared to I'm prepared to move forward. So so Kelly and John, thank you both for being so engaging over the last these last few months on this conversation. A number of the council members I know, some of them are sitting here, but Councilwoman Mongeau and Councilwoman Gonzalez both reached out this week just to say , hey, Councilmember, you know, I want to just express my support for this. Thank you for stepping up. So those council members are reached out. Thank you for for for really your commitment to this and to making sure that the priorities of North Palm Beach community are met and not caught up in sort of the political rhetoric around this issue. But we're really being very sincere about what this is and how we address it. So so I want to thank you to all those council members who stepped up. And so so I want to go ahead, move forward, want to make the staff recommendation. And I want to add two things reflective of what we talked about tonight. So, one, I would like to see a report in the next 30 days just outlining what this process looks like. Specifically, two things. One, the robust community outreach process, specifically related to the operations of the shelter itself. And then secondly, what the process would look like was codified the process, what it would look like for the visioning, what that task force could look like, who the partners might be, what that timeline for the development looks like. And and, you know, now I want to see who those people might be. They've reached out to this formalized process to be engaged. Is it is it, you know, the educational institutions? Is it the housing, the development, you know, the affordable housing world? Is it service providers? Is it Edison, who these people are? Let's let's put some some color to this and and actually establish this task force. So, again, my motion is a staff recommendation with a report on how we're going to approach these two specific areas, the community outreach process associated with the shelter operations, and secondly, the process associated with the larger visioning for this site. So thank you to the entire city council, the mayor and everyone, and let's go ahead and support this. And then, Mr. Mayor, I want to, at this point, I think, would be a good time. These people have waited they've they've heard these questions. And I think we should go to public comment. I think that Summer Pearce is good with that. So we will go ahead and do public comment. So please come forward if you have public comment on this item. Very good to address on file. It's certainly a commendable program. And I'm wondering whether or not. A portion of the monies could be used for something I like to suggest, and if not, get the monies for that. Because if you're going to bring in and house people there, what do you you want to make sure that the water is clean, uncontaminated. Now, obviously, there is a reference before there's something in the ninth district. It might be in the water. That has led to the disease in demented thinking. Manifested by the championing of a degenerate, demented, demented individual such as Snoop Dogg. When you have that type of mentality. There's something wrong, and you certainly don't want to. Ruin the project. And it's a commendable project by bringing people in. If there's something in the water in the ninth district. So what you should do is establish the fact that there is nothing wrong with the water. I can't think of any other reason what would engender such disease and demand thinking. Particularly relative to the treatment of women. And again, as I point out, look what happened to the head of CBS, period. I don't know what the answer is, but there's certainly something degenerate. Unchecked in the ninth District. And that needs to be found. So let's find it. Find it out. It's maybe it isn't that. But right now, I can't think of any other alternative. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead. And also because the amount of speakers that are here and listeners, any objection from the city council, we're going to go to 90 seconds, four for four for each speaker. But we said 2 minutes. We can go to 2 minutes. So we're going to add 2 minutes for each speaker. Mrs.. Any objection and then from the council and then we'll begin. And if we have, you know, an hour and a half plus of public comments, I want to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. And so we'll go down to 2 minutes. And then if we need to go down further, we'll go from there, please. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council. Councilman Richardson. I applaud the City Council and the initiative of this government to take on an issue that is unpopular. My wife and I have been homeless in homeless outreach for upwards of five years now here in the city of Long Beach. We've served in the San Gabriel Valley, and we've never. Seen the kind of hope that we've seen here tonight. We salute Councilman Richardson for this initiative and a city that is not afraid to take on. The events and. And the circumstances that get to the heart of the most vulnerable in our society. And I, I think you have the politics and the economics figured out. But when you go to when you go to ask for volunteers in the community, we stand and we support you. And my wife told me not to get too winded. Tonight, I have a habit of getting loud and long. So thanks for taking it down to 90 seconds, Mr. Mayor. But I will leave you with this. Because I think the heartbeat of Long Beach is. Strong. I leave with you the words of Mother Teresa. Enough words. Let them see what we do. God bless you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor and City Council. I'm Linda Chico. I'm the field deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn. As you all know, homelessness has been a priority for Supervisor Hahn. And while we're very happy and proud to see the winter shelters that have opened up throughout the county, we know homelessness is not seasonal. And so she applauds the efforts of the city leaders and the community in North Long Beach for opening up this conversation about having a year long shelter. So she's asked me to come here today to read into record a letter of support. Dear Mayor Garcia, I'm writing in support of item 23 On Your Agenda, which recommends the purchase of a property in North Long Beach to be utilized for homeless housing and services. This will be a facility where individuals can have a safe, stable place to live while receiving wraparound services, health care and job training. And the County of Los Angeles is committed to provide $3.4 million in Measure H funding to improve the interior of the facility and cover operational costs. I am very pleased that the county is collaborating with the city on this important project and I'm confident it will get people off the streets and connect them with the help that they need. Thank you. Is here for supervisor, huh? Thank you very much, Supervisor Hahn. Next. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Councilman Richardson and councilmembers. I'm Dr. Elisa. Nicholas. I'm the CEO of the Children's Clinic, serving children in their families. And as you probably know, TCC is actively. Involved in serving the homeless. And we do. So with great heart, great quality and are very, very humbled to do this. We serve 1300 homeless right now in 6000 visits, where at your multi-service center or at century villages of Cabrillo? We have a mobile. Clinic that goes to the Long Beach Rescue mission. And Christian Outreach in action. And we are working on another project on Walnut to have both housing and health care together. We are very supportive of this work. We look to partner with you and I really commend you for everything you're doing. We now have homeless newborns coming to us in our selected home visiting. We have families that we can't find housing for suicidal teens. They're left out to the street and we have a. Lot of work and we're going in the right direction. And I want to thank you for all your work and we will be with you and really want to work on this with you. And I commend the health department in the city and I'm very honored to work in the city and we've been around for 80 years now. So this is a great time for us to be working here. So thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Tom Stout, Mayor Council. My problem is with the cost. And, you know, you've tried to explain it and I just don't really buy into it. I don't know anybody's property. If you own a home or a piece of property in Long Beach that's gone up five fold in the last five years. 2 million to 7 million. Come on. The guy won the lottery. That's not the only. Cos and another three and a half million. I don't think that's going to be anywhere near adequate to remodel that place and make it functional. Plus, the ongoing expenses have to be somewhere around $2. Million a year. Where is that going to come from? So there's a lot of costs that I don't think you're really getting into. And it seems like when the city sells property taxpayer assets, you always seem to sell on below market value. It's a great deal for developers. They seem to be the city's best friends. When you the city buys property, we overpay the person that we're buying it from. This is an example, just like the other project in North Long Beach. I think redevelopment pays five or $7 million for the property, sold it to the developers for 2.1 million, then gave them $1,000,000 discount just before the sale. Great. If you're a developer, not if you're a taxpayer. And why only one appraisal? You can. You don't have to make it public. But why not have more than one appraisal? It's a lot of money. And. Is the person that's doing the appraise it. It seems like whoever the city hires whether it's a consultant. Or an appraisal. They always come up with the conclusion that the city wanted. I mean, it's like a done deal. So what you tell them this is what we want to do. Thank you very much. Inclusion Speaker, please. And if the cannabis guys will. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our time is up. Next speaker, please note my. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Ogden Bass. My family and I have lived in North Long Beach on Atlantic Place and the same residents for over 40 years. I want to commend you for taking up the challenge to help. The least of these the homeless in our city. I want to thank Councilwoman Richardson for meeting with us and a few of our neighbors last night. We have had an influx of homelessness in our neighborhood, and we are aware that this is a growing problem throughout the city. That notwithstanding, I would ask the Council to consider a few things. One, that North Long Beach is not the only area in the city to bear. This worthy cause. But other parts of the city are also. Will be putting in facilities to support the homeless in their area because the site is located in our community. We would ask that the site be prioritized for women and children and families because the because of the proximity to families and schools in our neighborhood, we would ask that no tents. Be allowed on the street or on the sidewalk and in the adjacent areas. We would ask that motorhomes of people that do not reside in the city. Not be allowed to park in the area, that there will be a greater invisible, more visible police presence in the area, and that more streetlights. Will be put in in the surrounding. Areas and neighborhoods. These are just a few of the items and concerns from our neighbors. We look forward to working with Councilman Richardson to further. Address these issues. And we want it to be successful. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Ian Patton and I'm the executive director of the Long Beach Reform Coalition, which is a collection of eight civic reform minded organizations. We raised some objections to just really the process here, but I want to make it clear, we totally stand in solidarity with the goal. We agree with everyone here, for everyone in we have a crisis in the city in terms of homelessness. But our purpose as an organization is government transparency and accountability. So we. Think that this should be an. Open process. And when you have certain red flags, like a property that sold for $2 million, the city is paying 7.5 million, according to an appraisal. And we had to kind of pry that out of the city and give a lot. You know, John Keesler is great to work with. No complaint about him whatsoever, but we have to kind of force this information free. And then the remaining 2 million is apparently a valuation on the business. That seems like a crazy valuation on a small liquor store business. So we feel that if the public had the appraisal, then we would know we would be able to judge whether this is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. And frankly, there's no reason that you could redact some personal information. There's just no reason not to. Release that appraisal because. The city is it shouldn't be paying more or less than the fair market value. It shouldn't be that kind of negotiation. The last thing I need to say, which is really important, is that last night Reverend Jim Lewis contacted me. He's the former CEO of the Long Beach Rescue mission. He said this is not the place to do this. He said you can quote him. It's just not the right place. It's a misuse of taxpayer money. He knows more about this site than anybody. He worked there. He was the CEO of the rescue mission. And he says it is not worth this amount to pay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Speaker, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Reverend Leon Wood. I'm a Long Beach resident. What I wanted to say is that I really thank you both for your efforts and serving the homeless. What I'm hearing tonight sometimes is the absence. What we're talking about is men, women and children who need assistance. They need love. They need care. We also, if we give them the kind of love and care that they. Need, many will. Become successful. And so we can talk about property, we can talk about money, but we're talking about human beings, God's children. And we should be very, very devoted to caring for people and whatever it costs to save the lives of children, men and women. That's what we should try to accomplish. So thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Janice. Bass, the wife of Ogden Bass, who just spoke a moment ago. We live on North Atlantic Place. We were fortunate. Enough to meet with Rex Richardson and John and Kelly and some support staff as well. Things got quite heated on our next door app. In the neighborhood. Needless to say, I. Forwarded some of the information to Rex and he immediately contacted me and asked. If we could meet. So we had a wonderful, informative meeting at our home last night. Including some of the area neighbors and just by having more. Information and open dialog. Really helps a neighborhood to be more aware, accepting, being supportive when we're aware and we understand what. Actually is occurring or when it's happening, especially North Long Beach. Especially in times past years, years and years. This goes way back where we've been told that you were notified and and everybody was on board. And all of a sudden nobody knew what was going on or knew anything. And that's much prior to Richard to Rex Richardson. But what I would just ask is the neighbors are. Opposed to having a large. Complex. When I. Discuss things with some of our other. Neighbors, they are. Definitely in favor of micro what they called micro shelters all over the city. So just keep that in consideration. And if all of the council. Members would really step up like Rex has and addressed and and discussed with. People and encourage people that this is something that could be good. I think everyone should follow his lead. And I also just wanted to make record, if I could give all of the emails that the neighbors sent me so that I'm not just the voice piece, but everyone. Who had concerns could at least have their voice heard as well, that you couldn't. Attend. For sure, and just given over to the clerk and will get those. Thank you. Thank. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor. City Council staff. My name is Brian D'Andrea with century housing in the Village. Is that Cabrillo? I'm also a proud member of the Everyone Home Task Force and a Continuum of Care Board member here in Long Beach. I want to applaud the city, our electeds, the community of North Long Beach for taking this bold step to move forward with this plan, to acquire the site and develop this this vibrant village to support our communities most vulnerable. Thousands of people in Long Beach experienced homelessness in any given year. This shelter and the surrounding services and potential for housing will immediately dress that that pressing need. It's also a wonderful opportunity to leverage state resources with the heat funding. There are many other resources that this site will attract that's going to bring economic development to our community, not to mention the hope and housing and healing that this will bring to our community. The city has been incredibly coordinated and strategic and how it deploys its homeless services. This site is another great example, an opportunity for the city to continue doing that and to continue strengthening its continuum. And so we're proud here to stand tonight to support the city in this endeavor. It's also very gratifying to see the Everyone Home Task Force recommendations being implemented. Hopefully, this is a catalyst for some of the other important recommendations that are in that report. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm carelessly. My address is on file. I'm a member of several organizations The East Side Voice Carp and the Long Beach Reform Coalition. I'm delighted that you're taking on this project, and I'm. Encouraged that we're moving forward to do something for the homeless. Population. I, too, am concerned about the price the consider the city is considering paying for the properties chosen. While there is considerable detail and analysis in determining the purchase price of this or any property, the big picture of this particular deal does give cause for concern. This property was sold in December 2013 for $2 million. The improvements to it seem to have been to put in a small liquor store. It's hard to believe that a piece of property in the ninth District bordering on Compton, appreciated more than 250% in five years. Causing the city to have to use the. Entire 9.3 million from the. State. Just to buy the land and the buildings. The money coming from the state should be adequate to cover at least some of the costs. Of acquiring not just the land, but accomplishing the improvements to. Provide for that 125 shelter bed. Surely we can. Do better than this. This money came from the taxpayers and it is intended to help the homeless, not line someone's pockets in a real estate deal. Please consider taking one more step and engage the city auditor to validate that appraisal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Rene Castro. I live in the third district. I'm really, really happy tonight about what's happening here. This is a this is a bold step, as my president, Brian de Andrade, has stated. I want to just give a little bit of background. I'm the former chair for Mental Health America. I actually facilitated the city's ten year plan to end homelessness 12 years ago. And I also work at century villages at Cabrillo. And of course, we serve 1600 formerly homeless people in any given night. To those who would, you know, raise the costs, I'm not an assessor. I'm not a real estate agent. But I would ask, how much does it cost to continue to house homeless people in emergency rooms? What's the cost there? How long is it cost to continue to have L.A. County jails serve as the largest de facto mental institution in the United States? Those are the human costs. Of course, there's an economic cost here. We've seen the site where there at the press conference, there's an opportunity here to activate this community not only socially but economically. And I believe in the hands of Rex Richardson. We can get this done. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and the council members. My name is Frank Romero Crockett, and I'm the public affairs officer of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles. And I play a key role in the Everyone in campaign, a campaign committed to ending homelessness across L.A. County by activating local residents to support smart, collaborative and data driven solutions that are focused on building supportive housing that serves our most vulnerable in our communities and as a representative everyone in campaign. We want to show our strong support of the recommendation to purchase the properties on Atlantic Avenue to build a year round permanent emergency shelter for our homeless neighbors. We are also here tonight to show that we are bringing to everyone in campaigns together. We at the United Way launched the Everyone in Campaign back in March 2018 with the goal of educating, engaging and activating tens of thousands of people across L.A. County to be a part of ending homelessness by speaking out for housing. We know that we have the right strategies and enough resources that we can end homelessness. That's critical. But we also know that's not all what it takes. It takes leadership, which we are seeing here tonight with Councilmember Richardson. It takes courage and it takes regular people standing up and saying yes to the solutions that we know work. And they're also saying better not sidewalks. But we see here today powerful message that we will continue to lift up across this beautiful city. That's why it takes so much and makes so much sense for everyone in that's focused on ending homelessness to partner with the everyone that's focused on economic inclusion and creating a seat at the table for everyone. These are two sides of the same coin. We look forward to working together over the coming months and years to build a stronger Long Beach and a stronger L.A. County, where people have access to supportive and affordable housing that is critical to economic stability and success. Thank you. Thank you, Nick Speaker, please. Good evening. Honorable mayor and city council members. My name is Sister Celeste Trahan. I am from St Mary's Medical Center. I am vice president of mission integration there. And Carolyn Caldwell, our CEO and. President is a member of your Everyone Home. Task Force. I just want to say a few words about the services we provide at St Mary and as one of the major providers of hospital services in the Long Beach area for over 95 years, we continue to provide services regardless of people's ability to pay, regardless of where they come from. And increasingly in the last few years, of course, we have seen. An increase in those poor and vulnerable who are unfortunate enough to be homeless. As a participant in a regular. Community health needs assessment for the Greater Long Beach area, St Mary is among many organizations within the community which determines. Which looks at social determinants of health, one of which is housing and shelter. And we continually face the the challenge of providing comprehensive services to all the people we serve. In Long Beach. But in partnership with other health care entities and community organizations, we will continue to address these issues and provide care. For the poor and the vulnerable. Having a year round shelter is certainly a positive. Step in addressing one of the. Basic needs of life, and it helps us. To determine how. We will safely discharge homeless people. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Carlo Sylvia, Long Beach Reform Coalition and the people of Long Beach. I applaud the city's efforts to provide the much needed year round shelter for homeless residents. I'm a professional who has devoted the majority of my career in architecture to the creation of affordable housing, including homeless shelters, and who has advocated for housing as a right and not a privilege. Councilwoman Richardson mentioned a state of the art facility, and in in the documents for this meeting, it says property will immediately provide space for a needed year round shelter. He said there are 3 million to rehabilitate the building. That is an impossible feat to accomplish. The existing buildings are unsafe to inhabit. Do not provide even the most basic necessities. They're structurally unsound, lack adequate heating, ventilating, air conditioning and the other life safety measures. The these buildings are basically tear down in terms of the cost of that is being paid. The nine and a half million dollars that the city ought to have been paying land value, not not the the square footage of these buildings. So this these buildings will not as as has been stated, will immediately provide space needed. That is going to cost somewhere in a conservative value of about $100,000 per bed. Not to mention the operating costs, which I'm not an operator, but perhaps the other people here I can can talk about that. That's that's going to be another 2 to $3 million a year for operating costs. So in terms of costs, what we really need to talk about is there is no value in in I mean, there's a lot of value in housing the homeless, but there's more value if we spend that money appropriately. And I don't think that's being done on this project. Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Reed, a sophomore at Poly High School. From a youth staff perspective, I think that we're taking a step in the right direction. Building the homeless shelter in Long Beach. But in the Long Beach, homeless shelter will greatly help Long Beach because there's over a thousand homeless people currently living here. The homeless shelter also provide beds and generous separated quarters. I personally dislike it when it rains because outside they're homeless people without the proper clothing and roof to go under. So I think the homeless shelter is a step in solving the Long Beach homeless problem that we have. The shelter provided homeless people a nice place to go to feed them food and clean water. And not only that, but can help them get back on their feet so they can live a normal life again. Both in the homeless shelter and not. Only help the homeless, but the citizens of Long Beach, because there will be less homeless people on the streets and the homeless shelter provide more jobs and increase productivity in cities. This has a more of a positive than a negative outcome, and I think this is a great idea. Thank you. Council and especially Councilmember Richardson for shedding light on this topic. Please support this cause. Thank you. Next week. Before I begin, I just want to say thank you, City Councilman Richardson, for bringing light on. Bringing you. Please state your name. Oh, um, my name is Joanna, and I'm a junior at Milliken High School. I think this homeless shelter is a great idea and a step in the right direction. Currently, there are over a thousand homeless people in Long Beach that don't have the resources they need. Building the shelter will give them a step towards getting back on track by providing jobs and making sure they're healthy, especially with the bad weather we've been having recently. They don't have the risk. The protection from the rain that is needed and are more likely to get sick with this shelter. Their have access to resources. They need to be healthy. Also, a lot of the people, a lot of the time people are intimidated by homeless people and with the help of the shelter, that will break that stigma. It's a big, important step with this homeless shelter, and I think it should be voted yes. So please consider voting yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jonathan Great. I am a lifelong resident of Long Beach and I must say I have drunk the water before I think I turned out okay, so I will get that off my chest. I also work I'm a part of a senior leadership team at a nonprofit here at Long Beach. We are definitely facing a homeless crisis here in Long Beach. At last year's homeless count, there was about 2000 homeless people living in the streets of Long Beach. I work with families who are one financial catastrophe away from homelessness. Homelessness affects everyone across all ages. One in six students that go to Long Beach City College are experiencing homelessness and one in ten students at Cal State Long Beach. Providing beds for them and providing them a place to go when they're trying to better themselves is definitely an equity issue that the city needs to take up. We need to have everybody in on this initiative and we need to have everybody in. In support of the homeless shelter. A lot of people are throwing around numbers and the cost of purchasing the buildings and the facilities. It's a lot better than renting or trying to lease these facilities. Those prices can change. We will own the facilities and it will be an investment that will last decades. Additionally, the state providing $8 million to address our homeless situation is definitely commendable by the former governor, Jerry Brown. In addition to beds, the homeless shelter will also provide job training, life skills, education and medical facilities for the homeless the homeless individuals. I commend Councilmember Richardson for bringing this to the Council and County Supervisor Janice Hahn for bringing over $3 million to help the renovation of the facilities. I thank you for your time and I urge you to vote yes and to continue investing in the city that we all love. Thank you. Thank you. Next week. Hello. Good evening. My name is Marisela Rivera. I am a resident of the ninth district. I want to first thank the the mayor and, of course, Councilmember Rex Richardson for his leadership. On this issue. I think it's incredibly easy to say we need to fix the problem. I think it's incredibly hard to say I'm going to be part of the solution. And I think. That I have seen I've. Lived in Long Beach for 19 years now, and I've seen the Army. Reserve. Facility almost become a homeless shelter. And residents in that district in that area said, not in my backyard. I have seen very recently residents in another part of Long Beach formed their own militia and say, not in my backyard. And that wasn't about permanent housing, that wasn't about solutions. That was simply about not wanting people to exist in their neighborhood. I have seen my neighbors in District nine say. Yes. In my backyard. Because we are going to. Help people. I encourage all of the residents in Long Beach to talk to homeless people. They are people. My elderly mother lives with us. We are five people now in a two bedroom house. We bought it a month before she was about to be homeless and when she needed a place to stay, we made it work because that's what we do. She would be one of those people if we didn't have her in our home with our two young children living in the ninth District in walking distance from this future all year shelter. I'm incredibly proud of. Rex Richardson and the city of Long Beach for taking this measure. Thank you so much. Thank you, Steven Council. My name is Jordan Win. I'm the Long Beach organizer of the Everyone in Coalition, part of United Way of Greater Los Angeles. We're here today to proudly support and urge you to vote yes, to acquire these properties, to develop this permanent emergency shelter. Having this new permanent shelter will aid in alleviating some of the most acute problems faced by our homeless neighbors in Long Beach. And it's a call to continue the work until all people in our city have a roof over their heads that they can call home. Rick said it best. This is the start. This is just the beginning. And he's shown immense leadership in this project. And we were honored to partner with him for this announcement last Monday and now to be here again to show our support. You've done a wonderful job engaging the community. You understand the importance of a healthy housing market and the need for affordable and supportive housing throughout our community. And so we hope to continue. You have a fruitful work with your office as well as the rest of Long Beach. We've met with most of your offices and had some wonderful discussions around moving this issue forward. We're committed at everyone in to building deep partnerships here in the months and years ahead. We've seen the strength of Long Beach is community. Many people came out today to show their support and we want to continue to show that we need these kinds of developments in Long Beach. We want to bring everybody in to show that we need to see more of these developments. We need to see more supportive housing, more affordable housing, more shelters around the city. And we want neighbors in Long Beach who are the majority to raise their voices and say, yes, yes, in my backyard, yes, this is what we need. So thank you so much. We once again urge you to vote yes. And I'd like to take these seconds to ask everybody who has signs, who's out here to support in the audience, to please stand, show your support, and thank you for coming out here tonight. Thanks so much. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Julie Jones. I've lived in North Long Beach since 1986. And this situation is your typical hope for the best, but expect the worst. That said, you, as our elected representatives and we as a community need to develop a comprehensive plan of action regarding this campus compound in North Long Beach. This discussion and plan needs to begin now and continue monthly throughout the design, construction and implementation of this facility. Some considerations to discuss are the following. Each council district should have homeless facilities, not just North Long Beach. What about mental health problems? What type of facilities will be located on site? Will these issues be addressed? What about off site? And if so, where? Where do the people go if they're removed from the campus for disciplinary reasons? What about 24 hour security? What will their boundaries be? Only on site or off site also. Will more Long Beach police officers be required? And if so, are they coming from are already stretched to the limits delegated officers? How long will the grant money last? Are we going to have more taxes placed on us to continue to maintain the daily operating expenses of this facility? Is the money we have from outside sources enough to sustain ongoing business and not just construction? Let's utilize our high schools and colleges to provide onsite training for their students working as interns. What about having neighborhood cleanups and other community outreach activities using the campus residents? To do this with the community. What about the bathroom facilities? Are there going to be offsite porta potties? Representatives of the North Long Beach Neighborhood Associations should have ongoing meetings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening. I'm Pastor Omar Mohammed. I serve the residents of Skid Row, Los Angeles. I stand today to speak on behalf of the people experiencing homelessness. I haven't been homeless for a year and a half with my family until July of 2018. I understand the plight. I commend Councilman Rex Richardson for taking up the cause of positive action toward ending homelessness homelessness in Long Beach. From my perspective, the councilman is taking a high risk close to political suicide, especially in the era of not in my backyard ism. Believe me, I understand nobody wants to be home once a homeless shelter in their backyard. But what I know is that if no one allows a shelter in their backyard, if not to, in the not too distant future, you will have homelessness in your front yard. I have worked for the homeless community off and on for over a decade. One thing I know is that homelessness is spreading. It is not decreasing and it is growing in the areas of women and children. I am aware of the magnitude of homeless of the homeless crisis in our nation, state, country, and especially the epicenter, Los Angeles. As you are, as you ask, why am I in Long Beach? Because homelessness is the same everywhere. When I heard about your efforts to change this, I said I want to be a part of it. So I step in. It is always a great step in the right direction. I know one thing that it may not be a lot of housing, but if you just if you think about that illustration of the beach, we had all the starfish on it. That guy picked up one starfish and threw it in the ocean. He said, What difference does that make? It didn't make it a whole lot of difference to those people in that beach, but it made a difference to that one person that got out. Keep up the good work, man. God is with you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening, Congressman. And everybody. Excuse me. City leaders and everybody in attendance. My name is Maureen Morris, and I provide bags for the homeless. I just about every. Day I go out and. I talk with the homeless and I hand them bags and see what their needs are. You know, we've done a lot of talking here tonight about what the homeless need. And my question is, are we going out there? Are we getting. In the areas where they are and. Asking them, what are your needs? What would you like to see this year to have? So moving forward, as I'm out there and I'm. Speaking to them and I'm handing out the items that I hand out, I'm going to be asking them, What would you like to see this shelter have? I know you know when you need beds, you need other items and things of that nature. But what would you like to see them have? That should be the question. What would you. Like us to provide? And then we all know, you know, what their needs are. So as I move forward and I'm doing what I'm doing and I'm talking to them, I'm going to be finding out what they think, you know, they would like to see the shelter have. And I will be contacting you guys to, you know, let you know what they would like to see. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And I just want to make sure that I'm going to close the speaker's list with everyone that's speaking in line. If there's anybody additionally, I want to make sure I capture them as well. Okay. So we're going to and we're actually after this, gentlemen. We're going go down to the 90 seconds. Go ahead, sir. My name is is Pastor Bo Stevens. I'm one of the pastors at Chapel of Change and the City of Long Beach. And I'm an. Advocate of the Lord Jesus Christ. So. And I care about. What he cares about. And so and so when Rex Richmond, Richardson Toler told me about this, I was really pleased. To come along and support him because Jesus cares for the. Poor. And there's a question, yes. What is Jesus going to judge you on on the day of judgment? And and I got to thinking about that. He said one of the passages in the Bible says, When I was hungry, you fed me. When I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. When I was naked, you clothed me when I was sick. You visited me when I was in prison. You came to see me. And so. I. I care. About what the Lord cares. About. And we are. We are actively. Involved. Ministering to the homeless or homeless for an early church. And I just want to share that. Yesterday, a homeless man bought me lunch. And that's a miracle. A homeless man by his name was Joe. I live in the city of Paramount, but I pastor in the city of Long Beach. But I walk to this taco. Stand and and this guy, Joe, says, I said, man, I got to buy this guy a taco. Here's Joe again. And Joe says, No, I want to buy you a taco. So a lot of. Times we view homeless people. They're people. There's somebody and. There's somebody's uncle. A lady behind. Me was Cher, and that's her mom. She's homeless. And there there's somebody, a man. And so God cares about people. And I just want to say hi to Al Austin here, to a man here. He represents our district. Ken Bixby knows, too. We have a campus there. Anyways, God bless, guys. Great work. I'm for the proposal. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please, on this. Hi. My name is Jacqueline Case. I live in District eight and I also own a home and I am a realtor and I believe in affordable housing. I believe in homes for everyone. I support the everyone in in everyone home. And I want to commend our youth for coming out here and speaking about this subject, because it's it's wonderful to hear all different ages, all different ethnicities, all different backgrounds, everything. Also, Maricela, Debbie Rivera. Sorry if I butchered your name. What about me? What about in my backyard? So I'm very pleased and I will support Rex to the end. Disagree for this, but why not in every district? And so I will challenge every district to be Inbee because like everyone has made a comment here, this is humanity. I do have family that deals with homelessness, so it is near and dear to my heart. And then I also am a realtor. So, you know, go figure. That's a comment. Sometimes that can be a conflict, right? People talk about, you know, housing and so forth, but I'm for all of that. So I think having conversations like this, I've met amazing people in line, being able to be here to support Rex and support this initiative. I look forward to it and thank you for doing the extensive work, everybody who was part of that. I really appreciate it and thank you. And please support this. Unique speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. Thank you. My name is Keena Tompkins and I'm with the United States Veterans Initiative that's located in villages of Korea. Be really brief. We offer supportive services for homeless veterans. We service about 800 veterans daily. But what I'm tasked to today is to inform you that for the past two years, US Vets has operated the winter shelter at 5571 Orange Avenue. And I just want to share some success stories. For sure, we need all the resources and supplies that they need. But to know that you have help, maybe one or the 150 that we serve is nightly. With food, with clothing, with hygiene. We have place since we started the shelter on December 8th. We have place 14 people. And these are the most vulnerable people we have here, homeless people. We have we place 14 of them already in housing and with jobs. So this is not a need. It's not a it's not a want. It's a need. And you as veterans, as operation manager, we are here to support. And we would love to be part of that transition team with operations because we've done it for two years and I think we've been successful with it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Miha. I live in that neighborhood and I see the necessity of the homeless shelter. So I appreciate that. And but I'm not happy that I just learned about this a couple of days ago, but it seems like it's already it's going to move forward. So I probably have to make a commitment to support, but I need your commitment to make sure this neighborhood will not be deteriorated any more than as it is right now as far as cleanliness and crime. I am single woman living there. I'm very afraid. Just want to know when you're. Me home and thinking we will work. What are those are issues and other important to the councilman and to the city and so and I would encourage also maybe if maybe someone from the councilman's office or my office to connect and we want to make sure where you get the information and feel safe in your community. So thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and everyone. Actually had no intention on speaking, so I'll make this really. Quick. As a former homeless person, I've gone from homelessness to feeling like 150 people a day from my own home. When I lived in Miami, I just moved here from Miami. And Miami is a no tax day, so I didn't have to pay taxes in Miami. And other people were like complaining about what you guys are going to pay for this building and others though I would gladly give my taxes to pay for. That because you cannot. Put a price on hunger. Homelessness and peace. Of mind. Council. My name is Lauren Boland. A few weeks. Ago, I participated. In. The homeless count. It was life. Changing. I thought my work with Habitat for Humanity was life changing in 2008. No. I ask. You to remember that this money. Is $8 million that we've been granted by the state. It's for human beings. It's not to be a really great, cool real estate development. It's not to be a showstopper. It is for people. These people are. They're not all mentally ill. They're not all drug addicts. What I experienced out there in in in that count, I had no idea. I worry that they're not all going to use that shelter in that location. I worry that we're not going to have enough money to. Build the ones that we need in other parts of the city. As a mortgage. Professional, I worry that the value of the property has been inflated by a marijuana gold rush. That is over and I ask the city to get another appraisal. What is it? Five, $7,000 to get another one done. Spend the money. Do the due diligence. The homeless people out there need every dollar spent appropriately. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and city council members. My name is Juanita Doppler moore. I'm a resident of the ninth District and I'm also the president of the Collins Neighborhood Association and the Veterans Affairs Commission representing the ninth District. This is a great. Opportunity to address a citywide issue of homelessness and. Lack of affordable housing there, with there being over a thousand 1800 homeless individuals in our city. It is time to step up and address this issue. I'm in great support of the of the campus. That is part of the discussion tonight to provide our residents with affordable housing, wraparound services and job opportunities and rehabilitation. This space. Goes. Beyond just. Housing, the housing, the homeless individuals. It provides them the opportunity to reintegrate and become members of society. I am. I am. I applaud the city councilman, Rex Richardson, and all the members here tonight. And I ask that you support this initiative. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please. Hello. My name is Ron at Mars. I'm with the Hamilton Neighborhood Association. I used to be afraid of the homeless, but then I realized that it was my own fear of them and being homeless and that they're just human beings trying their best to survive. I realized it is not my right to say they have no rights, no rights to services if it's in my neighborhood or if it will affect me or if I will see them. It is not my right to say who deserves help and who doesn't, or to judge why they are in that position. Likely we are a few months away from being homeless ourselves if things go wrong in our lives. Then I thought back on my life when I was a teen. I lived on the streets for about three years. I'm so far removed from that time that. I'd forgotten what I had gone through to survive on the streets. I know this is. A growing issue. I know we are not the only area in the city that is picked on by hosting homeless services. I know that this is an issue that can affect each and every one of us at any time, at any capacity. I know that we need to step up and be a part of the solution. I know that these less fortunate need our help. I know we need to look at this and quit trying to ignore it. I wish there were. No homeless and we were not having this conversation. But there is. And we are. So we must now work to solve it. Drawing a line in the sand does not solve anything during this process. I would also challenge other districts to be as open minded as the ninth District and Rex Richardson in supporting homeless services. Please consider approving the sale. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Jerry Fink. I'm with the Hamilton Neighborhood Association. I'm glad to see our representatives in this perpetually Rex Richardsons of forward thinking on this. And a lot of things are happening in our district, and I'm glad that the homeless are not going to be left out. I encourage the neighbors that are against it and for it to sit down at the table and we can see what works for everybody because it's it's all of our neighborhoods and and we need to help those that are less fortunate than ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. I'm also going to close the speakers list. I had we had closed it, but another person jumped. So we're going to the gentleman in the carpet. I will be the last one. Okay. Yes, please. Good evening. My name is Linda Campbell, and I'm a 38 year resident of the Hamilton Neighborhood Association. I'm in strong support of this initiative. I look forward to being part of the solution for the homeless. That particular site has been a problem. The entire time I have lived in the Hamilton Neighborhood Association. This is an opportunity for us as a community to step up and be part of the solution and not just sit back and say, not in my backyard. The gentleman who spoke who said, if it's not in your backyard, it may very well end up in your front yard. Very apropos. If we sit back and do nothing. We will not. Solve the problem. It will just increase. Please step up and do the right thing and support this initiative. And make sure that we are part of a solution. And I challenge each councilman. To organize your own communities, your own council districts to be part of a solution that's going to continue if we don't all step up and be part of the solution. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Karen replied, I'm a resident of District one and I am so proud of my city tonight for bringing this forward. And for Rex, for all the work and all the people that have put in effort on this project. As someone who was homeless for three months, I don't want anyone to ever have to sleep on the floor of a locked bathroom, public bathroom, or to wash their hair in a sink because they don't have a place to go. I've been here working in a home in housing for over 13 years, and this is just kind of the high point of my life up to this point. This is just so meaningful to so many people in our community who are not them or those people. They are us. You can never tell who is homeless, who's sleeping in their car, who is couch surfing, could be the person next to you. Could be your neighbor. So don't judge people. Help them. They're all part of our community. And thank you so much for all your hard work. And that price. Is not too high. How much is it worth to save people in our community? Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, I am one of you from the eighth district. I would like to ask a couple of questions. One is, if this project or purchasing decision is going to receive money from the state and the county. Is this project going to be a regional project or a city only project? Also, why are relocating this process, this project as far north as possible from where the actual people congregate? Why would someone in downtown go all the way to North Long Beach, given that they have carts, personal belongings, etc.? And why would there. If I want there be public outreach. Why hasn't there been enough public outreach? Or dialog in choosing this location. Why is it we are always presented with a fait accompli instead of a choice? Please postpone. Postpone this decision. In order to open it up to the public for dialog, in order to show us what steps were taken to come to these conclusions. Like a previous speaker said, it's eight or nine and a half million dollars are going to be spent on a piece of land. Not on the people that really need it. Thank you. Your next speaker, please. Good evening, councilmembers. Mayor Garcia. It's good to be with you tonight. My name is Megan Curr. I'm a resident of the eighth District. I also have the honor of representing North Palm Beach on the Board of Education for Long Beach Unified School District. And I can't I think the words that have been said previously by the people who live in the adjacent properties about the positive impact that this will have on their lives and on their property values. I can't restate that. But what I can say as someone who's been involved in the homeless issue for 17 years and someone who's lived in this community my whole life, I've never been more proud of the North Long Beach community for stepping up and saying, yes, yes, here, yes, us will be part of the solution. I want to thank the council members who stayed in the chambers for this entire discussion to hear us and to hear us implore everyone else in the city to do the same thing, which is step up. We belong to each other in this city and we like to talk about how we're a big city but a small town. But the residents of North Long Beach have shown and led the way with their example tonight and their positivity and their embracing of the complex realities of homelessness and their willingness to be part of the solution. So as a lifelong resident, I am very proud. As a school board member, I am very proud. And I urge you to support this measure tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Dr. Gerald Higginbotham. I am the CEO and founder of the Captain's Millionaire, Inc. I'm a new residents here, 90 day residents to the Long Beach area. I'm just returning home after 30 years. And so I've come home to help to heal our communities. And I just didn't want to sit in the stand. I'm in wrecks. I'm standing with you. I've helped to develop a bottom up model that will address many of the issues that we have in our communities. I did it in Saint Louis, and so now I'm coming home to Long Beach so we can begin to make an impact. I'm in. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Monica Keller. I'm a resident of the ninth District and representing the Start King Neighborhood Association. And I just want to thank Councilmember Rex Richardson for stepping up to take on this challenge. And all the neighbors and the residents there are concerned and they address them. And I thank you guys for taking the time tonight to bring up some of those issues and kind of, you know, let us know what's going on and what has gone on in the past and how we can move forward. And just is, again, we're all in and we just thank you and we're here, you know, thank you again for helping us. I work in social services, so I know direct every day the impact that homelessness has on our participants as well as my coworkers. I work with people who every day are facing homelessness or just a check away from being homeless. So I think this is a very important issue and I just thankful that we are in a part of the city that is taking it on. And I hope that other parts of the city and other districts also address this in their own areas. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Charlie. I'm a I'm an aunt and I. I used to live in Torrance. I moved to Paramount. I buy a new brand new house and I just got something on my front door. Uh, yesterday I got two, and then I got one again when I came back from work saying in the city to purchase any liquor and warehoused for $9.5 million. I didn't I didn't know this until yesterday. I was hoping that if you wanted to engage on people around the community of Paramount, it was I get this every like every month a flier saying what the good things with new events were doing. What are we? You know, pretty much everything. And I told the news events and I feel proud because it's like from Torrance to coming to Paramount. I couldn't really afford a house in Torrance because I had to live within my means. And this newly fresh built house maybe, you know, achieve that goal, have that dream. And now I talk to my mom and and she said, Well, now you got to think about your house can be devalued. I know that gentleman like was talking about appraisal and what they're trying to do and yes I help people are you know I know I can't you know go on details but when I have patients in the E.R., you know coming up my floor they're they're not always the best and they're always not good. I always get the good and the bad. And so I just feel like. Thank you very much. All right, cool. Thank you very much, sir. That concludes public comment. I know that Councilor Richardson had a few more and. We ended with him and he wanted to make a closing comment. And then we're going over to Councilmember Pearce and then the speakers. Two speakers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted to just, uh, acknowledge you all and address some of some of the things quickly that were brought up. So, number one, we're all in this together. All of our city council colleagues have made contributions to this conversation. The mayor, the entire all of our colleagues care about this issue. It's true. Other districts have hosted the winter shelter in the past, district eight districts, one that I know of. There's been efforts across the city. So people are committed to this issue. And for this to work, we need everyone's support. And so, you know, I want to thank all of our colleagues on the city council for their commitment to this issue and for their hard work. A few things came up. Just some basic stuff that I heard I want to just debunk so quickly this conversation. I keep hearing $2 million sales price and 300% increase. So. Mr.. Mr.. Keisler, can you quickly just describe the arms length sale and what that $2 million was? Councilmember Certainly so. So through through the process of conducting an appraisal, there's a title record review. There's also interviews with past property owners to understand the way the valuation was was set at the previous purchase price. In this case, there's something in California. It's called an arm's length transaction, which means that the two parties don't know each other there. It's usually a market based process if it's considered arm's length. In this case, in the 2013 transaction, the the transaction between two parties, in this case, the Rescue Mission Foundation and the current owner was not considered arm's length. In fact, there were extenuating circumstances that were not disclosed, but indicated that this was not a market based transaction. It could be in some cases that that one of the parties is under duress or they work out a deal less formally. And so the price that was recorded with the assessor was based on a process that was not considered arm's length and was not considered market based, which is why it explains in some ways why it was so below market at that time. The price probably was was higher than what the the previous owner had paid, which was over $3 million for the property. So we don't have all those details. But that that was part of our appraisal process. Thank you. Do you know who the owner was before it was sold. Prior to the the owner the current owner, it was the Rescue Mission Foundation. That was who was indicated as the previous owner. Great. I know there was a comment about Jim Lewis who was associated with the rescue mission about the market there. The rescue mission are the folks who sold it below market value. So everything you hear, there's always more context to it. Next thing that there was a comment about, the 3.4 million from the county that we're grateful for is not enough to make you know, to build this vision. It's absolutely true. That's why the plan is to go out and identify public private partners, other agencies, so that we can build this aspirational vision that we're talking about. So we're not by any means claiming that the 3.4 million will be the it for this for this project. That money is is dedicated to retrofitting the existing building. But we're talking about is as much more for the site. There was the last thing is folks say, why North Palm Beach, not other areas, as if there aren't homeless issues in North Long Beach. The reality is we are at the only part of the city is at the nexus of the L.A. River, the 1791 and and the Edison right away. All of those have different jurisdictional issues in terms of who responds from a public safety standpoint. County sheriffs, some private, some LAPD, all of them. We always have the issue where you clean up an encampment, you clean up an encampment, you help reach new outreach on one side. And then folks simply jump the fence inside of the camp and, you know, on the Edison right away. And then you go address that. They put it back on the other side of the fence, in the river, in the flood zone. And so we have to be comprehensive. And there are issues, significant homeless issues in north on beach that this will help to address that those homeless issues in Norfolk. And so we don't want to assume that there's only homelessness in the downtown. There's not there are major anchors along the river where homelessness exists. Again, this has been you know, this is a team effort. The entire council has done great things on homelessness and, you know, and the community has stepped up. So there's nine letters of support here. So I just want to acknowledge Assembly Member Mike Gibson. Speaker Anthony Rendon. Central Asia. Andy Kerr. Committee Girls and Action Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Long Beach Community Action Partnership, YMCA, Community Development and Pools for Hope for submitting these letters to the City Council. Thank you. And that's my piece. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Pierce. So I want to say thank you to every resident that showed up today. Every person that shared their story. Every person that's been a part of this discussion not only in the last two weeks, but for the last several years. And, of course, I think the council member in North Long Beach that has had the opportunity to lead on this, to really work with community members, to make sure that this is not a place where you're going to have cuts, but this is a place that's going to be really serving of the residents that are there, of the homeless population that is going to transition through that space. I think creating, you know, a campus that has opportunities similar to the villages of Korea is going to be exciting to have that partnership is really critical. I know that often we respond out of a place of fear. You know, not in my backyard or how much money are we going to spend? And that knee jerk response. And we know when we lead out of a place of fear, we hold ourselves back and we isolate ourselves. And so, too, have residents in North Long Beach say, we want to partner. We want to work together. We want to put that aside. And yet we have some questions. You know, we have we'd like more lighting. Sure. I think that that really demonstrates how far the city has come. Ten years ago, if you would have had this discussion here in this chamber, it would have gone very differently. When we look at how much money we've spent on homeless services over the last three years, I think I just got some numbers since I've been in office. It's around $26 million out of our health department. That doesn't include the cost in our urgent care. That doesn't include the cost of our fire and PD going out for calls of service for people that are on the front lines. In my district is downtown. It's our waterfront as a district that has high property values. It's a district that is very much impacted by homelessness. And I think it's very fascinating to see sometimes that just this side of the block can say we will spend whatever it takes to house somebody, and then you have fear and worry on the other side. And so to everybody's point around, why not other places? I think that Councilmember Rex Richardson made a really great point. We have to watch and make sure that, one, that their property values are maintained. They have spent a great deal over the last three terms of this council district and in the north Long Beach to change the story about what north long beaches. And so I know that's extremely important to the councilmember, making sure that when you see homelessness, that you're not seeing tents, but you're seeing people getting services and coming out and moving on past that that point. So those are things that I think, yeah, we need to watch and see. But in my office, when I first got in, I think, you know, we all come in bright eyed and bushy tailed and we try to lead on on items. And I know I've worked with folks that have done homeless services for a long time, and we came in and tried to put a couple of different places with the shipping containers. And I remember working with development services and they're like, No, we're not going to do X, Y and Z, we're not going to retrofit them. It's going to be people living in boxes. And we worked with the Gay and Lesbian Center, the LGBTQ center on Fourth Street, which is in my neighborhood. And they said, absolutely, we'll put them on our property, we'll put them on our back lot if we have to. We'll put them on stilts above our property. We ran into some challenges. We ran into some great opportunity with some funding, but it was a very heavy lift to carry something like this and to not just say, we found a place, we found the money and we found the community that's willing. And unfortunately, in my first six months in office, we weren't able to pull that off. There's still interest. HGTV Rex, I'm going to connect you. These guys, they want to retrofit and put money into anything to help with this homeless community. So there are some once we start on a project like this, we are going to get some more resources. But I totally accept the challenge of some services in the second district. We obviously have a very different geographic space and I think we've tried to work even to find empty lots that are going to be waiting for development to say, well, can we do something temporary? But it takes a lot of coordination. And so bureaucracy sometimes feels like it doesn't have a heartbeat. But I want to say how proud I am of our staff, our city staff for the last several years is really seems like we have found our heartbeat and we're we're attempting to march along that to get solutions. And so I know it takes a lot of different components. I challenge community groups, developers, those that are doing homeless services to also think creatively about what? Are opportunities in my district where we can take that on because we absolutely need to have that Bigsby park. We is where we have people locking themselves in the bathroom so they can sleep. You know, Bixby Park is where I have children that see the affects of homelessness every single day, and it really does affect our neighborhoods. And so I want to be able to say shelter, right? Beds, not sidewalks. So we're all in fully support you. I can't wait to come out and take a tour of the facility and learn how maybe we have some auxiliary spaces like that in the second district. I know there's some work being done at the state level around funding for homeless services around transit corridors. We've got the 710, we've got blue line. We have some great spaces where we can bring some of those services. So I applaud again everybody and I'm very proud to be on this council tonight. Thank you. And one last thing I will say for the. I know for a fact from people in my district that I have three cannabis dispensaries in my district. And we've worked very closely with them to make sure they're engaging community members and having community meetings at their facilities. Cannabis store, they are going for $7 million, I think two weeks ago. One of the people that own a property in my district purchased on the West Side and they purchased a building for $7 million because it had a license tied to it. So it is hard to kind of get our heads around. And I trust that we are putting our best foot forward. And it doesn't matter that we kind of get starstruck, but we know that we're going to invest the time and the energy to pull this off the right way so that we can continue to provide services and shelter for the homeless folks that are in our community. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I want to echo the comments of my colleagues, and I do just want to touch upon one of the public comments that was made about council members not being in the chambers. It's unfortunate that I understand why the comment was made, but I think especially on a night like tonight where we're talking about collaboration and not divisiveness, it's important to not sit in judgment of others. So I just want to explain my. The same people who are here were here when I left. So I don't know who was in the chambers. So I assumed that comment was towards me. But I will share that. We had a recital at my son's school, Lowell Elementary School, tonight, so I did go to his recital and was back within an hour. I was the only parent he had there tonight, so I felt it was important for me to be there in five years. It's the first time I've ever walked away from a council meeting to do something for my family. And I have never walked out of council chambers for a vote ever. I frankly think that's cowardly and I never do it. And anyone who knows me knows that I don't take those issues lightly. I will also say that we shouldn't make judgments because what is the implication there that people didn't stay? I don't know if anyone else left maybe to go use the restroom. I have no idea. But what's the implication there? That they don't care? Because that's not true of any member of this council. Every single member of this council cares about this issue deeply. So I don't know if they took a break to use the restroom or maybe went to have a bite to eat, I don't know. But I would just say, please don't judge, because we all care deeply about this issue. And I know the staff report talks about the kind of the start of this process being in July. And that is that is the data in there is accurate in regards to when we have those discussions. But I want to thank our Health and Human Services Director Kelly Collopy, because I know that in 2014 was the first time I started talking to her about a homeless shelter and what could be done and what the city's plans are. And I know that for years we've been looking at the former winter shelter site as a possible location. In fact, we spoke with Supervisor Hahn shortly after she was elected to find out whether or not there could be funds that could be allocated from the county to help support that facility being turned into a permanent shelter. And I want to first start by just thanking her. I know that there was a representative from her office here earlier tonight, but I sit on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority with her, and we have many homeless issues along the tracks. And Supervisor Hahn has really put her money where her mouth is when it comes to homelessness and was the first before we even got state moneys to put forth money towards the operation of a year round shelter, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct? Before the state moneys came in. The funding is coming through Measure H. Matched through Measure H. So she's been just a huge, huge advocate for these issues for us on a county level. And I want to thank her for that. I also want to thank our mayor and our state legislative committee, because for their advocacy, we would not have had the state funds that we have to work with. And I think that's just been a huge game changer in this plan for us. And, of course, I want to thank Councilman Richardson. The outreach that he's done with his community. The engagement that he's participated in is just remarkable. And I'm grateful to have him as a colleague on this council for all the great work that he's done. It's not easy to propose a concept like this in your neighborhood. And even though there had been a winter shelter there, a temporary shelter there in the past, he really engaged the community in in seeing and understanding the need for this and the opportunities for them to be part of the solution. And I'm grateful for that. I also want to thank my council colleagues for us being at this point. I mean, this is something that we talked about even before it was in public session years ago and something that the city had really hoped for and all the council members were pushing for. And I am so grateful that we're at this point. I do a lot of work for those of you who know me on a personal level, some of you do and some of you don't with the homeless community, both in my work as a prosecutor, I'm very involved in our collaborative court process where I work very hard. Even today I did with actually with a Long Beach Police Department officer who was in the courthouse that I manage with a homeless individual, that he was trying to get into rehab. And I helped him from the D.A. side assist the individual so that he could clear his warrants and he could get into rehab today. And that was amazing. But above and beyond that, I do a lot of work. I volunteered at UCOS several times, and I can tell you the thing that I hear over and over again, obviously, housing is one of the major critical areas of need, but it's not the need for everyone. In fact, we have individuals who have families who are very supportive families who want to help them. But there are other issues preventing them from getting that support and getting involved in that supportive cycle that they need to get on to a different path. And so I think that having a shelter that has a low barrier to entry and addresses things, one of the things that I hear all the time when I go and volunteer at Uco on Sundays when I've done it and when I do homeless outreach is people don't want to go to shelters because if they're a couple, they're going to be separated. The men have to go in one area. Generally, I'm not saying all facilities, but that's what I hear a lot. When I'm working with the homeless community, they can't stay together as a family. Another one is pets. People not having pets, I think really, really impacts people because they don't want to be separated from their pets. It's really like your family and sometimes the only source of support you have. So that's our our shelter. Having a low entry is, I think, very, very important. I know that the next steps involve I mean, right now tonight's item is about the purchase of the property. But assuming all goes as we've planned and we hope, I hope that the next step will involve a very robust, citywide, inclusive process that allows all of us on the city council, regardless of what district we live in, to be involved in, what kind of services we offer. What the barriers. To entry are, how the transportation. Models might work for folks to get into those services. What types of opportunities supportive services are going to be going there? So my request to the city manager and to Director Collopy would be please include all of us because this is something that we all feel very, very strongly about and it's impacting all of our neighborhoods, every single one of us. You know, if you go to the third District, any community meeting in the third district, what they will tell you is it's impacting the third district harder than everyone else because of the coastal zones. I know that's not true, but every neighborhood feels that because that's their experience every day. And so we want to be part of that process so that we can bring all those different perspectives. I do think that it's very, very important for us to be supportive of the neighborhood, in the community that is accepting this citywide treasure , asset needed service in their neighborhood and whatever that we can do whatever Councilman Richardson needs from us to make sure that any impacts are mitigated. You have my 1,000% support that if the community wants or needs anything to ensure that their quality of life is not disrupted as a result of this, that you will always have my backing 100% for that because they deserve it. And we're all here to support you and your community in these efforts. But I just want to thank staff. You've done an amazing job getting us to this point. Mr. Keisler, you and your team continue to do great work in every district, regardless of what the project is. And it amazes me because most people have like a specialty, right? They have a niche that they operate in. You're everywhere on every project and on every topic and doing a fantastic job at it. So thank you. Thanks to the team who presented tonight. Thanks to everyone who came out tonight. Please, if you take one thing away from tonight, everybody on this council cares deeply about this issue. Will meet with you any time of day or night to talk and listen to your ideas and hear what you think we should have as a city. In regards to homelessness, it's affecting all of us, and there are many, many opportunities for us to improve the situation when we work together. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank everybody for coming out this evening and sharing your public comments and to the council and to those who watch this council and have paid attention for some time. I ask we're certainly beside when we are actually talking about a homeless issue and doing something about it. She has she has been a conscious public commenter for four years now, week after week after week, you know, imploring this council to do something, imploring our city staff to do something. And, you know, I just I want to appreciate her because. But she's not here. She she has been a true advocate. I do have some questions because I think there were some good questions here. And before I go into my comments, I do want to ask staff and you've done a long, arduous process, we understand. You know, I understand what the process has been because I've been engaged from from the very beginning. But for the public benefit, can you. And you may have done this already, but once again, walk us through why this property is the best property or the best opportunity for a year round shelter and what, if any, opportunities, other opportunities were considered getting to this point. Councilmember. That is a great question, and we really didn't cover it earlier. But over the past few years, we, as the Economic Development Department, have been responsible for assisting the Health and Human Services Department with locating sites for winter shelters. In in each year, we go through a process of engaging what are called commercial brokers, real estate brokers that help us to identify sites that meet the specifications of certain size, you know, access issues and those kinds of things. And in over the past couple of years, we've typically identified 35 to 50 sites through that process of engaging brokers to look at properties around Long Beach and believe it or not, generally were unable to find a landlord who will engage with us for either a particular period of time to lease the property. And so we've really had a challenge of finding the type of location that that can provide the space and access that we need in the council action that that occurred last year. And we had mentioned before in the presentation we'd been asked to look at those sites again and to identify including former winter shelter sites in in the the search to identify landlords that would be willing to lease or to sell for the for the purposes of a year round shelter. And and we did that search, of course, as we do each year. And this property, which we had been in discussions with the landlord, had actually not been available to us for two years because they had entered into a lease agreement with a cannabis association or a cannabis business and had an active lease in place, which is why the property was worth so much. But over the course of our discussions, we were able to to make progress in terms of not just the the appraisal, but also the discussions with the property owner for a cooperative sale. And so this really became a unique opportunity for us. And of course, when securing the heat funding from the state, the timing was was right and ultimately this became our primary target. But I will just recap. We generally will look at 35 to 50 sites a year and oftentimes not get a single landlord who'd be willing to lease for the period of time or the price point or sell their site for this purpose. So happy to happy to answer any more questions about that. Okay. So if there is a landlord or a property owner that has, what would be the specs we're looking for 2 to 2 house. Yeah. Typically for the, the, the emergency shelter, we were looking for spaces that could house I believe was about 150 beds in the past couple of years. It was that was the target. So they were larger areas, usually a warehouse that had the floor space to put that number of beds, those those winter shelters in the the operations of the winter shelters were unique as well because there weren't individual rooms, there weren't, you know, the apartment kind of style. It was more of an open for a setting. So typically, you know, the 25,000 square feet of a warehouse space allowed for the 150 beds and some property that typically the the individuals would bring with them. So I asked you to explain that because it's not easy to find commercial real real estate in this city with that kind of space. And so thank you for for for explaining that. So. Obviously actions speak louder than words. And tonight, I believe this council has a unique opportunity to act. And to borrow a phrase from my colleague, the Andrews, we have an opportunity to actually walk the walk and not just talk about it. Because we have a unique funding source coming from the state and and supported by our county through Measure H. We have the resources to do it. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson and the District nine residents for stepping up and taking the risk and being part of the solution. I don't think it's a big risk because and I'll explain why. I'd also like to state that from my experience living in Long Beach for the last 25 years, the people in this great, great city are neighborly. They're compassionate and empathetic. And that has been demonstrated tonight through public comment over and over and over again for those who have come out in support of this project. My district, the eighth district, the great eighth district is home to the largest housing development in the city. A whole lot of affordable housing, Section eight housing, and numerous nonprofits that provide social service programs, including the Women's Shelter of Long Beach, Telecare. And today we're we're the current home to the winter shelter. We've sponsored it for the last two years at the Old North Library. This is an issue, I believe, of humanity. And it's everybody's responsibility to to help in the crisis of our time. The winter shelter in the eighth District right now, I can say, is very well run by U.S. vets. There have been no incidents. There have been no significant impacts. To report it to my office by the neighbors. It has been a peaceful, quiet, seamless, smooth operation. And that's why I think and I know because they've had experience with it before. Obviously, this is not new to the ninth District that this project will work in terms of the cost. Yes, it seems like a lot. Right. But I will just say that we can't afford not to do this at this point. This this crisis is a serious crisis. The the the the people on the street need help. And it's our duty to humanity, I believe, as city council members, but also as a society. Everybody in here has as a responsibility to provide shelter where and if we can. And I'll say this one shelter is not enough in the city. This is a large city. 125 beds is a it's going to be a drop in the bucket by the time this this the shelter comes online. If you look at the current trend of homelessness throughout the L.A. County. And Lauren Bolen, thank you for participating in this belief. Thank you for participating in the the homeless count that you know, everybody else who did that a couple of weeks ago. That's going to be an important exercise and engage for us to to to to plan resources in the future. I personally would like to see at least three homeless shelters year round in the city of Long Beach. Based on the numbers that we have today that we know and what we are projecting in the future. I think it's, again, inhumane for our brothers and sisters, our aunts, uncles, fellow human beings to have to sleep on railroad, ride away in a long riverbeds, in parks, alleys, along sidewalks. This is this is not something that we can sit back and say, hey, not in my backyard, because, yes, it will be on your front yard . I heard that my neighbor about three months ago literally had somebody sleeping in their flower bed. Right. And everybody on the block was just astounded, like, what do we do? We have to do something. And so this tonight, this the city council has an opportunity to step up, to make a bold decision in the right direction. I'm certainly happy to lend my vote and my support for for this winter. I mean, not the winter shelter, just this year round shelter for the city of Long Beach. And and again, it's not going to be an easy process. I hope that we can do all we can to fast track this, get the resources to build it out and to make it habitable for for the people that that need the services. And so with that, you have my support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Supermom. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Thank you all for being here tonight and your civic engagement. Thanks to Rex Richardson for bringing the item forward. And thank you to all. My council colleagues. For supporting these issues on homelessness over the years and also like to commend Susie Price for getting us back on track here with her comments on making this collaborative and positive moving forward. For those who don't know, we started our meetings today at 3:30 p.m.. If one of us has to take a break, you might want to know that the sound. From the chamber. Is piped into the council lounge so we never miss a comment. Also, in the interests of just keeping it positive, one of the comments mentioned the neighbors rejecting a shelter near the armory, and I'm pretty sure that reference was to what we called Schroeder Hall. It was ten years ago, and I was in an office in the fifth District Council. Councilwoman Mongo was not in office then. But just as a point of clarification, that was not a year round shelter and it wasn't even a shelter. So I guess my point is we are all we all want to work collaboratively here and want to make it positive moving forward. So I think we can avoid pointing fingers at behaviors in the past because I think we're on the right track now. I also want to thank. Staff, Kelly Colby, of course, and then John Keisler. He's worked so hard on this. But what you may not know, he's also simultaneously been working on the community hospital project. And you talk about a project that could really impact this issue. Community hospital, before it closed, had a 28 bed psych unit. And if you know the correlation between homelessness and mental health issues, when we reopen community hospital, we might be able to double that capacity. So you think of 56 beds addressing those challenged with with mental health issues. What a great impact that would be. So thank you again and I'll be in support. Thank you. Councilmember Vice Mayor Andrew. Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank Rex Richardson. And as host Dad and Susie and all the rest of the individuals on the day today, I don't think individuals would really take it lightly and know that we are in a crisis when we talk about homelessness. But I think everyone out there, whether you agree or you disagree, you are very compassionate about the individuals out there sleeping on the streets, sleeping next to your homes, in your alleys. You must have some form of compassion. If you don't, then I think it's something, you know, Lauren, with you and your thoughts and your compassion. But I think tonight we're trying to show you that we are working with a dedicated we're committed to this homeless all around shelter. And Councilman Richardson, I think he's went above and beyond. You know, he and his district do let you know that they are there. They are all in. And I really want to thank the young students, especially in the vigil from Polly and the young lady from Milliken. You know, we I'm a policeman, but that's okay. But with all of that said, I just want to let you individuals, knowing the young man here says he came all the way in and says, I'm in, and that's wonderful, because I think if we don't get in, then they will be in and that's on your porch, your backyard, your front yard. And what can we do? We must do it. And we must do it now. Let's get involved. Don't talk about it. We're going to have to be about it. Thank you, individuals, for waiting this long to be a part of this dialog. Thank you again. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And just to conclude, I want to just touch on one other thing that was said, which I think is so important and I think needs to be reiterated and I want to expand on on it. This idea of the ensuring that that this shelter is a place that that there are low barriers to entry is really, really important for for a couple of reasons, I think. One is this will be the first municipal municipal shelter in the city. And that gives us as as a governmental body, different level of responsibility and in addition, allows us to be much more flexible in what happens on the site. And we have some really great shelter operators, by the way, which I know we haven't talked a lot about tonight. But I do want to thank the current operators of the shelters that are in the city, which we've had partnerships for a long time. But there's key components that are important that this shelter will allow us to do. One, for example, which hasn't been mentioned much tonight, is the openness for the LGBTQ community. There are many members we know that most homeless youth are LGBTQ, and we also know that this shelter won't have and is not what have some requirements other shelters might have that might make young gay or lesbian or trans community members feel uncomfortable. And so that's really important for the gay community to have a shelter that is completely open. And the other, which I think was mentioned by Councilman Price, is the idea of pets and to be able to actually have and allow people to come in with their with their animals who are members of their family is really , really important as well, which we know is not always the case in all shelters. And the family issue being able to come in, if you have a partner that you're on the street with, that is really, really important. It's really, really important that that happens. And so I think that those those issues and this idea that this will be a shelter for everyone to me is very exciting. And again, thank you to the community and for all all of the work. And so with that, I'm not sure that Councilman Gonzales is still on the line or not. I don't think so. So maybe we can just go and take a vote using the the keypads. Oh, she absolutely cares. We need to we need to. Continue as a roll call vote. But we do need to get the roll call vote. And let's let's continue as a roll call vote. Madam Clerk. Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Supernanny. Hi. Vice Mayor Dee Andrews. All right. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. I know it's. I know it's late, but now we're gonna go back to the regular agenda, and we have a second hearing, and then we'll just go through the agenda. So if we can please, Madam Clerk, here. The second hearing for the evening hearing number two, or I think it was hearing your number.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Corecivic, Inc. for residential and non-residential community corrections services. Approves a contract with Corecivic, Inc. for $6,680,446.70 and through 6-30-20 for residential and non-residential community corrections services (2019-50074). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-16-19. Council member Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 8-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0882

I. I'm Secretary. Please close voting announced results 1339 as Resolution 81. Has been requested. I'm not quite done yet. If you're here on this issue, we actually have two contracts, so you might want to sit and we're going to vote on the next one. You're free to leave if you'd like. Madam Secretary, will you please for the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Hines, will you please put resolution 882 on the floor? Mr. President, I move a resolution eight two for adoption. It has been moved and seconded, and I believe everyone was commenting on both of them. So I think we can move straight into the vote unless I see somebody pop up here and I don't. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 882. Hinds I. Black. I. CdeBaca, I fled i. Gilmore i. Herndon, i. Cashman can each. Ortega. I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as Resolution 882 has been adopted. I will ask that if you are not sitting around for the rest of our meeting, we do have a packed agenda. So if you could Exodus quietly as possible and leave those doors closed as you get into the hallway so that

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use; and Adopt resolution ordering the vacation of the alley portion south of 520 West Willow Street, east of Daisy Avenue. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_06132017_17-0448

through Measure H. And so I want to make that announcement and and thank you thank you all for your support on that on that important issue. With that, we're going to go ahead and go right into the first hearing. So, Madam Clerk. Hearing item one is a report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use. And a resolution ordering the vacation of the alley portion south of 520 west Willow Street, east of Daisy Avenue, District seven . Thank you. And to turn this over to staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report was given by Deputy Director of Public Works John Crumby. Good evening. On a Roman Council item, each one seeks to move forward a vacation of the portion of the alley south of 520 west Willow. The recommended action tonight has three parts, which are to conclude and conduct a public hearing, find that the alley is not needed for public benefit and adopt the resolution for vacation, said Alley. This item has had a general plan consistency finding by the City Council on February 14th of this year. Also, a notice of intent to vacate occurred on May 9th of this year. I'm available to answer any questions that you. Kate, thank you. So thank you for the staff report. Let me move that public comment on this hearing or public comment. Please come forward. Home EC to put up these two? Absolutely. So we got to. The. Perfect. Just a test. Because you're paying attention. Sitting back there just a little bit. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the city council. My name is Delgado. My address is on file. I represent Raymond Jensen, who is here. And we are opposed to the to the proposed Ali vacation. The way I have organized this in the interests of time and I believe this will save us a lot of time, is to have each of the people that are speaking in opposition speak very, very briefly. First, Michael Polley, who is a private investigator who I retained to do some work on this. And he did some counts of. Of vehicles in the area. Secondly, the owner of the adjacent property property, Raymond Ginn, on third, Esmeralda Zambrano, who has for more than 20 years been the general manager of the Priority Care Medical Group, which is at 500 West Willow Street. And then Dr. Dariush Kashani, who is the medical doctor at Priority Care Medical Youth Group. And then Dr. Sam Gibney, all of whom will take it very briefly, and then I'll sum up. So first, I would have Michael Polley address you. Good evening. My name's Mike Pauley. I'm a private investigator, licensed with the state of California. I was retained by Mr. Otto to conduct observations and. Monitor and document vehicles. Accessing the alleyway today from 7. A.m. to 4 p.m.. And I counted. 339. Vehicles accessing the east west alleyways. 1/2. Actually, Madam Court, can you help them with the fix the mike? We have a little issue with the mike we're going to fix right now. There we go. Okay. Thank you very much. They're much better. The east west alleyway, along with the North-South Alley Alleyway. Next, the property owner from five 500 West Willow Street. Good evening. My name is Raymond Johnson, owner of the 500 and 520 East Crest Villa. By closing that alley, whatever the traffic is, going back and forth is going to come through. Behind our. Property and whatever. It doesn't go there. It double the traffic over there and is not safe. If it is not safe for West Westland people, it would be double for our people coming and going from the parking to the building and for the trucks. Trash trucks. Going there. It is going to be close the alley. How that truck. Can turn and go out from. One way the back up to they see the back side. It just happened last year that the lady got flattened with the asphalt near up near our home. So you have to consider that. If. Next we'll have. Dr. Dariush Kashani, who is the medical director of the Priority Care Medical Group. We can we can turn the clock off. I think it's just a reasonable amount of time and so they're okay, keep going. Good evening, council members and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Doris Kashani. I'm the CEO of Priority Care and Medical Group. I run a nonprofit organization. We serve the uninsured and underinsured of the community. We there. Has been a clinic. In 500 west well over the last 25 years. We just recently took over the clinic over almost about a year now. And the population that we serve are generally low income or uninsured from the surrounding community. So we serve the community for that purpose. The patients who utilize our services are mostly with physical disability. They either have hearing visual, they might be pregnant carrying a baby or two babies on toes. They might be on wheelchair, amputated on crutches. I don't think the city council realized the impact of putting a gate at the end of this alley. What it will cause to people who have to cross the parking lot to come over. These people are not going to be able to react to any impending danger as easily as a healthy body can react to it. As I understand it, next door neighbor is a real estate company and a construction company. These are able healthy bodies that need to cross from their parking lot into their building. If it is unsafe for them to cross from their parking lot to their building in healthy, abled working bodies. How do we expect people who have visual hearing, disability or other physical disabilities illnesses that utilizing the community clinic to be able to safely go from the parking lot to the building? This is a real danger for our community and people who utilize our clinic. Again, we serve the under insured and uninsured population of the community. Most of our patients do come from the neighboring area and I am of great concern for their safety. If this goes in place, all the trucks and delivery and other cars that need to address and go through this alley, we're not going to be able to go through. They will end up having to back up and they will get stuck and will cause significant amount of hazard. Thank you so much for your time and listening to me. Thank you. Now, Esmeralda Zambrano. Hi. Good evening. My name is Esmeralda Sembrano. I been the office manager priority care for 24 years. I don't even see how this is even considered. To close this alley, we use this alley all the time for our patients. We've called 911 several times. Patients have gotten severe sick. And how are they going to have access? How are they going to have access to come in and out fast? When we call them, these patients need access to these alleys. I myself have to go around because if I take well in Magnolia, there's been accidents there. Look in the records almost at least once a month. There's accidents on Willow and Magnolia. People getting hurt every single month. You have to really consider this for our patients sake to really consider closing this alley. It's very important to us. I really appreciate if you consider this. Thank you. Thank you. Then. Dr. Samuel, get Blake. Hi. Good evening. I have a. Practice in the building for more than 20 years and I think definitely we see the impact of the patient and my colleagues have been. Explain how this important if you consider about their safety for sure the patient safety number one definitely is. We see the cars go in and out and it began up like the alley for sure. We're going to have a lot of cars that have to make a U-turn to bring it back to go to the main street. And I think this is going to do impact plus, like they mentioned, the handicap wheelchair. All the kids, you know, the running, walking from the parking lot to the building. So definitely it should take this one into consideration as of the block in the alley. Thank you. Thank you. Then I'll I'll look. Sum up what the argument is here. Basically, when is a street or alley vacation supposed to happen where you start off with the idea that it's a gift of public land? What happens is you're saying we no longer need this public alleyway. And so because it's unnecessary, we're going to let the people that are adjacent to it or have some claim over it take that land. They can only do so, however, with a finding by you that as follows. And this comes from streets and Highways Code Section 6324. If the legislative body finds from all of the evidence submitted that the street, highway or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is and these are the critical words unnecessary for present or prospective use. The legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating the street, highway or public service easement. The process that has to be gone through is that there must be a conformance with the general plan finding and that is delegated to the Planning Commission. This has come up several times over the last couple of years and the Planning Commission has never made a conformance finding. In fact, at the hearing on December 1st after public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the matter and determined that the proposed alley vacation would not be in conformance with the general plan. The Planning Commission determined that the portion of the alley proposed to be vacated had the potential to provide public use or convenience due to its existing access points to existing residential and commercial uses currently provided by the existing East West Alley. That's the alley that we're talking about and the therefore that the alley vacation had the potential to be detrimental so that the alley would no longer be available for present or prospective public use. Now I've put up two boards here and unfortunately I can't see either one of them. So I'm going to have to sneak a peek so we can talk about this. This board here shows the actual area that is supposed to be vacated. It is the western westerly half. And we've talked about the westerly half of this alley directly behind for a 520 west Willow Street. The other half of the alleyway is where my client's business is. And they purchased that that that building in January of this year. The second board that I have here, I put up to show you just this that alleyway is an integral part of the circulation patterns of District seven and the Wrigley neighborhood. In fact, many, many, many people use that alleyway to get around so that they can avoid Willow and and having to get out on major streets. This is between Magnolia and Daisy. And you can see here how right goes. Right in between Magnolia and Daisy. It drives up just, you know, 50 feet and then it goes all the way to a building. Well, wrap it up the time. Oh, okay. And so that's the process is this I challenge anybody in the city, in the planning department or in the public works department to tell me where a half of an alleyway has ever been vacated before like this. And finally, I would say, no, you can't make the finding, because just today there were more than 300 cars that showed that this is presently in use and needs to be kept as it is and not vacated or given away to someone, which is what's been requested . Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. We're still doing public comment. Hello. Good evening. Can Greenspan from 520 West whether from Westland. So I just wanted to take a few minutes. To respond to some of those comments. And it's interesting to me that the argument is that by blocking off. This section of the alley that we are actually increasing the safety hazards. It would. Seem to me that if we block the access of the. Alleyway, we're going to get a lot less through traffic, through the alleyway. Which is going to make things. Safer. And of those 300 cars, probably 150 of them, give or. Take, maybe even 200 of them came from my office. Alone with my. Own. Tenants and people that are customers that are coming into my. Building where we're going to be stopping those people from driving by the medical office. Which I think is. Is actually an increase in safety. We looked at at the last few times, we came up here and presented we also talked about the trash issue. And found that the trash actually does not. Need to come through that alleyway. There is a. This is not blocking off happening. There's actually a. Three way alley and there is we're not. Blocking off it. Making a dead end to the alley. There's still an exit path through this. Alleyway so that cars can continue to drive through without having to make a U-turn or anything like that. We also did some. Research on the accidents. Reported on Magnolia. And have found no records of any car accidents at the exit of the alley at Magnolia. We've also been able to show through our previous presentations that the circulation pattern here in this area, actually, many of the buildings don't have these alleys behind them. And in fact, our alley, our building is absolutely unique in the way that it has no actual buffer. Between the back of the building and. The alleyway. So we talk about safety from our perspective. You open our door to our building and you are literally in an. Alley with 300. Cars. Driving by. And it it can become a it is a danger with the medical office and the other buildings on that block. They have a good. 20, 25 feet buffer between their back doors and the alleyway. And that's what I wanted to say on this. So thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, Mayor. Council people. My name is Dr. Levy Freed. I'm the co-owner and founder of Long Beach Beer Lab at 518 West Willow Long Beach First Manufacturing Brewery as of Friday. So we're very excited to be here. I'm at 518 and I use the West Land Alley and I use the West Land parking lot. And I'm concerned about the through alley because me and my employees and my staff have number of times always been hit by people zooming through that alleyway. So I think the safety concern should be that we should worry about too much traffic through that alley. And I think that application of that alley and and a stop in there would help people cross that alley on their way to work or away from work, especially my patrons who will be parking in that alley and walking around the building to my entrance. So I'm concerned about them, especially late at night. And well, people are just zooming through on their way, bypassing any sort of whatever on Willow Street in also in the future, I hope to be able to use that alley for some sort of neighborhood festivals that we could do through our brewery and through the community. And having that access to the alley would definitely help that arrangement. If cars were to zoom past, that could be a huge safety concern. So I'm in favor of the vacation and that is it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That concludes public comment for this hearing. So I will go back now to the city council and I'll start with Councilmember Murang'a, which is this areas in his district so customary, Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank all the people who testified today regarding this L.A. vacation just for staff. Can you please review the process as to from initiation to where we're at at this point in terms of the different points of contact and different points of studies that we did starting from the beginning. Just to get a historical perspective. Happy to. When a request for a vacation comes in. To the city, a formal. Application is filed, and the city reviews several criteria to determine if public benefit is needed for the alley. Several things are not allowed or would not be recommended to move forward by the staff. One being we would never move forward. A vacation of an alley that forms a dead end alley. Every alley needs to have a in and out. And that is the case with after the vacation that moves forward here. But petitions are filed and. Notices go to the surrounding properties and they're provided opportunity to comment positively or negatively to the proposed action. And the staff works with with the surrounding property owners that receive those notices. Also, utility companies are public safety departments in several internal functions of the public works department. Go through. That process to determine if public benefit is needed for their services. Within the public works department. Traffic and trash departments are consulted and both in both cases, those departments or those divisions of the department agreed that the vacation could move forward and there would not be an adverse impact to vacation in the alley. A couple. Other comments on a. Few of the things that were said. It's important to note that only a portion of this alley is being vacated, and the gentleman who spoke about traffic counts mentioned northwest are north, south and east west. It's really only a portion of the. East west. Alley that's being vacated. And the other comment was the general plan, consistency, finding. Everything was said, was accurate, but the city council did make the general plan consistency finding in February of this year. Okay. Thank you. Now, when it comes down to the issues of ambulance or emergency vehicles going through to that area to address issues regarding the the medical services and next door, has there was every record done or account done in terms of how many calls for service there were and what impact that would have to that business. As part of the notification process. Emergency services consulted in terms of both in terms of emergency response. On ALS and in this case. The response. Was that. Coverage would be. Still provided at the same service level. As. Whether the vacation occurs or not. Okay. And just to clarify, the accidents that that were alluded to were regarding the alley to Magnolia. Correct. I mean, in terms of either turning north or south out of the alleyway, is that correct? So we haven't. Personally researched those individual accidents. As part of the. Process. Our staff does. Go through a database of accidents to look to see whether vacation has a safety impact. And that was not found in this case. Okay. Well, based on the report from staff and regarding the also the input that was put in by the fireplace fire police departments as well as public works in terms of trash pickup, I support the indication they would ask that my colleagues support it also. Thank you. Okay. There's a second on emotion, which is Councilwoman Gonzales. Any comments? Okay. Well, I see no other comments from staff. Mr. City Attorney, do you have something on addressing? Okay. There is a motion in a second by Councilmember Durango and Councilwoman Gonzalez, our members. Please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion case. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you to everyone that came out for that. We're moving on to consent. If I can get a motion any second, please, on consent. I. Okay. There's a motion in a second on consent.

Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Service Agreement with Gig Car Share for a One Year Point-to-Point Carshare Pilot Program at No Cost to the City. (Transportation 91402)

AlamedaCC_05012018_2018-5377

Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. I am Gail Payne, a senior. Transportation coordinator. For the city. This item before you is a staff recommendation. To initiate a one year pilot program for a point. To point car share. At no. Cost to the city with getting car share. And we do have two great representatives of key car share audience. And here to help with responses to any questions. That you may have, it's Dermott. Hickey and Sloan Morgan here. And would you. Like me to go through the. Description of. The pilot, or what would you like me to cover? Well, I guess I'd start with. My understanding is you'd have 35 to 50 cars. And would they be parked in designated places or where would they be parked? Okay. Specifically or just go forward. I have a couple of slides here and. I'll just move forward to the actual pilot that staff is recommending. And what we. Are recommending along with GIG. Is to launch with up to 35 vehicles. On the main island of Alameda only and not Bay Farm Island and that's up to 35. So it could be 20 probably to start as a soft launch. And providing no more. Than 50 vehicles within the main island of Alameda. And this would be anywhere within the. Public property on street parking. Within the main island of Alameda. So where would they be parked on street? Okay. So are there specific so in the report, sometimes as designated spaces. Are there actual designated spaces? Like if you go to other cities, you know, where there's designated spaces or is that what you're proposing? Or. So we are different. This pilot, we are piggyback. We are recommending to piggyback on. To the existing pilot that's happening in Oakland and Berkeley. And Oakland. And Berkeley does. Have a different type of pilot that we're recommending because we're not recommending. That the cars and stop and end a trip or the the gig members end trips at parking meters. Or at the. Parking structure. Whereas in Oakland and Berkeley, there are instances where people gig members can end trips at parking meters. And so it is different. And we did back in 2015, we have exhibit three, I think it is, that says has a policy that Transportation. Commission did approve. Back in. 2015. That does that does say that we are allowed to do that, but we. Are trying to go a little bit more cautious on. This pilot. And two staff is. Actually. Recommending not having a transactional circumstance. Here with gig. Car share for the parking meters or. The parking. Structure. Madam Mary. Member. I was wondering if your questions are great and I saw the, the long list of the answers from MBS pain and massage. But I'm wondering for people in the audience who might not even be familiar with the concept of gig car, if maybe this pain might just give a quick overview and then maybe they would understand your answers, the answers to your questions a little more in context. So how how long is your presentation? How many pages? I just have a few slides here and so I can start off with could you just describe what car sharing is that's going through that? That's a great idea, right? That's that's basically what. The presentation boils down to. And that in Alameda, we already Alameda. Are. Already benefiting from three different types of car sharing. We have dedicated space car sharing here in town for spaces. We also have. The peer to peer car share where. Neighbors are actually renting out the cars. To other neighbors. And both these types of car share are led and operated by another. Company called Getaround. And Getaround has over 900 members, Alameda members. And this is a third. Type of car share that we're. Are. Wanting to bring to Alameda. It's already. Operating this point to point car. Share. It's already. Operating as a pilot in the East Bay, Oakland, Berkeley and. Albany. And what this is is called point. To point car share. It's also called one way car. Share or. Free floating. Car share. And what that means. Is that. Someone can rent a car here and then. Take it to Berkeley and into trip. You don't have to. Take it back to the same. Spot, a dedicated space and that spot. Here in Alameda, if. Someone were to return it here, it could be, according. To the pilot, anywhere here on our. Public streets that are unrestricted, that's no parking meters or. And no time limits. And so the benefit of this and why Alameda. And are wanting. To have car share and are signing up for these car share programs. And keep in mind get car share there's. Already 200 comedians who are going gig car show members even though we don't have gig Karcher in Alameda. So and the reason. Why aluminums. Are. Interested is that it costs a lot less. Than owning a car. We have rents that are really quite high now. We have mortgages that are quite high. And so people are looking at their household budgets and trying to figure out. How to cut costs. And transportation is a big expense. Owning a car is a big expense. And so. We are trying to find as a city transportation options other than. Driving alone and driving your own personal car. And even though this. Is still driving alone per say. When people become car share members, they're much more likely to. Reduce their car ownership. To postpone buying that additional vehicle, to give up a car, to avoid buying a vehicle. And so this really is moving in the right direction. National studies show that. You reduce. Vehicle miles traveled, reduce. Greenhouse gas emissions, increase walking and bicycling headed all in the right direction. Where we've been wanting to go as the transportation choices plan that you just passed in January, it's all consistent with that. And so that's why we are recommending it here and we are recommending to become piggyback onto the gig car. Sure, it's already in the East Bay. It is attracting rider or human members who are younger. 16 to 44 with these type. Of one way trips they tend to make it's they tend to be 15 minutes. Long and about two miles. And as I mentioned before, where on this site can you go back to that former site? Yes. So 16 year olds can rent these cars? Yes. I don't think so. Okay. Okay. I just ask because the slide says 16 to 29 so that maybe it's. So. He wouldn't do it. He just said it's the age bracket. But you're right, it's 18 to 29. Is is are 18 is the youngest that can become members of good car share. Thank you. Oh. Is that that okay? All right. So staff is recommending that we. Launch here in. Alameda gate car share and we are recommending. A maximum of 50 vehicles. We're recommending. To. Launch on the main island of Alameda and only on Bay Farm Island if it makes business sense. And yeah, I have that's I think I have a question related to that. I mean, first of all, you have to have a license, right? Yes. And then do you have to have insurance as well if you want to rent this? I mean. A driver's license. What about I am Sloane Morgan from gig car share. And you need insurance as well. Insurance comes with the gig car share. Okay. So you don't have to have your own insurance, correct? Okay. That's thanks for that answer. And then my question on Bay Farm. You know. I know. You know, there's the there's the park and ride lot over there by the Grand View Pavilion. And I think we're also trying to where you can actually catch the bus right out there. And there's all we're also trying to encourage folks to who use the ferry to park at the golf course. And, you know, at some point we're going to have some transit options between that lot and the ferry. And I wonder if, you know, we would consider, you know, devoting some spaces here because then, you know, if you're not driving your car to the ferry and you can drive it here and then leave it and someone else could pick it up and so on and so forth, that that's that's something we might want to consider , you know, because someone who used to live on Bay Farm people, they don't like to be felt left out. And, you know, we do have some, you know, last two mile or last three mile issues out there as well, especially with the ferry station. So this pilot program, it definitely leaves that open for good car share to that make. If it makes business sense for. Them to do that. Then this agreement allows. Them to do that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. If how many cars, if any, in the cars. You said that there's different types of shared cars already here in Alameda. Do you know how many cars those are? I've spoken with Get Around. And what they were able to tell. Me is that they do have over 900 members that are in Alameda. And that the four dedicated spots in Alameda, they have from those four dedicated spots, 100. Trips per month. So those are four dedicated. Cars to those four spots. And with those four cars, make 100 trips per month. So that company has dedicated spots. Yes. And this company would not have any. So they would just park in front of someone's house and then leave it there for up to the 72 hours. Do they move them after 24 hours? After 8 hours? When do they make sure that that car is moved? Yes. So gig two. For them to have a successful business model, they really need to keep those. Cars moving. These are big as this is a big asset for them. And so for. Berkeley, the average time that the cars. Are in one parking spot or is 2 hours in Oakland, it's 7 hours. And so they do a gig, car share company does. Have GPS is on. Each vehicle. So they're able to track and see if a car is not moving. So they want to keep those car at that. But my question goes to let's say the car doesn't move. When do you guys come and move it? Because we have had issues in regards to, for instance, lime bikes, right? So we've had to work with that company to try to step up on their customer service. But it's a specific question. You guys come around and move that car. So I'm going to just say the car is parked in front of my house, right? The 12 hours you make sure that car is gone, 2472 went when so they were required. I'll let Dermot answer 1/2 as. Per this. Agreement, they are. Required, like any other car, to move before the 72 hours. And yet, like I said, that to be a successful business model. They really have to keep those cars moving. 72 hours comes along. Do they make sure it's moved or is it my responsibility to call the police? They have the think tag and then we wait a few days till actually gets towed. Yes, they they do. And I'll let Dermot answer more. Great question marks. Spencer and likely one of the most common questions we get Dermot with Gig. Yeah. So we are, I don't know if we're it's familiar but we're actually a division of triple-A. Just want to make sure that's clear. We are much more conservative than maybe some of the other operators you've had to work with in other industries. But just to clarify your specific question on the actual alert and how it's managed, so we have a full time fleet management team, we call them fleet magicians, and they are dedicated to operating our existing 500 vehicle fleet across Albany, Oakland and Berkeley and hopefully one day Alameda. And so within that, as far as the vehicles are located, we have GPS systems. We know exactly where the vehicles are and we have alerts that go out that's tied to also street sweeping in addition to vehicles that are left idle or what we call gigs in the wild. So on occasions, a vehicle's left a far distance from a cluster of members. In those cases, there's an alert of the 54 hours that the team has enough time to schedule and go rescue that gig and put it into a location where it's getting higher use. What we're proposing here is not to add additional vehicles and, you know, order another half $1000000 to $1000000 worth of assets for Alameda specifically. But we see the demand and the opportunity within our existing member base or members in Alameda and how the their home zone is currently located. To use that as to make the holistic ecosystem to help it work great. So OC Vice Mayor. I do have a follow up question. Sure. So what happens? And the reason I ask this is because it's the question that's inevitably going to come up. And I've already seen some of the gigs around town. People are using them already picking them up. I see them at the dedicated spaces at BART and seen people drive them over to Alameda. If somebody parks, what happens if somebody parks and they block your driveway because this comes up all the time here? Who do we who who would the members of the public call? Who would they call? Yeah. So we have a 24 seven dedicated member care center and that's that's actually built into the Triple A member care centers. We have a huge amount of responsiveness as a result of that as well as like language issues and anything else like that. We're already prepared. We're very fortunate that triple-A is is our our parent organization. So with with a situation like that, we have a very strict member agreement that our members need to follow the rules of the road, whether it's ADA Access only commercial or your driveway. Those are places people should not be parking my car, their own car, a gig car. So in a situation like that, someone is welcome to actually call us. We'll get it removed if the thing gets towed as a result of it being in the space and you're in a rush to get out, we pay the bill, we then engage with the member to understand what went wrong. Maybe they made an honest mistake. Maybe their wife was giving birth and they just had to run down to the hospital. But long story short, we follow up with every single member, and if they're just being negligent, we remove them and they're not allowed to be members anymore , unfortunately. And is that number on the vehicle or would people have to go to our website to find it? How would they go about accessing that? Currently it is not on the vehicle. And so they would have to they would have to, like, look up gig through an app or they would look up online in order to get that either. Online or their welcome to the app app. But online would be the fastest way to find that. So every vehicle is a jet black Prius hybrid. And the goal there was really to be low emission and conveniently sized to park. So the logo's there. So thus far with our experience in Oakland and Berkeley, that is that has worked well. Unfortunately, we haven't had that many reports of people parking in front of others driveways. But have you had any reports of anyone parking it wrong? Yes. Okay. So then why don't you just put the phone number on the vehicle to make it easy? So it's a good question. I think it was a balance between managing branding and and how the vehicle looks. Members are like private vehicle owners. They want a vehicle to look like something that they're happy to drive around all the time so that they're able to feel like it's their vehicle. So the more the more things you put on it, the less likely a member is to potentially shed their own vehicle or or. Okay. So the cities you're currently in, do they get phone calls about complaints? I just happened to get quite a few, for instance, about lime bikes. I'm wondering if the cities that you're currently in, if they get phone calls about the cars, you know, being parked in the wrong place that they. Have relative to other initiatives the cities are working on for sustainability goals. The. I'd be happy to give you contacts of those cities so they could they could speak to that themselves. Do you know how many calls they get? Do you guys keep track of that? How many complaints we have? We do all. That. We do because I'm the direct point of contact as well as Sloan for the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, now Albany. So we receive them directly and we. Work with our operations teams to manage them. Right now. I haven't received it. I don't recall if I received the call in April. So just as an example. Right. Any other questions from council members? In regards to the insurance, what type of coverage is there? Yeah, it's comprehensive offensive coverage. So there's a minimum deductible to the member for, say, if it's a fender bender. I think I believe the deductible is. 750. Could you speak in the mike, please? If you're a triple. A member, it's 250. If if you're a general member of the public, I believe. I need you to rise and speak. And then Mike, one of you. All right. Sorry. Go ahead. If you are a triple AA member, you get a reduction in that deductible, putting it at $250 as your deductible. If you're not a triple AA member, it would be $750. And then just a friendly follow up. If you put in gig car share customer service, you can test it. The phone number comes right up. We're not hiding the number at all. It's right there. Okay. So is there any insurance for injuries? Someone gets injured in the car? Yes. There's comprehensive coverage. You have limits, though. There are no limits. I'm sure there's limits. I can show you the. I can get the paperwork for you and show you that. But it's what? All right. So, yeah. So at some point I'd like to share with the public or actually myself and it's probably in here somewhere, but I'd like to know what the coverage is. Any other questions? And I'm going to go ahead and call the we have two speakers. All right. Pat Potter and then Brian Maguire. Potter. I'm part of CASA Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I'm on the Transportation Committee and I'm also part of like Mark Alameda on the board. And I'm, I'm talking about the importance of looking at alternatives to everyone owning a car. So UC Berkeley's Transportation Sustainability Research Center has studied car share and has come up with some of the advantages to it. And the Research Center was formed in 2006 to combine the research forces of six campus groups, the University of California Transportation Center, the University of California Energy Institute, the Institute of Transportation Studies, the Energy and Resources Group. The Center for Global Metropolitan Studies and the Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Since two years since RC was founded, it's been a leading center in conducting timely research on real world solutions for a more sustainable transportation future. The benefits, they say, of car sharing can include increased vehicle use and ownership. Increased transit. Ridership. Biking and walking. Cost savings to individuals and employers. Energy savings. And air quality benefits. And reduced parking demand at participating transit stations, member employer sites and residential locations. So I just want to say that I fully support a gig shared ride type of business, and I think that they would do a great job. Thanks. Thank you. Brian McGuire. And then he's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak on it, submit your slip, please. Good evening, brian werbach, mark alameda. Just to refresh and if I didn't get a chance to read this version of this out of four, but I did see it at the Transportation Commission. That commission, I believe, unanimously supported this and they unanimously supported changing the staff recommendation to include Bay Farm, if possible, in the pilot, and not leave all those residents out at the behest of maybe a couple of outspoken leaders of the Bay Firm, HRA or OAS and the Transportation Commission. Not exactly a you know, not a bunch of spandex clad, you know, cycling car share, you know, alternative transportation, you know, forefront leaders of the community. But they very much supported this and they understood the value that this could provide. And so I think there's a the point there is that there's a broad support for this from different aspects of the community. A lot members of the Transportation Commission from all parts of the island, including Bay Farm, who wanted to participate in this . This is exactly the kind of thing that we should be supporting with, you know, that we talked about in the Transportation Choices plan. It's exactly the kind of thing that when my six year old car gives up the ghost that I put a couple thousand miles a year on, I won't have to replace that and take up a parking space. You know, when I occasionally need a car, that can be our second car instead of being a two car household. We can become a one car household, hopefully. And I think a lot of Alameda families would like to do that, reduce the number of cars, if not become completely car free car lite. So we would support this wholeheartedly and we look forward to it being successful in town. Thanks. Thank you. I have a couple more questions. The staff and one of the questions that I had asked, I got a response that Gigas projected 108 almost $200,000 revenue from May 3rd through April 30th, 2019 revenue. How does the city make money off of this? Or is there some? I know sometimes when I look at shared something, there's like every time a ride takes place is a dollar that goes to the city or something. Is there is that any part of this proposal? I'm not a tax expert yet. Forever. All the revenues that are generated, there are taxes that are paid to alameda. So I can't speak to the precise. But have you heard of that? Like every ride, it's like a dollar goes to the city, whether it's like scooter things or the bikes. Different shared means of transportation. And is that any part of this contract based on the number of rides? Okay. The reason why that's not part. I've just never heard of it. I didn't know that was ever a model at all. Okay. Another public benefits is there. That's another thing I've heard of, of when you're sharing something that something is wrong, like for the lime bikes, bike racks, for instance, but for cars. My guess is there's other public benefits that are can be negotiated. No. Okay. Any other members would comment? I mean, I think that the I didn't know where those came from, but I appreciate those questions. But I think they were very comprehensive and appreciate the answers. I mean, if we do some type of AQ on our website for this and I think it'd be helpful to have those questions listed. And I do think we do need to consider, you know, Bay Pharm, you know, especially those two parking lots, which I think could be a big solution to some of our transit issues over there. Is there a reason why we don't? I know you know, the line box is coming back. We're going to do an RFP and get quotes and offers from multiple companies. Is there a reason why that's not being proposed for car sharing? We are recommending to piggyback on this pilot that. Already is happening. In the East Bay. And the reason is, is. More because. The members need a place to go. And this is actually one of the. I think the first multijurisdictional our share in the country. And it is most successful when you have more jurisdictions involved because for. Example, a. Third of our morning trips go to is Bay Communities. So it's the only car share that does this and because it's all very new. And so they're the only ones who have approached us. They're the only ones who are doing it. That's why the pilot is with them. No other company has approached us or is doing it. I remember Ashcroft. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Miss Payne. And the folks from Kershaw. I am I'm very favorable to this proposal, and I'm prepared to make a motion. I will say for disclosure, I'm a triple-A member, so I get that nice VA magazine. And they've been talking about gig car share for a while. So when I heard about it first from city staff a few months ago, I said, Yeah, I know that's that's the triple AA company. And I admire the fact that Triple A, which, you know, is I don't know how many years you've had your hundredth anniversary. I think it was all about, you know, getting people out on the roads. But now their focus is also to help us reduce the impact of traffic and the pollution and the wear and tear on our infrastructure and our roads and our bridges. And I think it's the sort of thing that we all have an opportunity to do our share. I really appreciate that. In Alameda we have CASA, this great organization and and bike walk Alameda and I think this is where we really can step up and do our part. I'm always inspired to meet new residents who come in, even, you know, young families with kids. And they tell me we've gotten rid of our second car. We've gotten rid of both cars. They're they're relying on this. And I think if we make this opportunity available, that more and more people will avail themselves of it. And so I think it's a step in the right direction for our our city, for our planet. And I would like to make a motion that we authorize the acting city manager to execute a service agreement with car share for when you're point to point cars, your pilot program at no cost to the city. And I think within the agreement, there's some possibilities for one year extensions, if I'm remembering my agreement correctly. Those are my thoughts. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I had a follow up question. You had mentioned that, and I saw in the staff report that they're going to be getting a city of Alameda business license and then you estimated what their revenues are. Are those revenues tax taxable for the city of Alameda? I think that's what the mayor was trying to get at. So can we just get that on the record? I don't. You have an estimate of revenues that the city would receive. Does anyone know. It's based off of their revenue projections? But can you just. Say I'm slowing again? Yes. I completed the business license application and I estimated the number of cars that would be here based on a just a projection for next year. And that was the amount that came out. Hundred and 89,000. $189,000. So that's what I submitted to in the business license application. But that's their standard. The company is. Based on the 189. It was aren't tax revenue or the company's revenues estimated to charge for their business license fees. Right. So I was trying to figure out there's a city make you know, how much money does the city make off of this? Because the different types of businesses are taxed differently. And I guess, are you. Expecting to make money off. Of this? That is not. Which is why I think some cities negotiate, for instance, a dollar a trip or something like that, that then there's revenue from anything from a transportation shared. Now remember matter. First of all, on a second, the motion. And then second, I want to make sure that we focus on what the benefits are. And I would I would like to. Make sure that in the agreement that we have. Some measurement of some of these benefits and also measurement of the complaints so that they can be managed because we're we're effectively allowing 50 cars that are owned by somebody else to use the public street at no cost. So. That. If it's true. And this is where the pilot comes in. And in my opinion, if it's true that it has fewer results and fewer vehicles on the city streets, then it's worth it. But if it's just adding 50 more vehicles to the city streets, it's not worth it because we're giving a company that makes money free use of our streets. So I'm willing to go further with this. If we have a measurement that we're not increasing, we're actually reducing the number of vehicles on the city street. So my understanding is it's a one year pilot. Is that right? That's what you do, pilots, is to check this out and then. So would you be willing to consider a friendly amendment of six months or a lesser time than a year? Well. Oh, well, I was going to say I would probably defer to the company about how long you would want to do a pilot to have statistically relevant information, because I would imagine that there's a little bit of start up time and as you ramp up. So I mean, maybe six months is not enough, but I would think the idea is that at the end of the one year pilot, they want to have the agreement renewed. So that could be dependent on certain data. Yeah. Performance metrics that. Right. If I could just add a couple of things is that we are planning on doing surveys of gig car show or gig car share members. Exactly. Trying to quantify those benefits. And we're planning on that in early 2019. And so that's about seven months from now. And then we would come back to you all. The Transportation Commission in the spring of next year. And so and and the reason is, is that it's. Timed with the other pilots that are. Going on in the East Bay. So we're going to wrap the all. The benefits up. Together and. Not only show you the benefits of. Of this Alameda pilot, but the entire program. And matter I. So I want to make sure that it's not just planning to check after seven months. I want to make sure that we know we're starting with. As the baseline. And then after seven months, we know what the change is because we allowed these cars on the street here. And I also want to follow up. Okay. So you said 54 hours, you get the alert. What is the estimate of time that you think someone's car, one of these cars is going to be parked, parked in front of someone's house? I can tell you, I get complaints as it is currently about people that don't think that there is sufficient parking anywhere in our town. And I'm trying to figure out what is the impact and when when am I going to be getting the calls? Are you guys going to be getting the calls? And are you guys going to respond? What is the average time you think a car will be in front of someone's house? Well, our goal is that if a car's in front of someone's house, that means someone's using the car. And then when you open the app, you would see, Oh, I can take this car. So our goal is to maximize the use of these cars because they are very expensive resource for us. Our fleet team is very carefully monitoring this expensive resource. And if an if it's, you know, as our marketing team tries to build memberships so that we can make this successful excuse me, make this pilot successful here in Alameda. We also want to optimize their use. So we will if we see that there's areas where they're being used, for example, maybe in front of an apartment building where there's less, where people don't have cars. We will be watching that so that we make sure that we meet demand with supply. That is part of our goal. And we have a fleet team dedicated to that. Does that answer? Thank you. Okay, I'm ready. I guess my question and this is why for the acting city manager and it follows up on my colleague's question. I mean, do we get any money from the city? It's a super complicated triple flip VLF swap based on is that based on like the folks that register cars in the city of Alameda. I know that's kind of a super complicated, but. I'm not an expert on VLF. As my point would be, you know if these are 50 cars that are not. Registered to residents of Alameda. I mean, I still haven't heard, you know, at what point the city's going to be taxed. I didn't hear that it was sales tax. I don't think it's VLF and I don't think it's property tax. So I mean, we are allowing our resources to be used for the benefit of a private company without any type of, you know, assistance or fee recovery like we normally get from, you know, folks who pay for their VLF or folks who pay sales tax or so on and so forth. So I guess those are some questions that need to be answered. Well, as we said before, you are getting business license tax. And how much is right. Do we know. Or will it be based on it's you know, it's based on their gross income, right? So their gross income is roughly 200,000. It would be something, I don't know over my head what the number is, but it would be based on that number. So you are getting some tax based on the business license tax and then of course, they have to have pay the business license fee, the fee to actually have a business license. So there's two. Components. Okay. It was questions that, you know, still need to be. I was also going to answer one of the other questions that the honorable mayor asked. Sorry, I didn't have it at my fingertips, but it is in the member agreement. So I was going to read what our insurance coverages for drivers bodily injury covered up to 100,000 per person, 300,000 per accident and property damage liability up to 50,000. Also, you are covered with uninsured motorist, underinsured motorist, bodily injury, up to 15,000 per person, 30,000 for accident. We also have a certificate of insurance. Where the city itself. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor. So I'm inclined to support this to see how it does. I think that a lot of the benefits won't be realized in a year, to be honest with you, because as you are talking about building membership, part of it is getting people accustomed to using this other mode of transit for these short rides. And I think changing behavior takes a longer period than a year. So I don't know that the data that we collect is going to be necessarily helpful with regards to removing vehicles from the road, because I think part of what people are trying to see is, is this a dependable service that I have bought into that I will have long past a year? I do have concerns about not having it out on Bay Farm Island just because we have a number of people who live out there. We have a lot of first and last mile issues, and I think enforcement is going to be difficult. And that's really where I would like to see the feedback from staff in terms of what we're looking at is are people parking where they're not supposed to? How many calls are there? What's the response time? To me, I think those are things that we can get a handle on. And if those numbers aren't looking good, that's going to be cause for concern in a year. And I think it's also in the company's best interests to make sure that that doesn't happen because it becomes a brand issue. Right. And the cars are well branded. I also, you know, in terms of some of the things we put in the agreement about not parking in the in the garage, you know, I don't think that parking in the garage is a problem. I think parking in the garage overnight for several days or for several days in a row is a problem. Right. And so I do kind of cringe at some of those strict requirements in the agreement that I think become prohibitive, where we start telling people where they can and can't go with the vehicle and how much time they can park it in different space spaces. I think the bigger concern is longer periods of time and being left there multiple days in a row, that sort of thing. And I know that in, you know, in the in the agreement we talk about that. But I think I don't know if we can have signage or something that just lets people know, hey, don't park it here overnight. If you're going to use it to come to the movie theater, that's fine. But just don't leave it here overnight. You've got to move it somewhere else. So. Jan. If you mind, Mayor Oh, I just want to clarify that people can park in metered spaces and in the parking garage you just have to comply, just like any other cars you pay and you can't stay. If it's a two hour meter, then you can write it into our meter. So you just want to make sure the folks know that you can use those resources. You just have to act like any other car. You can't end your trip at those location right. Where you would leave it for the next person overnight and not pay. Right. But I do think that the enforcement on that is going to be difficult. And I think that some of these issues come up. We don't always have the best well-lighted marked streets and driveways. And so these issues come up all the time. So I hope that they get worked out and they get worked out in an expeditious manner. But I do think that over the long term, the use of car shares I think is a is a good thing. This is a little different, I think, from Lime Bike because we already have other rideshare and car city car share companies operating here in Alameda. This is just a different twist on it in that there aren't defined end points. But I do hear the mayor's concern and I think it's should be well received. And I think the point of it is to make sure that this comes back to council and it's a council decision and we are engaging any one off contracts with different vendors where there's a profit to be made, where we're not putting it out to RFP. And I hear her concern on that. And I do hope that, you know, I think in this case where we have other rideshares already operating, it's it's different. So I'm prepared to support this tonight. Could you speak to that ride share that's currently offered there? I thought I heard four cars. So this is. Do we have anything of this size? This is this is a different type of. Car share that's a dedicated space. So we have four dedicated spaces in town with another company. It used to be city car share and they got bought out by Get Around. Right. And how many cars do they actually have? It's it's one car per spot. So they have four there. Four. Okay. So that's this is significantly this is ten, ten times more than just even a double, right? I mean, right. We're going from four to I'll just say 40. Okay. And I did find online of add on fees that other cities are charging. San Francisco's projecting anywhere from $0.20 to a dollar per ride. Seattle, Chicago, other cities are adding things to car sharing, like Uber and Lyft, where they're getting money per ride. And I think that that's something else that we should be looking at. And so because right. So the difference is that there will be impact to people, right? And we are offering our streets. But it's also a way that cities are using to to make a little bit of money per ride when you're making having a company that is earning their estimate 200,000 a year. So that there's other models that the cities are making a little bit per ride and we can wear and tear on the streets, all kinds of things. During the pilot, we can evaluate. That, just to be clear that Jake Carter does not operate in San Francisco. So what you're reading, I think is more for Uber and Lyft, and that's a different type of model. And that's that's fine. We can I just. Hadn't heard that right. So I continue to hear why is Alameda. Offering new things or, you know, and we seem to go back to people and say, let's pay a sales tax that's to parcel taxes. But then we have something like this where other cities seem to be more creative about another way that's a little bit per ride that we don't seem to be negotiating for our city. I don't see that here. That's something else, I think. No. Oh, if I did want to make it, my understanding is that in the agreement that it can be amended or approved administratively. And so I'd just like to recommend that we make sure in the agreement that it says it comes back to council. Oh, so I. Think we. Need. I appreciate that. Thank you. So there's a motion. And second, all those in favor. I. I oppose and I look forward to not receiving any complaints. Thank you. All right. So that I'd like the next.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report on any past discussions, memorandums, codes, ordinances, and regulations on the matter, as well as submit recommendations that would ban or limit long-term oversized vehicle parking citywide.

LongBeachCC_10132015_15-1051

Thank you. And just because I think there's a few folks here for this item, I want to make sure we hear the item on the oversize vehicles, the RVs, which I believe is item seven. So if I can have Madam Clerk, please read item seven. Communication from Councilman Price, Councilmember Supernormal Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to request the city manager to report on long term oversize vehicle parking and submit recommendations that would ban or limit long term oversize vehicle parking citywide. Thank you. I'm going to now turn this over to the makers of this motion. I believe Councilwoman Suzy Price would be first. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleagues, Councilwoman Mango and Councilmember Super now for signing on to this item as well as my other colleagues for entertaining this discussion this evening. This conversation is not new, and perhaps it's long overdue. The number of oversize vehicles we have, in particular recreational vehicles on city streets is a public safety, quality of life environmental issue that has an impact citywide. City Council offices have been contacted by several community groups and citizens regarding the parking of oversize vehicles. Constituents report that vehicles are parked in front of their homes and businesses for weeks or even months at a time, taking up valuable parking spaces, blocking view corridors and limiting access to driveways and alleys. In many cases, the occupant is illegally living inside the vehicle, although that is not always the case. Additionally, residents have observed several instances instances of individuals disposing waste from vehicles into stormwater drains, as well as reports of portable gas generators being used as a power source. Cities such as Lakewood, Paramount, San Diego, Bellflower and Torrance have imposed citywide bans on oversize vehicle parking. It's not just RVs that are an issue in this city. Boats, boat trailers, jet skis and motor homes advertising for various products are also an issue. I think it's very important moving forward in regards to this particular item for us to have an education on this issue as it's been presented to council before, if at all it has been presented to council before, and then some options in terms of how we could limit some of the issues that we've seen or mitigate some. So what are some of the options that would be available? Obviously, a city wide ban might be available, but are there other options that might be available that could eliminate some of the issues that we've discussed? I have a few questions for staff, and I'm not sure if staff is is prepared to answer these. And if not, maybe when the report comes back, the answers could be incorporated. Do we know how many streets in the city are currently signed for no oversize vehicle parking? I think we'd have to come back with those answers. And when you come back, is it possible to provide maps showing areas in the city where oversize vehicle parking is problematic? Yes, we certainly could. And also if there if staff could provide some recommendations on what constitutes a commercial vehicle in terms of height and length dimensions and weight, that would be helpful. We could certainly do that. Thank you. Again, this is merely asking for some information and data so that we can move forward from there and make the decisions that we think are going to address some of the issues that have caused problems for some of our residents. And, you know, a lot of people have reached out to our office in the last few days saying, you know, what about when we want to load or unload our RV? Certainly any recommendation that that comes back would hopefully include some reasonable provisions to allow people to actually use their RVs and be able to load and unload them. But we're we're really the heart of it here is long term parking over a period of time where it appears there's no other storage solution other than parking it on a residential or commercial corridor. So thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Mongo. Over the last 18 months because this discussion started before I was sworn in to council. We've come up with some short term solutions in terms of eliminating the oversize parking on certain streets, and a lot of neighborhoods get concerned. Many of our much of our district borders a city that has banned RVs. And so we do have that overflow. We actually had the police department win ticketing these vehicles and our scanning their license plates identify how many were from within the city and how many were from outside the city. We have had numerous complaints related to individuals living in these RVs, and as we've tried to find resolutions, the cadre of RVs continue to move through the city. Your neighbor who has an RV that they prepare to go on a trip. Permits associated with residents, I think are a great idea that we need to make sure is available and being able to exercise our right to own vehicles and go on vacation and enjoy the habitat that we have around us in ability to go take our snowmobiles or our water crafts or RV camping and experience nature. And within that, to still protect the next door neighbor, the next door neighbor who can't get out of their driveway because they can't see because that RV just doesn't fit exactly in that that usable space or the neighbor who we've in many parts of our district, we've had to paint the curbs on the corners red so that we can see the stop sign that an RV could have blocks before. So we've put in a lot of No six foot and over parking near a stop signs. But I think that it's time that we look for a city wide solution. And so I appreciate the residents that are here from the fifth District who have been working through this item with us over the last 18 months. And I look forward to some interesting and encompassing alternatives from our city staff. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I want to thank Councilmember Price, Mango and Councilmember Super Na for bringing this forward. I think this is a great item to just look into the research of of what this could be and manifest in two. And I think it is. I know in the West Side specifically, we've had many issues. A lot of our business owners have complained because there are RVs, oversize vehicles blocking their their place of business. And then what results is trash? You know, sometimes urination, other things that are a major issue for those business owners in addition to some other residents in the Willmore who've also complained. And it's just become a real big problem. I know in the Magnolia Industrial Group we've had to put up signs in certain areas and that only does so much to say that you can only park here for a certain time. And I think we've had at one point we had no overnight parking in one area, but a lot of the businesses were impacted because they do have overnight employees. So it becomes an issue. And I think Lakewood does have a really good plan in place. I, I know some time ago we looked into that and how that would work out here in Long Beach. So I just want to reiterate that it'd be great to look really look into Lakewood and their permitting system. I think they have it down pretty well. But thanks so much for this item. Thank you. Next up is council member Richards. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. And co-sponsors for this. So I'm going to rise in favor. I think it's definitely something to look look into. I think across town, there might be different issues, but still issues that warrant study and review around oversize vehicles. I can name very different stories in my neighborhood, in other neighborhoods where, you know, you might have vagrancy or homeless homeless folks who might rent rent an oversize vehicle or camper for hours or for a night. And it creates major issues. One thing I would say is I think even though it might they may it may be a city wide issue. It's very different for different portions of town. So whatever recommendations come back, I like that we ask for like a hotspot map that allows us to have localized solutions. I can think of an example where we had a parking circumstance, we were against a different city and there was construction happening in that city impacted us and it was too big of an issue to address our preferential parking ordinance. We created something very different that allowed us to move around with flexibility locally. So whatever comes back, I hope it allows us to be to have a tailored approach for these neighborhoods that may have very different issues, but all related to the same the same impact. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Supernova. Thank you. I just wanted to request the staff that they engage. The Cal State University, Long Beach Police. University police. My staff and I met with the university on Friday and actually spoke to President Connelly on Saturday about this topic. And they have some very interesting intel on this subject, and I think we should get their input. Thank you. We'll do that. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I'll be really brief. I'm going to also support this. I want to thank you for bringing it forward. This this issue does we hear from our constituents all the time. It serves as a nuisance issue in many of our neighborhoods citywide. I'm just I just want to get some clarity on the the. The definition of over oversize vehicles. Are we talking about just RVs or are we talking about boats? Well, in terms of the item, we're asking staff to come back with a definition of what a commercial vehicle size height would would be based on other ordinances. But the problem really has stemmed from not just RVs, but boat storage and things like that. So it's multiple commercial vehicles. And do we know and just just out of curiosity, how many RV parks we have in the city of Long Beach? We'll come back with that information. Great. I would love to have that. And I'd also look at like to look at designated areas in the city where we could possibly designate areas that would not be impeding on neighborhoods and this quality of life for our residents and also for us to be mindful that these are these are oftentimes one step above homelessness. And they are homes for many, many, many folks who use them. So thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Please for. May we come forward and just make sure you say your name. And for the record, please, on the mic. Thank you. My name is Robert Cornwall. I live at 1920 Lees Avenue and the 15th Street, a street that runs north and south and and tees into a street called Fair Brook that runs east and west. The 17 homes on Lee's Avenue travel north to Fair Brook for access to Studebaker Road. The left hand turn coming from Lee's Avenue and approaching Fair Brook is immediately confronted. With a huge boat and trailer on the north west side of Hare Brook on the turn. This boat and trailer is 42 foot long, nine foot wide and 11 four inches high. Give or take to ensure they're on all my measurements. This vehicle at 6913. Fair Brook has been parked. That is stored. In front of this house for several years. It is seldom used for fishing. It's a large oceangoing vessel and has moved every week to Studebaker Road to avoid Friday sweepers. The boat is not hooked up to the three or 4 to 3 quarter ton tow truck most of the time. And on the opposite side of the street, on Fair Brook, right across from this boat, there is always a car parked directly on the other side. So that makes it very difficult to pass safely. We're asking the council to address the problem of parking storage, if you will, of such oversight vehicles in our area and possibly in other areas of Long Beach. And we're extremely happy to have read the press telegram. So you felt it was an important enough issue to discuss? The existing Long Beach code that we have seen on Stearns Avenue, which is a major contributing street that comes off of Studebaker Road and on other streets that like I think at Poitiers, they have a sign on this that has a municipal code ten, dash 22, dash oh 70, and it says that any vehicle 85 inches high, 80 inches wide and 20 feet long, that exists on other Long Beach residential 30 foot streets such as patios. Okay. So. The odd thing about it, when we as neighbors asked the owner of the boat why he stores this vehicle on the street, he has said he has a special permit. Well, I don't know what a special permit would be for a vehicle. You know, that is that wide, that high and that long. Thank you, sir. Time is up on the clock. Thank you very much. No, thank you very much. Next speaker, please. No shorter than he is. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. And I would like to start off with thanking Suzy Pryce and Darrell, Sabrina and Stacy Mungo for bringing this issue forward to this council. This has been an ongoing issue, and Stacy has worked with our district for quite some time now. My name is Sherrie Perkins, and my husband and I have lived at 5255 East Wardlow Road. Well, probably for some of you were born, but we've been paying taxes for 47 years. When we first bought the home, it was a fixer upper. And we have worked very hard to make this a beautiful home. And I don't want to cry. I'm not trying not to. But it's very upsetting when you have these homeless people. And I agree with Senator, Counselor, Mr. Richardson that they have a problem, too. Okay. And this should be addressed as well. So when you bring your manager here and try to get some information, I would also recommend that you look at Huntington Beach as planned. They have an outstanding plan that they have put into place and it's working just fine. I would also recommend that you look at Los Angeles plan for the homeless that have been displaced because of their codes and try to work this thing, this whole issue as a whole package. But my special interest is Wardlow. Down the street where I live, there is a golf course, skylands golf course. And on both sides of the street there were at least 25 RVs, vans, trailers and different vehicles that have been making this their permanent home. They bring out their look. I want to paint a picture in your mind because it's hard to visualize this. You have. People living inside these homes with the curtains drawn and beware of the dog signs on the side. They have their barbecues set up, their lawn chairs set up in the evenings. They cook their meals, they watch TV inside in their comfort, and meanwhile, enjoying this beautiful golf course that we have. The rest of the neighbors are very fed up with this type of behavior. And recently I've made a study with some of the neighbors to see how they feel about it. And we seem to all be in agreement that something has got to be done about this. This has been going on since 2008. Before most of you people were involved with this at all. And as I said, we're pretty fed up about the whole thing. This is a safety issue. I'm very concerned about the golfers that try to cross the street there with all these trailers and RV park. People can't see them as they're trying to cross. There's two pedestrians in. Their type times. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Time is up. But what I will do is we will have some come over here to the side and we get your question answered. Okay. Okay. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. Mr. West, can we have someone go talk to this lady? Thanks, Miss Amy Borek will do that. Okay, sir, please come forward. Hi. How you doing? I'm Brett Lewis. I'm a fifth District resident, but I'm also glad to hear that this topic's being raised and kind of addressed. I'm kind of looking at it as like a two piece, maybe people with truly recreational vehicle that just aren't paying to have it stored. But there is a large amount I see of people on the verge of homelessness living in these RV's and just being able to look at it that way and addressing the situation. I can speak from having our business on the outer traffic circle. We deal with a lot of water thefts. If you kind of go when all the everyone's closed down or you come in when you're not really supposed to be working, there's a line, well, pots, pans, whatever, being filled with water. I mean, coming from Oregon, I feel for the people there. It's like something where we're contacting the police department about and stuff too. But I imagine if it's happening with us, probably where they're congregated, other places, there's probably a large amount of water theft to that business owner that they can see on their bills, too. So I think it'll be somewhat of a complicated issue in a way of the different circumstances, why the vehicles are there. But I just want to thank everyone for taking it under consideration, looking into it more. Thank you very much. Seeing no other public comment, take this back to the council. Councilman Mongo. I want to thank the residents who came out today and spoke. And I particularly want to thank Cheri because as a neighborhood leader who's involved in so many things in our community, I think that you've done an excellent job of prioritizing. Within your neighborhood association, I remember when we met. Your community had several issues that we needed to address. And one by one, through a community who is engaged together, we have come up with collaborative solutions. And I know that we can find that for this as well. And we want to make sure, as Councilmember Richardson and Councilmember Austin mentioned, that we're not just finding a solution that moves the issue. And I know that you and I have talked a lot about that because the issue started on Lakewood Boulevard and then it moved to Wardlow and then it moved to Studebaker. And as these vehicles move across the city, we're not finding a city wide solution. And so I think we've come to that time where where we're going to be able to get there. So thank you for your patience and your diligence in maintaining a community that's engaged on our issues. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we have a motion in a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to do the two hearings and then go on to the regular agenda. I know it's been a long meeting. So what have you hearing? Number 2/1, then hearing number one. Then we have public comment and the agenda.

A bill for an ordinance amending Section 38-130, D.R.M.C. concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law. Amends Section 38-130, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-3-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01222018_17-1400

This is regarding the bump stock legislation under pending. We have nothing called out. All right, Madam Secretary, thank you for putting the items on the screen. Councilman knew where you put council bill of 1400 series of 2017 on the floor. And move the council bill 17 1400 be placed upon final consideration to pass. All right, it has. Make sure it's been moved and checking it. It has been moved. I need a secondary grate. It has been moved in. Second it. Councilman Flynn, your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I move that council. Bill 17, Dash 14 would be amended in the following particulars on page two, Section one Line 20 will be amended to include a new subsection three that provides three dwelling units. Has the meaning set forth in the zoning code. I'm sorry. A dwelling has the meaning. I should read from the yellow sheet. Dwelling shall have the same meaning set forth in the Denver Zoning Code. Page two, line 20 through page three, line four, renumbered paragraphs two through seven as three through eight in subsection B, accordingly, page four after line 27, add the following three. A person who possesses a magazine that holds or may be modified to hold between 16 and 20 rounds if he or she a owned it on July 1st, 2013, be maintained continuous possession of such magazine and c possesses the magazine within the dwelling in which the person resides. On page four, line 28, strike three and replace with four. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Questions or comments? Murmurs, accounts go from me to second. Thank you. So we already had a second on there. Councilman Flynn, your comments. Yes, thank you. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for working with me on this. As you know, last week, I had a concern that we would be essentially criminalizing a lot of law abiding, good, decent gun owners in Denver who have followed our ordinance for 28 years that limited high capacity magazines to a maximum of 20. And in conforming this to the state bill that passed in 2013, the bill, as filed, did not import the grandfathering provision which allowed people to continue to possess that which they legally possessed. As of the passage of that 2013 state bill and in passing the bump stock ban, which we heard testimony and I've had email from various gun owners who said they are completely supportive of that. I know I've heard from a few who aren't. But I know that most folks I've heard from are very supportive of that. But they were very concerned about about the fact that we would be criminalizing folks who for self-defense at home or for whatever reason, have been following our law since 1989, and have a magazine that maybe has 17 round capacity. And suddenly we'd be making we're making that illegal and we're putting them in a dilemma. Do I get rid of it? I know we received information that you can get a a ten round magazine for as little as 20 bucks. That's not the point. The point is putting. Good, decent, law abiding people through the needless exercise of getting rid of something that is perfectly legal today. But we're saying you can't have tomorrow. And so, Mr. President, I initially wanted to do to import the full grandfathering, but in working with Councilman Espinosa, we were able to arrive at a compromise that I believe will have a majority of the votes tonight, and that is a homesteading provision that was suggested by a gun owning constituent of mine. If you keep it in your home. You're good to go. This addresses the problem that was brought up last week, Mr. President, where it's difficult to enforce whether did you own this magazine before July 1st, 2013, under the state law, if it's not in your home, we don't have to bother asking that anymore. So it addresses the enforcement issue. And if it's in your home, we're never going to see it anyway. So God bless you. And if you go out to a shooting range or whatever, then take your take your 15 or your ten round magazine with you and leave the 17 or the 20 at home. I think that this is a compromise that I want to thank, Councilman Espinosa, for reaching with me and coming to one on something I think is rather an important piece of legislation in what it principally does, which is to ban the bump stocks. And I think it's unfortunate that we had to get into this level of debate about conforming the bill, conforming with the state bill. But I think this will satisfy a lot of folks. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, counsel. Councilman Flynn, for your your amendment and your comments. I don't know. I'll put it in my comments and I'm not even at this moment. Sure, I'm still with you on it. And it sort of depends on some questions I have. And it mostly as a result of me sort of meditating on this time and again over the weekend. But it really still you've seen me do this before where I'm still at odds with myself on something. So the question I have in this comes from constituents reaching out to me as late as today with their own concerns about this amendment. So the questions I have are. Are we? Do we have. Do you have any sort of confidence that we will not run into a sort of slippery slope here where we are? The bill is proposed, has a very clear, you know, direction with regard to to the magazine capacity. If we create a homesteading provision where we're not going to run into some sort of litigation about the definition of, you know, why or why, why a dwelling is so much more significant than a person or a person's vehicle or something like that you have. So is this a this is a question in Councilman Flynn. Correct. Councilor Flynn. I can't guarantee that we won't be in litigation over anything that we do. Councilman So I obviously can't give any guarantees on that. I just believe that this is a reasonable compromise to allow the legal continued possession of that which has been legal for 28 years here in Denver. And I think that's a slippery slope that I'm more concerned about, is that in five or ten years, we don't come back here and say, okay, now you got to get rid of those and we're going to limit you to ten or fewer that we don't go through this again. Councilman Esmeralda, do you have another question? Yeah. And that's a legitimate concern because, you know, one of the original compromises I made, as you know, when a constituent put forward the measure, he was recommending an eight round limitation. The compromise was to to to meet this the state at its number of rounds. But I still think that from a clear sort of public health side, I think the 15 outright ban was was was appropriate. The other question I have is what what does concern me is we're defining this as dwelling. That's a new portion that I hadn't seen until today that would encompass apartment buildings as well in their entirety. We don't limit dwelling to just the apartment unit itself. But my real concern on the apartment, even in particular, is that what we're still allowing is 20 round capacity magazines in any number in dwellings, and a certain percentage of our calls by our law enforcement are to dwellings where it would be, it would be a gun owner would be okay to have that. I mean, the recent shooting incident in Douglas County was a call to a dwelling in an apartment building. Do we have do you have some sense about why this line would be better than an outright 15 round band? If all's our concern is the the the cost impact to the legitimate gun owner who could easily accommodate this this change. Counselor. I'm not sure I understand the question. The question is, do you have a sense about what percentage of calls our law enforcement make to homes? Ah. No, I don't know. But we have law enforcement here. I'm not sure that they're prepared to answer that at all. Okay. They're not. Next question. Okay. That was it. So I'll save the rest of my comments. But now you're sort of sorry to see what what would sort of been in my mind of late on going on what I thought was a very reasonable compromise, I think. All right, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to look over at our city attorney. Kirsten, I don't expect you to have the answer to this because I just brought up. But do we have any provision regarding collectors of like antique guns that are that like an old timey gun or anything like that in somebody's home or in a or in a museum or anything like that? I mean, do we have any provisions that keep that protect people for having. Let's say an old, old fashioned gun that has more than 20 rounds from 16 to 20 rounds. Is there anything that protects people that are collectors and anything like that? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel And I don't know. And keep in mind that we're just talking here about high capacity magazines, the type of guns. And I don't want to turn a tough question over to Mali, but Mali Bartowski, from our prosecution and code enforcement and here is might have some idea about that. I mean, maybe and maybe we can go ahead and clarify that question. If there's an antique gun that has a it's its capacity is more than 15. That's like a collectors antique gun or anything like that. Not to my knowledge. But we can look into that and get back to you. Okay. So I'm just wondering if there was any kind of anything that a property owner is entitled to. Under any kind of collectors. You know, classification or anything like that. Because I know there's people that are like showmen and stuff like that and they. Good evening, counsel Marlee Bordeaux Ski with interim director of the prosecution section of the city attorney's office. There is no antique kind of an exception in any of our ordinances, even existing. Ordinances right now. So this would this exception would be unique to that particular ordinance. Okay. And if that helps. Okay. Now, let me ask council president, we ask one question of Councilman Espinoza. Okay. Go ahead, Councilman. I was under the impression that you were supportive of an amendment. And you if you had that impression, you weren't wrong. When Councilman Flynn wrote this to me on Friday. I actually really like the idea that that at least the intent of the the magazine restriction was was met because you couldn't leave the house with it. And so. But what what what you're seeing in my response and in my hesitation now is just thinking back to again, our problem in in this nation and to risk to to life safety is is that is is each bullet and reducing the number of rounds there is a legitimate law enforcement concern, and that is the intent of the magazine restriction. It was supposed to be ten. There was some there was some anecdote that was shared at the state when they were pursuing ten where a person could shared that they saved them. They saved their life by with that 15th round. And so magically we ended up going from 10 to 15. Was the original legislation that the state proposed at ten. Correct. And so even Glocks themselves were originally manufactured with ten rounds or they have the standard ten round bracket because that is the sort of normal limitation. And so to Kevin Flynn's point, it's not unreasonable to think that at some point, if we could if it made sense, we could pursue a ten round limitation. But again, my goal was really the stock ban originally and and create conformance with the state. But since since there is a legitimate life safety reason on why you wouldn't want an enforcement reason on why you wouldn't want additional rounds. I'm sort of. Sort of. As much as I appreciate the effort to not just grandfather the way the state did, which is really, really confusing. I think this is a good compromise. But I me personally, I don't know that I'm still willing to go there. Having thought about it some more. Okay. Let me let me go to Councilwoman Ortega. So circle back around with me. I know we don't have somebody from law enforcement prepared to answer the question. I just want to know. Quickly council president just what the what your standard issue police you know handgun what the magazine is in a standard issue handgun per the manual. Police officers want to answer. And my asking my asking around that is that I assume under some kind of situation where you're entering an apartment or somebody is firing from inside the apartment, depending on the sound of the other mechanism. A person could probably wonder, hey, that was the that was the 10th round that he shot. He must be out. Or there must be a pause as opposed. I'm just wondering what the what the. Please, please introduce yourself to see. What's a standard issue magazine capacity on any kind of gun. Right. I'm Officer Morgan with the Denver Police Department. Thank you. The standard for most full sized pistols is a. 17 round magazine and most. Full. Size rifles is 30. Okay, enough, sir, just to make a distinction. We do have SWAT, which are able to handle much more than that as well. Correct. They generally carry the same. Capacity of weapons. They have different. Weapons available to them. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega. So if you could stay up there, that was part of my question. So the most of our officers are now carrying nine. Mm. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So you're saying the average is 17? Correct. Okay. So how easily is it to swap out a. Ten round or 15 around for what is built for 17 round magazine. I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean to convert. A smaller one to a larger one? Yeah, the magazine, by the way. So instead of because I think Councilman Espinosa said at our last meeting that, you know, for the price of a magazine, which is somewhere around $20, you can swap them out. But I don't know how easily it is to actually replace what is normally made as a 17 round magazine for, say , a Glock or, you know, whatever kind of weapon that, for example, our officers carry. To then for the public reduce it down to the 15 round that is now in this ordinance. You generally can't reduce the actual magazine, but to. Change out the. Magazines takes a matter of seconds. Well, that's that's what I'm. It's the replacement issued. Not right. If you purchased a new magazine, it takes. Less than a minute to transfer the ammunition to that magazine and then that magazine to the firearm. Okay. So they are readily available in the market then to replace a lower number, a magazine that carries a lower number of bullets than a 17 round, for example, in Colorado. Most of them are 15. Rounds, not ten enough. To. Comply with state law. Right. Okay. Thank you. That answers my questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Flynn. Yeah. Yeah, that is right. Councilwoman Sussman. Actually, I had a question for you. Council President We have a motion on the floor and I would thought this was a comment period. But are we dividing now between question and comments with motions on the floor rather than just a public hearing? Yeah. Councilwoman, there's an amendment on the floor so we can both ask questions. I don't think we're necessarily into comments, but asking questions. All right, I have a comment. Okay. Flynn. Mr. President, you want to go to Councilwoman Black? Oh, just point blank. Thank you. I just have a clarifying question of our police officer. You just said when you walked away that in Colorado. Magazines have 15 rounds in order to comply with state law. New manufacturer. So if you were going to buy one legally in the state of Colorado they have they AR 15. Correct. Or smaller. A firearm that is a small couldn't legally buy one that was larger. No. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank, Mr. President. I didn't have any other questions. I was just coming in for comments. I don't know if anyone unless someone else had a question. Once you start that. Okay. Thank you. I'm offering this amendment not because it is an easy or relatively inexpensive to go out and replace your currently compliant grandfathered magazines with new ones. I'm offering it because, number one. I think we all. We're all sitting up here realizing that a person with criminal intent certainly isn't going to go do this. Someone who's going to rob a convenience store isn't going to say, Oh, I can't use this magazine. I have to use a smaller one. All we're doing is putting law abiding, decent gun owners in Denver in a dilemma of do they now go out and get rid of what they have now that we've told them for 28 years is fine and proper and is still fine and proper under the state legislation. Just because we want them to. And I think that we owe them we just owe them the right to keep in their home at least. What they've legally held for the last 28 years. Councilman Espinosa this morning sent me an email. 1036. Thank you for finding this middle ground. Great work. We didn't actually handshake on it, as you recall, councilman, but we did fist bump. And I guess fist bump is the new handshake. So I would ask the councilman that you'd give this consideration and give the people of Denver who in good faith have been following our law for 28 years, that the right to continue to follow it and to truly conform this bill to state law, because right now, the way the title is written, it says we're conforming it to the state legislation and we are not. We are not. We're changing our number to 15, but we're not including the grandfathering provision that would conform it to state law. And so I asked my colleagues to vote yes just to respect the rights of our of our citizens. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, I want to confirm that I did, in fact, fist bump him. And I do still stand by the fact that I do appreciate the amendment as it is today versus where I thought we were going. And so I, I think we have an improved, you know, we're doing the right thing, whether we amend it or we don't. I just happen to know, you know, think that personally, it's we're doing we're doing a better job. If we if we if we don't amend. But I respect and even any and all my colleagues, regardless of which way they vote on that amendment, because I do think as far as a compromise is concerned, those who are in fact, concerned about that, that inconvenience of sort of, you know, historic existing magazines, it's a decent compromise , but it is exactly the same one without the amendment, meaning that if you have that, if you if you continue to possess it in your home and you never have a reason for the law enforcement to go digging through your personal possessions, you're going to be fine, you know? But if if if you take it out of your home, then you're in the same boat that you are with or without the amendment. So from again, from from the sort of from a genuine concern about the the the availability of high capacity magazines, the damage that can be done. You know, I just think in my own estimation, we're this close to sort of going one step further to to, you know, preserve, you know, better, better preserving the health and well-being of our our citizenry. And I don't again, for you know, if you want to go, the explanation I made before, which was if you if you want to go to the range, you're going to be paying a fee of 18 bucks an hour unless you're a member and a box of bullets, just 25 rounds is going to run you another 12 bucks. So you're already willing in to just to spend a couple of minutes in a range. You're you're investing more than it would cost to come into compliance. And each one of those magazines that you has has a real, real value. So you can sell that and offset the cost. And it's just a matter of, yeah, it's an inconvenience, but we do these things. For the right reasons, and I'm okay with that. And so I do still. So I do still think it's a good amendment and a good compromise. But I am I don't. Me personally, you won't see me going there on this one things. All right. Thanks. Councilman Espinosa. Dr. Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. This was a very tough one for me. This because I like I think most people are alarmed at the gun violence in our society. And you can see other places that have limited gun ownership like Australia and Canada. And the difference in our gun violence and I know that gun violence is perpetrated by violent people, not by the gun itself, but the correlations can't be denied. And I was very happy to vote on making bump stocks illegal. But the the the amendment tonight made me think a lot about why do I need to be a realist or do I need to think about what it means? Because this amendment is is very intriguing. But I try to think of an analogy, and one of them I thought of was a switchblade. If you are going to say switchblades are dangerous, they're dangerous wherever they are, whether they're in my car or at a restaurant or at home, they are just as dangerous. And of course, we. We really legalized switchblades some years ago. Interestingly enough, we made it illegal, but we wouldn't say that a switchblade was safe in my home. A safe thing to have in my home, but not a safe thing out in my car. And to me, that made the analogy a little bit a little bit easier for me to understand how I wanted to vote tonight. If a girl if a certain kind of number of rounds in a magazine are dangerous outside of the home, they're dangerous inside of the home. And the rate of our domestic violence and then accidental firings are so scary about what's happening here. And I know that it's difficult to enforce this, and I don't think I can change my mind about the dangerousness of some of these weapons just because it's difficult to enforce. We don't usually make laws, let's say, oh, well, let's let them do it, because we'd be hard to catch them. And I so I after much thinking about this and and my feelings about gun violence and whether a weapon is dangerous regardless of where it's located, I think I'm going to have to vote against the amendment tonight and stick with the original proposal by Councilman Espinosa. All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Kasich. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting no on this amendment tonight. I believe that when you have a path to reducing harm and you have a new standard for the community, you change the standard for the community and you ask the entire community to meet the same standard. I think about the shootings that have occurred in our city and how many of them focus on the home. So South Denver had someone who, you know, called police down and shot a tank, I believe, and created an explosion and, you know, created a showdown with police in South Denver from his home. We have youth that sometimes get a hold of guns that are in homes. We have home is the most dangerous place in America for women. And, you know, we think a lot about mass shooters and strangers. But the truth is, women in this country are far more likely to be shot by their intimate partners. And so if the moment of reloading while someone's locked behind a door gives them a moment to get to a phone or, you know, go to safety, I all you know, all of those situations focused around the home and so on. Unfortunately, gun violence often is occurring from a home base and not from some anonymous hotel room or some anonymous place in a in a public place. And so. So I vote for harm reduction. I vote for reducing risk, and I vote for a consistent and clear standard that everyone in our community meets. That, to me, is the best way to govern. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman can. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So I appreciate the fact that Councilman Flynn was trying to find some way to address this concern of putting people in this precarious situation where they're in compliance with state law, but will now be in conflict with this this law that's already passed. First reading, I know at our last meeting somebody had talked about a potential grace period as maybe an answer to give people time to replace the magazines so that they are in compliance with local law in hearing how. Affordable it is to do that, you know, basically sort of makes my decision for not supporting the amendment because I think. You know, for people who typically own a car and a lot of them do target practicing. I've gone to Target practicing with friends in the past to some of the local ranges. And, you know, you spend that money on the on the bullets themselves. So, you know, the amount of money you would spend to just swap that out and replace a magazine would would not be that expensive for gun owners. You know, if we were not in a situation where it. Appears to be an epidemic in this country. And again, to Councilwoman Nature's Point, I think she's the one that mentioned this. You travel around the world and you don't see the kind of gun violence that exists in the United States. And if there is a way that we can keep our community safer by passing this provision, then it's not unusual for Denver to pass laws that are more stringent than state law. We've done that on so many different things. And I think this is just one more example where Denver is trying to lead and be proactive in how we protect our community. And so I will not be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really tough issue for many of us up here. I am no fan of guns. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Kennish, your remarks were were very moving. I've also talked with Councilman Flynn a lot about his original proposed amendment and about this compromise. I think compromise. It's great that Councilman Espinosa was on board with it, too. I've also talked to our city attorney about it. And Councilwoman Kenney, she talked about consistent and clear standards. And one of the things we talked about I talked about with city attorney is consistency with state law and clarity for people. Since 1989, people in Denver have been allowed to have 20 magazines. Mr. Emerson is my constituent and he has made some very persuasive arguments to me and I know that he is a law abiding citizen. There are also some legal issues around private property and private property rights. So I have been convinced that this is a reasonable compromise. I am going to support it, as I said that I would. That said, if the amendment fails, I also will support the original bill because I think it's important. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilor Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think there's two issues here. One is the bump stock ban, which I absolutely support. And the other is a question on capacity in magazines. You know, I wish that we had a little bit more time to discuss the amendment. I don't think it's any of fault of yours. Councilman Flynn, I think it's just a the process in which our council works. I would have loved to ask a little bit more about, you know, more details about magazine difference in capacity when you're talking about 16 to 20 rounds and 15 and what we encounter, you know, and if we ever confiscate anything like that or ever run into it, as opposed to just your your regular, you know, 15 round capacity, if we ever come across those those others. Then I think of just this policy, and I never thought it would actually come to city council. I've been following on the state level, on federal level, but now it's here and it really spent some time thinking about it since last week. And, you know, to be to be quite honest, my own position changes based on whether it's in the public or at home. Right. If I was being you know, if somebody was entering my home and I did had no idea what they had. And I was in my bedroom. I wouldn't be wanting an extra for bullets. I'd want a whole nother magazine just in case. And it's not illegal to have another ten round magazine. Or another, whether you have a rifle or a pistol, a handgun. I don't think we're robbing anybody of not passing this amendment of a capacity issue. You just buy another magazine in typically you know in your head you how those magazines are able to exchange them within I'd say 30 seconds even. So in the public, however, it's a little different. You honor in a concealed carry. Usually the weapon that you have in a concealed carry does even have more than a minute. Your average pounds per magazine, some not so worried about that in public. Councilman Flynn, I hear where you're coming with this. I really appreciate, you know, being, you know, floating that out there and taking it. Could be a great idea, a good compromise to the to the table. But I don't think I'm there yet. I don't think I'm there yet in terms of how this policy affects our general public health. For me, it's not the I'm not in magazine rounds that really. That's that's a public health issue. It's the cost to these rounds, how quickly people can get a hold of them and how many times I've seen young people in my neighborhoods growing up and people who I've known for have died at the hands of one round. Versus anything else. So I'm not there on the amendment. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, I know where you're coming from. I just think, Justin, in the big picture, I'm just. I'm. I don't think it's an inconvenience to such an inconvenience to have to have another magazine as opposed to a magazine that holds 16 to 20. Okay. Seeing no other comments just reminded members of council we are voting on the amendment on the on the floor put forward by councilman flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn, i. Gillmor, i. Cashman. I can each. Know. LOPEZ No. New. ORTEGA Nope. SUSSMAN No. Black eye, Clark. Like Espinosa? No, Mr. President. No. Sorry. Some of the votes aren't showing up yet. Now they are. 66 nays. All right. 66 nays. The amendment fails. Now, Councilman, do we need you to order publish? It's already on the floor. So now we're going to we're going to put and vote on floor 1400 series of 2017. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa comments. But. Doing it. Stop the voting. Okay. Members do you have comments on the bill that we just the comments about last week? Just firstly. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I fully support the bump stock ban, but I have to vote no because of the rejection of the amendment. I just want to explain my no vote is nothing to do with wanting bump stocks. I don't. I want them eliminated or I want them to be banned from the city. But I think that the the reasonable amendment that just got voted down, I think requires that I vote no, although I know the bill will pass. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I didn't take time to thank my colleagues and everyone because. You know, the gentleman who brought this force to our attention in public comment is now sitting right in front of me. And so, you know, we didn't just run with it day one, but I can tell you that from day one, when I first when you guys first heard about this, I knew you were there on board and recognize that this is important for the city that you care about and the people in it. And so I'm disappointed. But I understand Councilman Flynn's own comments and positions. And I apologize to him and to you all for having to witness this sort of real time change of heart on my part. But I do want to thank everyone for sort of recognizing the potential potency of of of taking on any sort of legislation on this front. And and and and being willing to move forward. So I just wanted to thank you all. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa. Flynn? No. Gilmore Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Sassaman, I. Black guy. Clark, I. Mr. President, I. Please all voting in US Results. 11 eyes one ni. All right. 11 Ies one ney council bill 1400 series of two dozen 17 has passed. All right. This concludes all the items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction of order published were now ready for the black vote. Some resolution of the bills for final consideration council members. Remember, this is a consent or blackmail and you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last opportunity to call out an item on a separate vote. Councilman Newby, please put the resolutions for adoption on the table and the bills for final consideration for final passage on floor. Okay. I move the resolutions be adopted in bills and final final consideration be placed upon final and do pass and or block vote. The following I read the resolutions first 18 dash 006 118 Dash 002 518 002 618 Dash zero 0 to 0. Now the bills for final consideration 17 Dash 1450 618 Dash zero zero 1218. Dash zero zero 13. All right. Looks like you got it. What's an affirmation from our secretary? Okay, great. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black tie. Clark. I. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Susman. Mr. President. I. Please cause Vali Nasr results. To advice. To advise. The resolution have been adopted and builds upon pace placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings. If there are no objection from the Council, we will not take a recess. No. Thank you, guys.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of the Waterfront; authorizing submission of application(s) for grant funding assistance for a Boating Facilities Program project (Pier 62 Boat Dock) to the State’s Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in chapter 79A.25 RCW and WAC 286; authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded; authorizing entry into a project agreement if the grant is awarded; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118871

They report to the park sales center libraries and Waterfront Committee in item 24118 871 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of Waterfront, author and Submission of Applications for Granting Funding Assistance for Boating Facilities program projects to the state's Recreation Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79 8.25 ICW and WAC 286 Authorized acceptance of the grant if awarded. Authorize entering into a project agreement. If the grant as a word in writing confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill passed. Okay, so let's just take a slow second here as people leave the chambers and I ask that you get quieted down a little bit. Thank you. Councilmember Suarez, the floor is yours. Thank you. I was hoping everyone would stay around for this riveting piece of legislation, but I guess not. This is the grant application for the Pier 62 project. The Office of the Waterfront is applying for a 600,000 grant to match the 600,000 in voter approved seawall bonds for this redevelopment project, the committee recommends passage of the bill . Thank you. Are there any further comments on this bill? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I o'brien. I so aren't. Bagshaw. I Burgess. I Herbold. Johnson, President Harrell. I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you that the bill passed and the chair was silent. Please read the part of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. Three of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item three Appointment at 531 Appointment of David H. Goldberg as Members Seattle Planning Commission for Term two April 15, 2018. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed.

Recommendation to request City Manager and all relevant City Departments to assess likely Citywide impacts of SB 9 and SB 10 and report back to the State Legislation Committee, prior to any established hearing date at the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

LongBeachCC_07202021_21-0703

All right. So I lost my paper that showed me which item was doing that. Okay. We're going to take we're going to pick up item number 25. Communication from Councilwoman Mongo Councilman super not councilmember your UNGA Councilman Austin Recommendation to request city manager to assess citywide impacts of SB nine and SB ten and report back to the State Legislation Committee. All right, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Many of you know that this item has been in committee, and I think it's important. I get a lot of calls with questions. And sometimes the questions are so specific that I don't always know the answer. I spent a lot of time calling development services back and forth, and I think that there would be some value in having development services provide some context and information very globally and by district to the state committee. State committee is an open forum so community members can participate and attend. And then we can use that information, put it out in our newsletter, provide additional information to the community so that people know more about SB nine and SB ten. There are parts of SB nine and SB ten that people agree with, and there are parts of SB nine and SB ten that people hope that will still change . But I think that it's really important that. They know the facts so they can both advocate for or against whatever they have. So with that, that is my agenda item and thank you for those who signed on. Thank you. Council member Turanga. Thank you. I think it's important for us to know exactly what's going on with these two legislative items here. I know there's going to be a lot of staff trying to take it up. And I think. Mr. Quincey, you're you're out there. Can you give us an estimate as to what you think would be a time frame for this to come back to the state led committee? So I'll be working with Dr. Crowley here. We'll both be working on this item. Know, in a perfect world, to give you perfect information about, every single district would take six weeks. I understand it may be scheduled faster than that. So based on, you know, when you schedule the item, we will provide you the best information we can at that time. The same staff that will be working on this item are also working on the data related to the just cause item that was just heard by council. And we do have some issues with our software that we all talked about a few weeks ago. So it does take some time. I apologize for that. But we will do our best to provide counsel, the best information we can in the most timely basis as possible. I want to thank Councilmember Mongo for bringing this forward and for taking it to the state led committee, which I think would be the appropriate committee for it to be heard first before we expect it in court for a full hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Price. I, too, want to commend Councilwoman Mango for bringing this item forward. We are. This is probably the topic we get the most emails about in my district. So I really appreciate this approach. I do have a request for city staff when this item comes back. You know, one of the things that I've shared with our delegation is this idea that Long Beach. We're working so hard to try to meet our housing goals. And there are so many cities that are not taking that approach, and there are many cities that are ignoring the mandates. And so I wonder if that's possible for Long Beach or cities like Long Beach who are working so hard to expand our housing stock to be exempt from some of these policies or somehow build build an exemption through our work such that if you're meeting the goals or if you're. You know. Making progress in meeting the goals, then maybe you get a credit so you're not subject to the same requirements or the same state intervention. I don't even know if that's possible, but I feel like we should be treated. Differently than cities that are completely rejecting the reality of housing. And I don't like the fact that we're being all lumped into one, because just in the third district alone, we're producing 10% of the required housing for the city of Long Beach in the next three decades. So I would love to see if there is a way that we can advocate, of course, through through discussion at the state ledge committee. But how can we best advocate for Long Beach to either either be exempt or have different standards? So I don't know. Is that even something that you guys have talked about? We'd be glad to report back on that and then just share two items with the council. You know, there's a lot of interest in these two bills. We may remember several years back, a bill called SB 35. And there is a lot of concern about it. It turns out we haven't had a single SB 35 project in the city, but that bill had triggers. So if you are meeting your Rina, you are totally exempt. If you are meeting certain portions of your RINA, you went on to middle category. So that's a model that already exists in other legislation. We can report back about that and then we can also report back separate from these two bills. There is a provision making its way through the legislature called the Housing Accountability Unit, which would hold cities that don't follow housing mandates accountable. I know there's a lot of different opinions about that just sharing with you. I think it's a frustration to staff that we invest. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand every year all the rulemaking and legislation that comes down from Sacramento and following it to the letter. Some of our peer cities don't take the same approach, and this would provide staff at the state level to take enforcement against those cities that aren't aren't following the rules. Oh, well, that's good. Thank you. So as to right now, does SB nine or ten have those triggers in it, or is that something we might be able to advocate for? Those triggers aren't in in the legislation today. And I'll work with Dr. Carley to see what's possible. Right. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Thank you all at my comments here. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongeau. I think it's the right approach. Hey, let's sometimes the legislation, you'll see a lot of smaller cities will get together and advocate one position or the other. And as Mr. Coons just, just stated, we have our own a governor affairs apparatus here and here in Long Beach. I'm a part of an executive board of two organizations that they do that they they look at what's best in general for cities like Skaggs. Their position on on SB nine was oppose unless amended with some very specific things that they requested contract cities this year for one year I'm on the executive board there. Their position was, I believe, the same, I think here in Long Beach. I think this approach of asking staff to actually place the lens of Long Beach on the policy and see what's, you know, is there an impact along Beach? I don't see that that the bill actually benefits us very much. I don't see a benefit to it. I think there are things like SB six, seven, nine that will open up the playbook for funding. And years ago we were very, very clear that Long Beach we've done we've allocated, I think, 28,000 units, the Orlando minus element, the spaces there to build our biggest barriers, funding to make housing affordable and to incentivize development. The legislature took our biggest tool away redevelopment, where 20% of every dollar will go to accelerate affordable housing production. Specifically, the most important and impactful thing we can get from Sacramento is reestablish a finance mechanism and tool to build and produce housing. Now that's Long Beach. Now there are issues in other communities, but that's not a Long Beach issue. So I think whatever our position is in Long Beach, it should be proportional to the impact on Long Beach. If is not much of an impact on Long Beach, then we should put our focus on being proactive in Sacramento on the bills that we think will actually help us solve the problem. If this bill, I would love to see the report back on what the impact of this is. Not much of an impact on Long Beach. I think we should we should just be very clear what what our position is. Let that be known. I'll put a finger on the scale if we need to. But we should really be putting our resources behind the things that we know will actually help us solve the problem, in my opinion. But I think I support this item. It allows us to take the steps to have more clear understandings, a lot of misinformation out there. And my hope is that this process will help to clarify those things. I don't see any other council comments, any public comment on this item. There is one public comment on item 25. Jacob O'Donnell. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the Long Beach City Council. My name is Jake Jacob O'Donnell, field representative to Senator Lena Gonzalez, who is coauthor of Senate Bill nine. So California is in the midst of a housing crisis per the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Only 27% of households can afford to purchase the median priced single family home, which is 50% below the national average. And of those renters, it's over half of renters, and 80% of low income renters are rent burdened in the state. So in response, SB nine builds on the successful approach of current ADU law and expands options for homeowners who wish to be part of the solution in solving the housing crisis. So this bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that local governments maintain control of zoning and design standards, that community character is respected and that tenants are protected from displacement. There is an owner occupancy requirement in the bill. And that historic neighborhoods are preserved. And this bill also expands opportunities for homeowners to build equity while also generating affordable units excuse me for working families and seniors, creating new home homeownership opportunities for those currently locked out of the market. And it provides flexibility for multi-generational housing. So as the vice mayor kind of alluded to, that as benign as it's currently in will have little impact on most single family neighborhoods in Long Beach because of the local control components of the bill so as to be nine provides local control over zoning and design standards as long as they do not conflict with the bill. So this is specifically prohibiting duplexes or physically precluding the development of two 800 plus feet square units. And in addition, SB nine prohibits the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls unless the ordinance allows a local ordinance would allow that. And again, it has a tenant. Owner occupancy requirements. So far the structure had been occupied within the past three years. That would be exempt as well or excuse me, protected as well. And I'd like to conclude my comments with the some comments from the Senator directly. So the senator wants to thank the council for bringing this item forth. She's thankful for the hard work of the City Council and agrees that this bill is going to bring some perspective on both as a benign and as an SB ten on next steps. And she's looking forward to just engaging individually and collectively on, you know, solutions to go ahead and address this crisis for our mutual residents. Thank you. Thank you. Send our regards to the senator members. Please cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute any and all necessary documents to enter into contracts with Arcadis U.S., Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, and AECOM USA, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, for as-needed construction management and other related services in an aggregate amount not to exceed $4,000,000 for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, including any necessary amendments thereto, provided that the authorized aggregate total is not exceeded. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1086

Councilwoman Mongo motion carries. Item 23 report from Long Beach Airport Financial Management and Public Works recommendation to authorize the city manager to enter into three contracts for as needed construction management and other related services in an aggregate amount not to exceed $4 million. District five. Thank you, sir. A staff report. Mr. Francis. Good evening once again, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of Council. We are requesting approval to enter into contracts with Arcadis U.S. Inc, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc and AECOM USA Inc for Associated Construction Management Consulting Services. These three firms were among five firms which submitted presentations, and we selected these top three as ranked by their interview scores. They were determined by the selection committee to be the best qualified. As individual projects are identified, work orders for each project will be issued. Each work order will be funded from the source identified for each particular project, which could include federal grants, airport capital, passive facility charges, existing bonds or a combination. These projects may include various landside improvements at the airport. All of these project with further enhance the customer experience. And again, the contract expenses not to exceed $4 million for a three year term and the option to renew for two additional one year period. Second could not report. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Mongo. I think that many have expressed the appreciation for the airport management staff for taking the leadership on these improvements at parking garage, lot A and for the phase two of the terminal improvements. I know that so many of us are proud of the work that's been done with the terminal and that moving forward to phase two is an important part of continuing that and ensuring that people who come in and out of Long Beach have a wonderful passenger experience. So thank you for your work on this and I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you. Is there any public comment on item 22? Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 24 has been withdrawn and we completed 25 run ordinances now.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Monorail, authorizing the Director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a second amendment to the easement agreement with Westlake Center, LLC previously authorized by Ordinance 113272; providing additional easement area for improvement and expansion of the Monorail station platform; granting rights to install and maintain ticket kiosks and commercial and informational signage; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07132020_CB 119815

Agenda Item two Capital 119815 relates to the settlement or authorizing the director of the South County Department to execute a Second Amendment to the easement agreement with Westlake Center LLC, previously authorized by. Audit. 113272 providing additional easement area for the expansion of the monorail station platform, granting rights to install and maintain a kiosk and commercial and informational signage and ratifying and affirming certain prior acts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119815. Is there a second? Okay. It's been we've been seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Suarez, you are the sponsor of the bill, so you are recognized in order to address it. Thank you. This regards the monorail expansion, as you heard from the clerk from my comments this morning. This legislation allows the Seattle Center director, Robert Dellums, to take the next step in moving forward with the platform expansion by authorizing execution of an amendment to the existing monorail, operating and easement agreement with Westlake Center. Westlake Center owns the Westlake Monorail Station platform and the monorail use. The site utilizes it under the terms of a 1987 monorail operating and easement agreement. This legislation amends the easement with that Westlake Center. The monorail, which is owned by the city and operated by a concessionaire. Seattle Monorail Services asked to transport 6000 riders per hour each direction of travel. Traffic mitigation efforts are underway in anticipation of the arena's opening, which should be fall of 2021. To achieve that maximum capacity. The size and layout of the Westlake Center monorail station needs to be modified. The legislation expands access ways, provides new ticketing equipment and gateways, as well as information and commercial signage. Monorail services will pay 6.6 million for platform capital improvements and another 38,000 a year for use cleaning and maintenance of the added space. The amortized cost of the improvements will be reimbursed with monorail revenues over the remaining 14 years of the Seattle Monorail Services Concession Agreement. As you know, colleagues, we've been working on this for a couple of years. Hopefully it will go as planned and we will open the Staples Center in fall of 2021 as chair of the Public Asset and Native Communities Committee. I recommend full council to pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Suarez, are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss. Thank you. Council President Thank you, Councilmember Waters, for your leadership on this agreement. We know that the monorail is going to be that last mile connection between our light rail system and the new climate pledge arena at the Seattle center. We are going to with these changes, will be able to see more people able to move, be moved faster, being able to use both trains rather than just one at a time. This is going to change the way that we're able to use the monorail and get to Seattle Center. So thank you all for your leadership. Director Nelmes in particular. Any other comments on the bill? KC Nunn. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez, for bringing this bill forward. I know it's been many years in the in the works, so appreciate the opportunity to support this bill as well. I would ask that the Kirk please call the role on the passage of the bill. RS. I. Lewis. I. Morales. I. Macheda I Pietersen. I so want. I. Strauss. I herbold i President Gonzalez. I am in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

Recommendation to approve the transfer of the Ninth Council District's Fiscal Year 2014 one-time infrastructure funds in the amount of $100,000 to the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) to fund early action community services during its initial start-up period; and Decrease appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $100,000, and increase appropriations in the General Fund (GP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $100,000. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0548

Item number 11 is a report from Councilmember. Rex Richardson, ninth District with a recommendation to approve the transfer of nine districts fiscal year, one time infrastructure funds and the amount of $100,000 to the Uptown Property Business Improvement District to fund early community services during its initial started period. How much of this over to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. So the this this item is pretty self-explanatory. At the beginning of this year, the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District began operations and their essential purpose is to revitalize the Artesia and the Atlantic corridors. Along those corridors, the city, our school district, is making immense investments from our new library. We've had a lot of discussion on today to the revitalization of Jordan High School, to the new Halton Park Community Center that's proposed. And so this group has really stepped up in terms of agreeing to help keep our investments maintained in these last six months. They've taken great steps in creating a youth program to hire youth to help maintain these investments. But given that this is the first established business district post redevelopment, it's it's they're having some tough times getting off the ground. So what I'd like to do is make an appropriation to help them out from our ninth District Infrastructure Fund on a one time basis to help some of their startup costs associated with sort of, you know, uniforms and and getting their programs up, up and going. And and we work together on establishing an ongoing structural budget, not based on this, that they can continue to to to operate. But at this point and I don't know if is appropriate, but I want to introduce as you can see, there's some youth here. I'd like to make I thank you. So I'd like to make a motion to I'd like to mention one word. Oh, here we. Make a motion to approve this as a as written. Okay. This motion has meant it as written. Got it. But. But what I'd like to do is just introduced before. We do that. There's a there's a motion headed the second seconded by Councilmember Austin Councilmember. Thanks, but I want to introduce Lorraine Parker, who's our program manager, and Shawn, during who's our program coordinator and all these youth who are working with this bid through a special program with Pacific Gateway. And I don't know if it's appropriate time for them to say a few things now or just wait till public comment. Your pleasure. This is fine. Is part of the presentation. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and councilmembers. My name again is Lorraine Parker and I am the program manager. I am joined by Shawn Durham and the. Youth group that's with me here today. First of all, I want to say congratulations to Mayor Garcia and all of the new councilmembers. I was privileged to attend the inauguration ceremony last week. Many of your words and messages were inspirational. Speaking of inspirational, I wanted to introduce you to the rest of my team. A couple of weeks ago, they arrived as youth workers from Pacific Gateways Hire Youth Program. Today, they are transitioning into a solid leadership team to help transform the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District into a thriving community by keeping the district clean, watering the newly planted trees that Mayor Garcia helped us plant, and interfacing with the business community and even participating in economic development discussions along with my team. Our goals are to develop a series of programs to improve the overall economic vitality of the uptown people. And we are carving that path through the various programs that we have already started to develop, such as our maintenance program. We are also currently working on implementing our own facade improvement program in conjunction with the one that's offered by the city a security program, an economic development program, and a marketing program. This proposed motion before you will help us to provide some of the financial resources that are much needed in order to kick off and accelerate these programs. And we thank you again for for your support. And I hope that you will support us in this endeavor. Go uptown. Thank you very much. And thank you all for the work of the speaker. Absolutely. Please come forward. Hello. My name is Irwin Galarza and I'm part of the Uptown Clean Team. I'm proud of it. I'm proud to be making a difference in their community. I'm looking for way to make it make it to like a better in their head for all of us. And thank you, Rex. And thank all of you guys. They gave us the opportunity to work and how they. Great job. Thank you. Thank you all for your service. Giving them a round of applause. Thank you. Thank you. At this moment, I'm going to take it back to the council. An additional public comment will do that. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And I want to thank Ms.. Parker and the Uptown Clean Team for coming out to the city council meeting this evening. The work you are doing is important and exciting. Exciting. It's exciting to watch the transformation of the North Atlantic corridor. And I want to commend my my new colleague here, Mr. Richardson, Councilmember Richardson, for his vision and leadership on this and very, very bold investment in the business district, as well as to the youth. And having having an out of the box vision. So thank you very much for what you're doing. And you can count on my support here this evening. Thank you. Got somebody, Ranga? I do want to express. Excuse me. I do want to express my. My presentation to Councilmember Richardson for his willingness to share his funds to fund such a program. It's always wonderful to see young people doing such good work. I also want to thank Mayor Garcia for his work on the of the day of service for the tree planting. I never worked so hard, not even in my own yard. But I'm going to tell you. I you watching. But what I. Want to also express is. That it's so. Great to see young people out there willing to participate in programs like this, because there are so many youth out there that don't take advantage of programs like these available that this program is able to grow and prosper. Thank you. Without any additional public comment on the item C nonmembers, please go out and cast your votes. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the next item. Adam 12, is a report from Financial Management with the recommendation to adopt specifications and award of contract to Chevrolet of Watsonville doing businesses wonders for recoup for the delivery of police pursuit vehicles an amount not to exceed $162,000 from.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Stormwater Code Update; amending Chapters 22.800, 22.801, 22.803, 22.805, and 22.807 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_05172021_CB 120044

The report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 12004. For an ordinance relating to the Stormwater Code. Update Amending Chapters 22.800 22.801 22.803 22.805 and 22.07 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Councilor Petersen, as chair of the committee. You are acknowledged in order to provide the committee report. Thank you, President Pro Tem Herbold, colleagues. As I mentioned at our council briefing this. Morning at our Transportation and Utilities Committee meeting on May five. We unanimously approved this update to the city's stormwater code. This is Council Bill 120044. The update was crafted by our Seattle Public Utilities team after a long process and is required to comply with stronger environmental requirements from our state government. Due to the larger amount of information, we delayed its arrival to the full City Council for a week to provide additional review time for council members who are not on the committee. And here we are. So we're required by our State Government to have this code. Updated and in place by. July one, and the ordinance needs 30 days to take effect. So that makes today time sensitive. Our committee unanimously. Recommended approval today. Thank you. And so much. Are there any comments or questions from council members? Seeing none with Clark. Please call the roll. Peterson. Yes. So, aunt. Yes? Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. As Mr.. Yes. Council president, pro tem Herbold. Yes. Seven and seven, unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature? Oh, see the bill on my behalf. Thank you. Moving on to other business, we have a letter that some excellent circulated this morning.

Recommendation to receive and file the report on the Thank America's Teachers Dream Big Teacher Challenge for Lafayette Elementary School.

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1090

And that's right now. And we want to get those kids home and parents and faculty home early. And next after item 12, we will take up item 11, which is commission appointments by Mayor Garcia, item 24, which is a request to draft an ordinance regulating unmanned aircraft systems or drones, has been withdrawn by the city manager and staff at this time. So I'd just like to share that. And then finally, I think we can do this somewhat quickly. We'd like to take three items up together. That would be item 18, 19 and 25, and we will take that after item 11. Madam Clerk, is that do I need to repeat that? Because 18, 19 and 25 was different. We're good. Thank you. All right. Item 12. Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilman Andrews recommendation to receive and file the report on the Thank America's Teachers Dream Big Teacher Challenge for Lafayette Elementary School. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews, was there a motion? Yes. Would you like to make it motion? Thank you. Great. Councilman Andrews. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think this is very exciting because the fact that these individuals who have been out on the I would call it the fine line in order to do things, which is very, very hard. And I think they've gotten it done. They did what they had to do. And I'm just the others are going to be left up to us as individuals who really know how important. Once I finish reading this so important, it is really be it. It'll be up to the community and to the individuals that do know that voting is of essence in order for us to get this grant. So one of the local teachers, Mrs. Katherine to Sarah, representing Lafayette Elementary School, which is located in the sixth District, is named as a finalist in the race for a $100,000 grant to farmers market to support the Lafayette School. What I am asking from the community is to help us with getting enough votes to win the grant. You can vote daily online before midnight, October the 31st and that is w w dad. Thank America teachers. Dad can. I want to personally acknowledge Kathryn Peseta for applying for this grant and putting our kids needs first. Catherine has been a Long Beach Unified School District teacher for 18 years, and as a teacher myself, I know the dedication it requires. So thank you so, so very much. And if you'd like to come down, would it be okay? Possibly with. All of the individuals who was involved and likely to come down. Thank you so much, Honorable Vice Mayor and Councilmember Enders. So, as you mentioned, we're here from Farmer's Insurance for our Dream Big Teacher Challenge whereby we are going to be giving out $600,000 grant to teachers across the country. As a company, Farmers Insurance is committed to making our customers smarter about insurance. And we also want to help teachers, our community, make our children smarter. So that covers our program. And as you mentioned, one of the finalists I'm excited to announce is in our community, and it is Catherine to say at Lafayette Elementary School. So without further ado, I'll bring her up and she can discuss the grant she's applying for. Good evening and thank you for having me here. I wanted to tell you a little bit about the proposal for the $100,000 and what it would mean to our Lafayette community, not only our teachers and our students, but also our families. As you may not know, there are over a thousand students that attend Lafayette Elementary School, and those thousand students do not have the access to digital resources that our student that our children may have. So without the access and creates this huge digital divide and equity and access is what my grand proposal is all about. At Lafayette, we are wireless. We have everything that we need foundationally to support the technology. We just don't have it in the kids hands every day, and that's where we need it. We have two labs, but in order for our students to become great digital citizens, to be college and career ready, we know how technology plays such an important role. And so the grant would bring iPads and Chromebooks into the classroom so the students could use it on a daily basis. Not only would the grant provide hardware, but it would also provide for generations to come that go through the doors of Lafayette. And it's not just hardware that's needed. We're so fortunate that we have teachers, technology, integration, teachers that are here and ready already crossing hurdles to get into the hands of students digital resources. Our Long Beach Unified School District gives us a lot of support through our technology leader, Vineeth Chandrasekhar and the technology department. And we are ready. And I brought two technology integration teachers with me here today, Dr. Velasco and and Mr. David Noyce, to speak a little bit from the teachers perspective and what this grant would mean for them. I'm I. Represent. My name is Dr. Velasco and I represent the the area that is not talked about. A lot at schools. Which is the parent involvement area and what our. Opportunity the farmer's insurance has provided for us and we're excited about is that we're not only going to provide access to kids, but actually entire families. And that's my role to get that technology into their hands. And so we can have their. Support. At home and make it a true village, which we currently don't have because of lack or lack of equity. So I'm really excited and we are expecting everybody to vote before they leave tonight. And so thank you for the opportunity to come and address you tonight. Thank you for having us. And a special thank you to Kat to say for putting herself out there and reaching for something that has everything to do with our students and our passion. Our philosophy in Long Beach Unified is every child, every day. And by raising the bar and with digital technology, we have the opportunity to meet the needs in equity and access for each and every child that walks through our door. In addition to that, and it gives us an opportunity to become more enhanced in our instructional practice and our passion. So thank you. Good evening and thank you for having us. Tonight, council members, vice mayor and the city of Long Beach is a really special opportunity. I'm Dave Gamble. I'm one of the local field leaders for Farmers Insurance in the South Bay communities. And I have to tell you, this proposal that Katherine Tisei has put together is really something quite special. And it's my job tonight to kind of frame this for you in terms of what we need to do at home, make sure that your community gets this money and that that money goes right to the school. So in nationally, we're going to give away six of these prizes for $100,000. And what's so special here tonight is Katherine Tessier is the only finalist in all of Southern California. The only finalist? So as a community, my thoughts are we really need to rally together. And it doesn't matter if you're in Long Beach or in Carson or any of the surrounding communities in the Los Angeles community. I would like to see this money go right here to Long Beach. I don't have a choice this year to redirect the money to one of the neighboring cities. And that's why I think we have a real opportunity to all band together. So I want to make sure that everybody really understands that. And the way that this money is going to be granted is going to be granted through an outpouring of support demonstrated by the community. And that outpouring of support is demonstrated by voting on the website each and every day. We do have a very simple method for people that want to participate on a daily basis and vote. You can simply, simply send a text message to the number 81010 with the message out sign like in your email 100 K And this is a special site that we have set up for Katherine where she can send a daily reminder with a simple link to get right into that website to vote. I want to give a couple of other calls to action real quickly as well. This is not a one time thing for farmers insurance. This is our second year in giving away the big the Dream Big Teacher Award to several teachers around the country. But quarterly teachers have the opportunity to participate and compete for 20 $500 grants each and every quarter. And there's a lot of those grants that go around. There's about $400,000 available every year on a quarterly basis. And and Councilman Andrews gave our website and that's thank America's teachers dot com and people that are interested in learning more about how to obtain grants can find that information there as well as vote for Katherine every day . So with that, I thank you so much for your support. And we've brought some fliers to hand out for those that would like the reminders and we've left them at the table. Thank you so much for your time. Can you repeat the text number again? Yes, by all means. It is 81010. That's 81010. And the message is out. Sign like in your email. 100 k100k and that will get you a text message each morning. Compliments of Catherine and there's an easy to click link. I will give you just a very high level quick tip on this. You you do have to have a Facebook account to vote. And that's so we can make sure that members of the community don't try to stuff the ballot box with a thousand votes today. So that ensures that one person can vote one time each day. And again, this competition ends on October 31st. And I will tell you, we're very happy. We've been working on this very hard with our members of the former Southern California team. And as of this morning, Katherine is in first place in the western zone. Well, there you go. But for the community, realize what that remember is. There's five other teachers that now have a target on Katherine's back. So we really appreciate all of your support in voting daily to make sure that Long Beach gets this money. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Catherine, for all of your efforts and your team and for working as hard as you do for your kids and families. Kids and families. And thank you for mentioning parent involvement. That's wonderful. And, you know, it's such a collaborative environment. I don't think five other teachers are here gunning for Catherine. This is going to be a very supportive effort and I know each of us will put that out. We you know, we truly believe in our Long Beach schools and our Long Beach kids. And the fact that you brought them to number one so far is phenomenal. So we will push that out into our own social media efforts. Councilmember Andrews, did you want to say anything else? Just. Just vote. Just vote. Like the Nike commercial. Just vote off and absolutely. Council member, your anger. Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Andrews for bringing this forward. And of course, I want to thank Kathryn for having the vision to apply for this proposal. And I wish you well. I'm sure that the community is rooting for you and will vote for you. With that old Chicago saying, you know, we'll vote often. Yeah. And now, of course, you know, this can't happen without the generosity of a farmer's insurance. And I want you know, I thank you for making this possible available because there's nothing that we are more proud of in Long Beach is our schools. And we really certainly want to support anything that helps our schools and helps our children, especially bringing them up into the 21st century. And although Lafayette's in the sixth District, it is in the Wrigley area of of my council district. So you know that I'm going to be getting that out through my social media and my newsletter to make sure that they vote for this project as well. Thank you again. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Very glad that you came to council and that council member Andrews brought this forward because I think it's so very important. What you've done, both on the technology side and just an educational realm, is is so very important. Working for a large tech company, I can't even say firm corporation like Microsoft. It's I work a lot with the educational institutions and not many teachers do things like this. It's really very far, few far in between because, you know, I don't know if they don't see the value, but it's you don't see this often. So it's really great that you're taking it upon yourself to do this along with your technology team. And I hope you get it. We will certainly help you and support you in the first district. So you have our vote as well. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Andrews, what a fantastic idea. Katherine Farmer's Team. I know these are really important to teachers and what I heard earlier was the small micro classroom grants. Those are hugely important to teachers. And for example, in North Long Beach, the last year, we raised over $40,000 to target much of that to smaller, smaller classroom grants. $500,000 will go a long way in the classroom. And, you know, and I think it's fantastic that it's so easy to just pull up and vote. So have you? Probably can see I have it queued up right here. I'm pushing my red button that says, am I over 18 years old? I am. I am. And it says opt to receive communication from farmers insurance. I guess I'll do that too. And then. And then submit. So it was really easy to do. So I participate. I did my vote today. Councilmember. I thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of any other member of the public that wishes to address council on this item? Item 12, Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion carries. Wonderful. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Good luck, actually. Item 11.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Design Workshop, Inc. to extend the term for consulting services on an as needed basis. Amends a contract with Design Workshop, Inc. by adding one year for a new end date of 4-10-23 for on-call landscape architectural planning, design, and consulting services for parks and parks facilities, citywide. No change to contract amount (201947756; 202160687). 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_22-0051

And Council Member Cashman has called out Resolution 45 for questions under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item? Well, we don't need that because we don't have our screens right here. So we're going to forgo any items on our screens this evening. But Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council resolutions 51 through 70 on the floor for adoption? Yes, I moved that council resolutions 20 2-0051525354555657585960 6160 263, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 be adopted in a block package. Very good. I thank you for the motion. And I think we got Councilmember Hines in as the second on that one. Comments from or questions by members of Council on Council Resolutions 51 through 70. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. As you know, I have consistently voted against the use of on contracts by city agencies that don't have a reporting structure to city council on the use of those contracts. So tonight we've got another 19 from Parks and Rec here. And I want to just make sure I know that these are extensions so they're not adding any money to the contract amount tonight. We don't get any reporting at all from DPR on the use of their own calls. We don't know how much of the original contract has already been used, how much might be remaining. You know, like I've said many times, it's council's responsibility that's given to us by the Charter to oversee how city agencies are spending their money. And when we're approving on call contracts without any reporting mechanism to us, I believe we're failing in that duty. I think at this point, I mean, it's 19 tonight, but we've got to be at 100 by now over the course of the last year. That is extraordinary. So I'll be a no tonight. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add that this is an important issue. And as you know, I routinely call them out as well and voted no on many of our on call contracts. We have since been getting reports from Doddy. I'm not sure why we're not getting them from Parks and Recreation. I know we're getting them from the airport now as well. So I think we need to elevate this conversation with Parks and Recreation so that we're getting the same consistent information that we're receiving from the other agencies that have been doing on call contracts so that we have a way of knowing what we're approving. I understand they want to be able to have a pool to select from so that when there are different jobs, they're able to do like a short list and be able to get the work out faster. But I think we need to be able to see the details on these contracts, because oftentimes what happens is some of the same contractors get used over and over and over again, and it's very costly to go through the RFP process to put together a bid and and to finally get selected only to find that the time will be exhausted. And you may never be called as a contractor that got awarded a bid. So that's part of why I think it's important to get the data so that we can monitor how they're being used and to make sure this is an efficient way to continue to do business in the city. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember Ortega and wanted to I have that Craig Coronado and or Jason Moore are joining us this evening to answer any questions. And so I wanted to see if Craig could give any insights to the reporting or anything else that was mentioned by the councilwoman. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the Council for hearing this. Yes. DPR appreciates council support of our maintenance and expansion programs. We have heard this before, the concern about reporting, and we're aware that Dotti in Denver are doing extensive reporting where we're setting up to do that ourselves. We do have a process. We have a sop here, standard operating procedure that we utilize to fairly and transparently distribute our work among our on calls, both in design, which this is associated with and construction as well. So right now, in terms of of capacities, less than a third of the firms have exceeded half of their contracted capacity. Yet all of our consultants, all 17 of them, do have work through this on call. So it's been distributed fairly evenly. We do track it and we are reporting it internally and we'll work with council to report it out as needed. All right. Thank you, Craig, for being here this evening. And it looks like Councilmember Ortega has an additional question. Go ahead, Councilman. I just want to mention that we're getting the reports quarterly from the other agencies and just want to see if that is a commitment that Parks and Rec is willing to make to provide them on a similar schedule that we're getting. Those other. Ones. That certainly makes a lot of. Sense to us to report it in a consistent way as he does. We just don't have that quite set up yet, but we're working on it. Thank you, Craig, for that. And Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sawyer thinks that the president and thanks, Craig, for that information and really appreciate it and be happy to talk through that. My best recommendation for you would be to connect with Daddy about this, because not only did Daddy start reporting in a more robust way to council, they also worked with Dispo to set up a very specific way that they now award contracts and write contracts. So, you know, for example, when I first was elected to council two and a half years ago, you know, sometimes we would see an extraordinarily large contract, like a $50 million contract or something like that. That's just an example. I can't think of it off the top of my head, so don't quote me anyone who's watching. But, you know, we'd see one on call kind of general contract, and then the work would be split up and we'd get the reporting at the end. What Dotti and Dispo did was rework the way that they actually write those contracts so that now we would see $51 million contracts come through. So there's a lot more specifics about what's happening. It's a lot more specifics about the scope of the work. There's a lot it's a lot there's a lot more clarity around things like Mwb and B equals and and how those are being achieved, etc.. So I would recommend that you reach out to Danny and talk to them or dispo and talk to them about the changes that they made in partnership. That's the reason why I don't vote no on Daddy on call contracts anymore. Dan isn't quite there yet, even though they have started quarterly reporting, which I very much appreciate. But you know, there are Parks and Rec is not the only other city agency that has on call contracts that does not do any reporting to city council . And so, you know, I am a regular no vote on these things because of that issue. And, you know, appreciate your willingness to make some changes there. Thank you. Thank you. Are we frozen? And my president. President Gilmore, dropped off. Yeah, I was just going to say, am I frozen? Sorry. I don't see it. I'll take over. I don't see any more hands in the queue. Roll call, please. Council Resolution 20 20071. Forgive me. I'm ahead. Roll call on council resolutions. 20 2-0051 through 20 2-0070. Sawyer. No black shirt because I. CdeBaca. I. Clark, I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I don't. Know. Cashmere. I can eat. I. Ortega, I. In the against India, i. And Madam President Torres, I. If I can interrupt, I'm back. Council Secretary. If I could be included in the vote. Yes. Torres. I know, Madam President Gilmore. I. Madam Secretary, if you please, close the voting and announce the results. Two names. You have a nice. 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.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the SODO Parking and Business Improvement Area; modifying the 2021 assessment values update; and amending Ordinance 125678.

SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119884

Third part of the City Council agenda? Item one Constable 11998119884 Photo Parking Area Modifying the 2021 assessment by update and amending ordinance 125 678. Thank you. I moved past Council Bill 119884. Is there a second. I can open? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman Morales, you are listed as the prime sponsor of the bill and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you, colleagues. As I mentioned a couple. Of weeks ago is a. Display of assessment. For the central. Bank. I want to clarify. That this bill did. Not require. A public hearing. And because we're not. Actually voting on a rate change. This would delay the assessment date update, which means that the assessment would remain the same for the last two years. And the Ratepayer Advisory Board agreed that because of the economic impact of COVID 19. Of rate payers would. Benefit from holding steady. And so. In 2022. They would. That is when they would make. The changes. To the. Assessment rate. There are questions I'm happy to take them, but it's a fairly small change. And. That mentioned before the rate payers have been advised and a letter went out to. Them a few weeks ago. I think it counts and everyone else. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the please call the role on the passage of the bill? Let's get a. I. Peterson I. So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Her? Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, through the Housing-Related Parks Program, for the rehabilitation of park facilities and park grounds at Drake Park, Peace Park, and Martin Luther King, Jr., Park; accept such grant funding in an amount up to $1,326,350; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the projects. (Districts 1,6)

LongBeachCC_02212017_17-0125

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. I am 21. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Development Services. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing city manager to submit a grant application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the rehabilitation of park facilities and grounds. Accept such grant. Funding in the amount not to exceed 1,326,000 District one and six. Thank you, sir. Staff report. Marie Knight. Yes, Mayor and members of the council. This is a grant administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. It is in the amount of 1.3, just a little bit over $1.3 million. And the projects that we are proposing, the funding be used for having access to the low income housing units, where the funding that was related to the grant and that would be Drake Park, Peace Park and Mt. Martin Luther King Park. And the funding would allow us to do such things as replacing play equipment, refurbishing interior public spaces, addressing exterior accessibility issues and general safety and site improvements. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. This is great. I'm I'm glad that we are bringing this forward and those parks definitely need additional love. So thank you very much, Murray. Councilman Pierce. Thank you. Any public comment on this item saying no members cast your vote.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Manager, Department of Health and Human Services and Development Services Department to develop an incentive package to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and return to the City Council in 30 days. The incentive package should incorporate the following options: • Align and streamline the current city-mandated inspections with the HUD-mandated Housing Choice Voucher inspections; • Waive various permits and inspection costs for apartment owners who accept Housing Choice Vouchers; • Create a Damage Mitigation Fund which provides financial assistance to landlords to mitigate damage caused by tenants during their occupancy under the Housing Choice Voucher Program; • Provide landlords vacancy payments to hold units while the landlord is going through the Housing Choice Voucher Program approval process.

LongBeachCC_04042017_17-0247

Item 20 is a communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Mango Councilmember your recommendation to request the City Manager, Health and Human Services Development Services Department to develop an incentive package to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants through the Housing Choice Voucher Program and return to the City Council in 30 days. Thank you. And Mayor stepped down. So I'm going to run this portion. So about a year, a little less than a year ago when I became chair of the Housing Authority, I sat down with the chair, with the executive director, Allison King, to learn more about the various programs and the support that they offered Long Beach residents . It's an amazing program that serves many hardworking Long Beach working families, and we're in a particular time when the status of the program is in jeopardy given the climate in Washington, D.C. and the dynamics of our local rental market. So let's look at what's stood out to me was when I learned that our housing choice voucher program, commonly known as Section eight, is not being utilized to its full potential with a 2% vacancy rate in the Long Beach housing market. It's become increasingly difficult to subsidize for subsidized tenants to find housing. There are over a thousand families and individuals who hold a voucher but are unable to find a landlord that's willing to rent to them or a vacant Section eight vacancy. So we began to look into why this is so. So we partnered with the Apartment Association. We conducted multiple focus groups and surveys to better understand apartment owners barriers to accepting the housing choice vouchers. After speaking with several apartment owners, we found that there's a strong need for modernization for the program to compete with rising rents, coupled with an education campaign to dispel the many misconceptions about the program. Throughout the process, we explored questions like Why would a landlord bother with a housing choice voucher when they can receive a higher premium in the marketplace? Why bother with yet another, more rigorous inspection when we already were already subject to other multiple inspections? Why would an apartment owner hold a unit vacant while a potential tenant conducts a Section eight process? When we can lease up to a market rate tenant and less time with less bureaucracy. It's clear to me that in order for the housing choice voucher program to compete with the open market, we need to modernize and create a better value proposition for property owners. In addition, early on we found that apartment owners felt that applying for the program was a difficult, difficult process to navigate and the website was not as helpful as it could be. So the Housing Authority was able to respond to some of these quick concerns quickly and realign their resources to create an ombudsman position to work specifically with apartment owners who are applying for the Housing Choice Voucher program as well as well as current owners in the program. Further, the Housing Authority is moving forward with redesigning its website to be more friendly and modern before. But there are some elements that require a deeper dove. So let's go ahead and move to a staff report so we can hear a little bit more on the focus groups, the surveys and some of the some of the next steps. Alison King, our director of our housing authority. Thank you. As Vice mayor stated, our program is one of the largest affordable housing programs here in the city of Long Beach. We provide financial assistance to low income, elderly and disabled residents of Long Beach so that they can live with dignity and decent, safe and sanitary housing. Currently, the Housing Authority, in partnership with 2600 property owners, assist over 6300 households that lease units in the city of Long Beach through various programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher Program. In addition to the Housing Choice Voucher program, we have other programs that specifically support veterans, those with HIV and AIDS and those with mental health challenges. Our tenant based rental assistance program offers much of a subsidy to housing residents. They generally pay between 30 and 40% of their income toward the rent, and the housing authority subsidizes the balance. We currently receive $68 million for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and have the opportunity to serve 7398 families with permanent, stable housing. The problem is that the housing authority for many years was a high performing agency, and that means basically that we achieved a 98% utilization rate of the vouchers that we were allocated over the last several years. There has been a increase in the number of vouchers that we have been provided, largely due to the VASH program, which is the only program that has had an increase of allocation. However, we have had a significant decrease in the number of owners who have been willing to offer their unit in the service of the Section eight voucher program. Currently, we are at an 85% lease up rate. This means that we are in jeopardy of having leftover funds recaptured by the federal government to assist other programs throughout the country that are running a shortfall. Understanding the problem to attain increased program utilization. Vice Mayor Richardson has engaged in a process, along with the Apartment Association of Southern California Cities and the Housing Authority, to engage apartment owners and identify causes for the recent decline in use of the voucher. Through this process, we convened three focus groups with over 40 owners and administered over 150 surveys. The owner demographics are 60% of our owners owned five or less units. 30% own between five and ten units and 10% owned 20 or more units. In our own conversations, there were many misconceptions, such as different rules govern subsidized tenants. The truth is, is that subsidized families are subject to the same rules as market rate families, as long as they are applied consistently, with the exception of the notice to vacate, which must be a 90 day notice. Without cause I can't ever evict or ask a subsidized tenant to vacate. This also is a misconception in that, as I mentioned, the 90 day notice to vacate without cause is always an option after the first year of tenancy and an individual can be evicted for cause at any time. I cannot charge voucher tenants. Market rate rent payment standards are what we publish to owners, and yet they are not the cap on the rent, only the cap on the subsidy. While some of our voucher holding families have significantly low income, they cannot pay more than 40% of their adjusted income in the first year after the first year of tenancy. That can indeed increase as long as the rent is reasonable. Section eight Tenants are criminals, drug dealers and bad people. The majority of housing choice voucher holders are simply low income families, and any owner has the ability and should take the responsibility to vet any individual who occupies their unit. Through these various focus groups and some and surveys, a number of recommendations have emerged from these groups to help increase the voucher lease up. The findings largely included the need for more outreach and education to landlords to address the misconceptions about the program. We believe that this has presented many opportunities for us to move forward. Some of the concerns that were raised are the city mandated inspections and fees that owners pay. Owners believed that if they accepted a Section eight voucher that they had to upgrade the unit, which is definitely a misconception. Voucher holders are hard on the unit and leave them with high costs to fix damages, and the section they process takes up to a month and they are expected to hold the unit for that period of time. These are some of the things that we hope to address along with, as vice mayor said, streamlining our website, having a single point of contact with an ombudsperson and improving our communications with owners via our newsletter as well as other opportunities to engage. At this time, I'll turn it back to Vice Mayor for the opportunities he'd like to propose. Thank you. So before continuing with my emotional and take a minute and just thank Alice and her team at the Housing Authority for educating my staff and myself these last few months and working together to think outside of the box, to find new ways to address the needs of both the program participants and the apartment owners. I also want to thank the development services partner for being a well being willing to color outside of the lines and explore some ways to partner and create some efficiencies. I want to thank the Apartment Association for coming to the table, convening multiple focus groups of apartment owners. Your assistance, your support has been instrumental in shaping how we modernize the Housing Choice Vote Voucher program. I also want to thank the tenant rights groups for supporting this effort as it's our single largest resource to keep families from slipping into homelessness. So tonight I'm requesting that the City Manager, Department of Health and Human Services and Development Services Department develop an incentive package to encourage broader adoption of the Housing Choice Voucher Program and return to City Council in 3045 days. I'm requesting that staff work to incorporate the following elements align and streamline the current city mandated inspections with the HUD mandated housing choice voucher inspection. Waive various permits, license fees, inspection costs for apartment owners who accept housing choice vouchers. Create a damaged middle damage mitigation fund, which provides financial assistance to landlords to mitigate damage caused by tenants during their occupancy under the Housing Choice Voucher Program and provide landlord landlords vacancy payments in order to hold the unit while the landlord is going through the housing choice voucher program. These are elements that could be a part of this incentive package. The obviously we've done a little bit of homework, but they still need to be vetted out completely. So we do have the flexibility to come with what we think will work and what we can support. And and so with that, I asked my colleagues for their support tonight. Thank you. So next we have Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, vice mayor, and thank you staff and the apartment association and all the housing advocates that have done work on this saying in my office, as always, that everybody needs to be at the table and that if we're not talking at the same table together, then we're always going to have misconceptions. And so I really want to applaud the vice mayor for doing that, not just on one occasion, but on multiple occasions where we can really take apart some of the misconceptions and start fixing our program. And so when I first came into office, homelessness was one of my biggest issues in my district, and we continued to meet with as many department folks as we could and many advocates and try to find out some of the challenges. And so I'm thankful that Rex is leading on this. Proud sponsor, co-sponsor, because we know that the housing choice voucher program is a critical tool that can be used to combat and prevent homelessness at any given moment there . Between 506 hundred voucher holders in Long Beach who cannot find an affordable unit to lease. Oftentimes their vouchers will expire, as the vice mayor mentioned, and many have to start the process over and reapply all over again. The impacts on this are huge for our city, and we are now at a new opportunity with new revenue sources as well from the passage of Measure H and unique opportunity to develop such programs as this. I had just two questions on are there opportunities right now outlined in Measure H that directly connect to Section eight housing? That's for staff. I can't answer that. Yes, Mr. West. I'm going to turn that over to Allison. There are opportunities. They have not specifically been defined at this point. Our director of Health and Human Services, Kelly Calliope, is serving on a county wide committee to review those. So, yes, there are opportunities. Great. Thank you so much, Vice Mayor, for bringing this item forward. I hope everybody can support this tonight. Sure thing. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Well, I think. My question was was certainly answered here. I will definitely be supporting this because I think it merits a look in and I'm very interested with what I'm going to be most interested in, what comes back from staff. I think I'm concerned about the funding, obviously, with the at least three of the points here. I'm wondering where those funds are coming from. And I heard Measure H being an opportunity. I'm curious to know you mentioned that that we were at a 85% threshold. So can we use the rest of that 15% toward this? Unfortunately, no. HUD funds us in such a way that our housing assistance payments are specifically only for the purpose of paying rent, and that is only once an individual begins their tenancy in a unit. We would have to use our administrative fees, which are being pro-rated at about 80% of what we should be receiving. And we are only getting those administrative fees when an individual leases up. So our revenues have been dipping and do not present an opportunity for them to use in a very broad manner. Okay. And I understand the challenge in terms of finding available housing with those who are holding vouchers. And I know we've we've had housing authority meetings pretty regularly. What is the vacancy rate here in Long Beach now? It still remains at about 1.8 to 2.2%. I believe that has been the information that has been reported. So if we were to actually incentivize Section eight housing, incentivize landlords to to to make that 1.8% available, how many would what does that look like in terms of real numbers? I'm sorry, I couldn't answer that specifically, but the challenge has been that many owners in the area are not even giving an opportunity to voucher holding families. We understand and respect their need to vet these families and anyone else who occupies the unit. We simply want them to have a chance to apply and be considered based on their suitability for tenancy. Understood. And then and then lastly, on the first point, I mean, it says to a line is drawn line. The current city mandated inspections with HUD mandated housing choice voucher inspections. And perhaps somebody from staff can tell me how those inspections are currently done. Now, are they done by the same personnel? Each of them were conducted by two separate departments, and we are investigating where there is synergy in each of those. At this time, we don't have that information. Okay. Now, in a. Former. Role, I was I represented a Section eight housing inspectors in for Hakala. And I know their role is a lot different than code enforcement. So I know that's something that's going to have to be really vetted out and worked out through with staff and with the the impact of labor organizations. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. And those are some of the things we hope to explore. Maybe if one inspections happened in on one day, the other inspection could perhaps happen the same day. So there's less, you know, disruption to the landlord and the folks who live in the complex. So these are all great questions. Thank you for those. Councilman Price. Thank you. I want to thank the vice mayor and my colleagues for bringing this item. It's a great item. I look forward to hearing what representatives from the Apartment Association and the tenants rights groups have to say. I know we have received some letters, but I like to hear that everybody was at the table and input was elicited from everyone. I think that's really great. I know that one of the things and I read the stuff, I read the agenda item a couple of days ago. So my memory may not be correct on this, but I think I also heard Vice Mayor Richardson make a statement about maybe needing an ombudsman, too. So my concern is I'm wondering what staff resources we already have, at least maybe for a pilot. Graham could we use our existing staff resources? And that's something that I think would be included in the city manager's report. Is this something that we can explore without taking on an additional cost in terms of staffing for the city? So the city manager can look at this issue with an eye towards us not having additional staffing? I would feel a lot better about it, at least for a pilot period of time, until we can figure out whether we can use measure funds and things like that. I think we can say to a rest we already figured out the Ombudsman without spending an additional dollar rate. That's fantastic. That makes me feel a lot better. And I think the other thing I was going to ask Allison is I think I had read an article about something, a similar program to this being used in other municipalities in the Western Cities magazine. Is this something that other cities are exploring in terms of incentive packages? Absolutely. Our neighbors have it. The County of Los Angeles Housing Authority and the City of Los Angeles Housing Authority are already doing many different things. I was at a recent meeting where they identified 1553 I'm sorry, strategies that they are using to combat this issue. They, however, have elected to turn over all of their new vouchers for the purposes of homeless persons only. So there was a recent article that indicated that their waiting list has over 40,000 persons, and that is because they are targeting specifically homeless individuals. And in in terms of that, were they experiencing the same problem with the the that the voucher is not being utilized to their fullest extent? There were challenges in getting owners to the table. They are already doing things such as the vacancy payment and the security deposit. Yes. Okay. That's that's an interesting consideration. Utilizing it for exclusively for homelessness. Is that something that you think down the road might work for, for the city of Long Beach based on your expertize? That's not an answer that I can really give. However, I will say that we currently do set aside vouchers to our multi-service center. They are our coordinated entry system and they do already identify those persons who would be a good candidate for the voucher. We have been increasing that number as the need arises. Fortunately, we are all in the same department and will continue to be responsive to the need as it presents itself. Do you know if all the vouchers that the Multi-Service Center has get used to any of those not get used? Every one of those that they get allocated are referred to us. Now, of course, those persons are also struggling to find places to use them. But every voucher that we set aside for them, we get a referral from them. That's great. Thank you, Will. Thank you for the report. It was really informative. And again, thank you to my colleagues for bringing this item. Thank you and council members. Yes. I, too, want to just say thank you for bringing this item forward. Vice Mayor and council colleagues. I think it is a fantastic item that, you know, where we need to look everywhere to find housing opportunities. And so thanks to everyone in the audience as well for being a part of it. I have just a couple of questions on the item, and I want to also thank Housing Authority Alison for your great work as well. So the damage mitigation fund, I was talking to Council Member Pearce and what other cities have something like this and what are the logistics? The county is doing this program as well. It's a $2,000 fund that they set aside with very strict policies on how it is used. They implemented this in February of 2016. At a recent meeting last week, they indicated to date that they have only had to pay one damage claim for an individual who had only been occupying the unit for two months before they destroyed something. But they also do have supportive services in place to follow up with families once they lease a unit. Okay, great. That's good to hear. And then next question. I know you had mentioned that we received an abundance of ash vouchers, and I know we haven't we haven't gone through all of them. Is that correct? At this at this time. We have not least of all of our ash vouchers, they, too, have the same concern of not having places to be able to use them. However, we do have a new project based development that is coming online in the fall anchor place on the property of the villages of Cabrillo. Those will be 75 project based vouchers. Vouchers. And those are specifically for veterans. Correct. Okay. So if we don't have and who knows, you know, the specs, of course. But do we have an ongoing need for veteran housing? I mean, it would seem like we would, but I know we don't have a place. So I guess my question would be if if say we don't have any more veterans out there that need these types of vouchers, would this with these vouchers possibly, is it possible to convert them to just generic vouchers at all? No. These vouchers were specifically identified by HUD for the voucher program. We receive all of our VASH referrals directly from the Veterans Administration, and those are sent to us. And I do believe that they still have a very significant number of persons that are in need of housing. Okay, great. Thank you very much for that. And again, appreciate all your work. Thank you. And that was a good, robust discussion. It's not so often that we see, you know, something come the council that has apartment owners and renters both saying the same thing. And that said, let's let's go ahead and have public comment. So please come forward and you have state your name. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. Robert Fox again. Sorry to be in front of you so often tonight. I gave you all a letter, and I hope you will read it. It sounds a little harsh, but it's my personal experience. The Section eight Housing Department. At one time, I worked very closely with the head of the department, Laura Joseph, when she was the director. And we did have a reform of Section eight housing, and it worked pretty well for a long time. Unfortunately, in the meantime, that those reforms were kicked out the window. So I appreciate the fact that we're at least coming to the table and talking about reforming this department. Let me tell you what my problem is with it, because I don't accept Section eight anymore. Like many, many landlords and I'm I'm just angry that I don't because I'm like this crazy, generous person. I sat on the board of the Gay Lesbian Center, so I accepted Hopper grants, you know, and I wanted to help people. I furnished an apartment for somebody who didn't have any furniture, you know? I mean, I've done way over-the-top stuff, but I got burned so bad by this department. It was amazing. The inspectors would come in and literally tell me if my toilet didn't flush in 3 seconds, I had to replace the toilet. And I thought, Where in the hell is that in the code? You know, I helped write the building planning code for the city of Long Beach long time ago with Jeanne Zeller. So I thought that sort of weird, you know, they had inspection standards that would be like for a mansion in Newport Beach. What I in my buildings are in great shape because I'm fanatic, you know? But it's like they cited me for all this stuff and I going, What? What are you talking about? Oh, what the PSA is and how high enough in your your kitchen faucet. Really? Because mine is just the same as that in my house. We need to codify the kind of inspection that we are going to do on housing. We are not in Section eight giving palatial palaces to rich and famous folks. We just want good, standard, clean housing. That's what we want. And I provide it. I don't provide anything else. But. And yet. When you're in an inspection process with Section eight, they can just withhold your rent and it doesn't matter that you took care of it in 10 minutes, you lose a month's rent and there's no negotiation with these people at all, period. So it brings me to the other issue that, of course, me as a landlord and as a person have that department is so hostile. And when I go up there trying to do my best to get a friend of mine into the Section eight program and he's going to move into my unit, it's like the two of us just I mean, Vince and I just were freaked, you know, he was treated like some sort of lowlife criminal and I was treated like some greedy jerk. They'd close windows on us. They'd make us wait for two and a half hours, you know, sitting there and it's like, wait a minute. So I go up to the window. I said, How long do we wait for this stuff? Shall I make an appointment with you? Now you just have to wait. And rudely. So I got to tell you something. It's about staff, Allison. You have. Got to. Train people. To have good manners. You know, you. If you anger people that much, what landlord wants to go through that. So if you can direct. Well, it looks like a few minutes, but thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening to Mayor Garcia in his absence. And greetings to all on the panel tonight, especially Mayor Rex Richardson. My name is Rhonda Butler, and thank you so much for being concerned about the housing problem that we have in Long Beach. I am one of the ones who is unable to use my voucher. I was on the list for 18 years before my name was chosen. I was issued my voucher in May of last year. I'm at my last extension and I have nine days left. No one will take my voucher. I have always worked hard and have always paid my way. Being a city employee, working my way up from the bottom custodian, parking enforcement officer, and then to public works as a parking checker, I made the 525 when working a city vehicle, came out of gear and pinned me up against a parked car. I was let go due to my non career status. I'm not looking for a handout, just a helping hand. Thank you so much. I've been here since 330. I need to say something to you tonight, and I just want to thank everybody that came. I don't know about the gentleman in the red shirt, but I've never came to office, man. And nobody never treated me wrong there. I've never waited longer than I should have. I waited for my name and I waited for my number. And I always got service when I was there. So maybe he just showed up on a bad day, but I never came here and got mistreated. And I'm so glad to see you here tonight. And I'm so glad that everybody is here tonight. I know that Long Beach is working. I've been in this city for 60 years. Me and my mother came here when I was a little girl. Before all this stuff was even here. So I just want to say thank you for. For looking out for us. We need somebody to look out for us. And I don't want to be homeless. But I'm on my way. I ran out of all my options. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, sir. I read that article. Somebody hurt us and God is using you. He's using you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello again, Sylvia Contreras. I just wanted to make a comment. Years ago, I had a family member that lived here in Long Beach, worked in Long Beach, and moved out of the city and then moved out of state. Came to a point that when she moved out of state, she needed state assistance and she wanted to come back to Long Beach. And I said, well, you know, what? Does she have state assistance out there? Maybe you can qualify for state assistance here. So so let me call a section, a group, and see how this can work. So when I did, what they told me is that, no, it cannot be a family member. They have to wait in line. I don't know if that's true or not. But what that made me feel, I said, Well, if I can't help my own family, like, you know, I felt bad helping strangers. So that deterred me from going to Section eight. She came back again about a year ago and I said, you know, that's what they told me years ago. I can't help you unless I become the subsidized person, and then that would affect my income. So yeah, incentive maybe an incentive would be to let landlords, you know, if they have a family member in need and they qualify, why can't they be the ones to move in? I don't know. That's just my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. Can we fight and live at 17 Pacific Avenue? And I'm with the Long Beach Gray Panthers. And affordable housing is one of the key issues that we are addressing this year in our campaigns. And I'm very heartened to see that the working towards creative solutions to an affordable housing issue. And I just want to commend the Housing Department. And Ms.. King has been amazing in her willingness to work with the community to create solutions that really help our community. But we still have a number of issues with affordable housing and unjust evictions, and there's just going to be more and more demand on our housing and our landlords. So I'm very hopeful since we're beginning to take steps to address some solutions. Thank you for all your efforts. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and Honorable City Council. My name is Johanna Cunningham, the executive director for the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. I am happy to come before you this evening on behalf of and in support of work that was spearheaded by Vice Mayor Rex Richardson and included ARCC and the Housing Authority. ARCC boasts over 2500 multifamily property owners, landlords, management companies and vendors who support this industry an industry that contributes greatly to our local and statewide economy, but an industry that has also been misrepresented by a few bad owners over the past few years. It has been our mission to connect with our city representatives and to inform and educate the truth about owning rental property. For over 98% of our owners in our city, you have responsible, compassionate and reliable owners who care about their residents. This is why it was a welcome partnership to engage in a conversation on some of the challenges that exist with a program that so many owners participated in and supported. In the past, over 98% of housing vouchers were being used, but it became clear that the changes in policies had not been adequately passed along or adopted by our owners. After several meetings with both the vice mayor and Alison King from the Housing Authority. There were issues that were not only cleared up as misunderstandings, but also made both sides aware that communication needed to be consistent. Needless to say, the meetings resulted in positive outcomes for both parties, and we look forward to continuing to work with willing partners. So I come before you this evening to thank you for including the Apartment Association California Southern cities in this process, for being willing to listen to our concerns and for being willing to work on an incentive package that will help increase participation in the housing voucher program. In conclusion, I want to thank Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, Alison King, and I want to thank you for those who have signed on to this recommendation. Janine Pearce from District two. Roberto, you on the from district seven. And Stacey Mongo from District five. We look forward to continuing this partner and we look for it as an industry that is more than just people oriented but is family oriented. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is George O'Hara, and I have a small apartment in District seven. I'm new to residential housing, and I'm an insurance agent by day. A couple of years ago, I bought a small property built in 1955. Since that, it has required regular maintenance and repairs to plumbing systems, landscaping. And I just replaced that entire bathroom because of rot to the supporting beams under the floor. I guess that's to be expected for a 60 year old building. By chance, I was already a member of the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities. Their input has been instrumental in educating me on how to operate as a property owner. And inspire me to maintain a. Clean and attractive property. I want to thank Vice Mayor Rex Richardson for opening dialog with the Apartment Association on how to improve the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Long Beach for both landlords and tenants. I also want to thank Alison King for giving me an education on how Section eight of the voucher program works. I feel more confident with it now. I thank you. Thank you. Next bit of news. My name is George. I'm the total and I was here in October. I want to thank you, Mayor. You gave me a card and I got my section it. But five months I've called at least 400 numbers and either it's like we don't want to work with them and they hang up. Or there's just nothing there. There's nothing there. So my daughter is getting ready to run out. And I was told I don't get an extension. I know another young lady with three kids living in her car. When I was here last time, it was because we got evicted by. It's called the Dome now. It was the Mike Dunphy group. And they told us when we got kicked out that they were going to remodel and that we would have a chance to move back in where they're remodeled. So I went to a to apply for an apartment in the same building with Section eight. They accept Section eight, but they still want you to make twice that amount of rent. When I lived there, I was paying 750. A little small studio now. LS 1195 section. I don't pay that much. They only pay 1128. You guys build them all so everybody can be homeless. You know, it's just it's crazy. I've been here 52 years my whole life. And now I'm here again. Go again. Going to be homeless. There's got to be. Maybe when we turn, if we get our package turned in, if we bring our package in to section eight, can they get them going faster? So the managers don't give us you know, don't want to give our apartment away? Or is there a way that because I'm doing Multi-Service Center, if they can pay the deposit to guarantee that we're going to have that apartment, because a lot of managers said, well, we have to wait, you know, they don't want to wait. They don't want to leave their apartments sitting for a month, sometimes two months. There's got to be some. You know, we got all these abandoned buildings around here. You guys are building all this stuff. Redo a building for people that need it. Not all the homeless people out there want to be homeless. They don't want to be out there in the street. But there's no housing. None. There's more kids homeless out there than I even care to think about. So one more time. June. If I don't find a place and they won't give me an extension. What am I supposed to do? I'm 57 years old. I have lupus, I have Parkinson's, and I'm on a liver transplant list. And I'm in recovery, so I got ten years clean. If I have to go back out there and be homeless. Well, we understand. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and city council and staff. I want to commend Vice Mayor Richardson and all the coauthors on just thinking out of the box and really thinking about innovative ways to help solve this affordable housing crisis that we have here in the city. I think it's a it's a great first step to, you know, to to move towards actually housing the people that need it the most. As you heard from Georgianna, Georgianna is definitely you've been having a hard time as well as another person out here in the in the audience that is also in Section eight, having a hard time finding a place to live. So and it's also just a shame that we're we're at the brink of losing all this funding from the federal government if we don't find, you know, find a way to actually keep it here. And then and then on top of that, the new administration and the threats that come to to the housing authority because of that, you know, and all of this ties in together, because I know the homeless the homeless or the people without homes is a huge issue and problem that the city is trying to tackle. And this is just one way, one step in moving toward actually solving that issue or finding a solution for that issue. If we can't if we can't remedy this, if we can't save this this great resource that that our city has, then we're just going to find ourselves piled up, piled on top of more people without homes . I mean, we have two people here in the audience, three people that are on the brink of that right now. And I know we can't build housing that fast, but we can try to encourage property owners to take Section eight and do whatever we can to think outside the box to make sure that people do have homes . So I do commend everybody on working, working on this and just let me know, you know, again, I didn't introduce myself. I'm sorry. We're hearing that our program director of Libra. So anything that we can do to help, to help educate the community, to let us know. And when you do come back with some educational program, I do recommend that you probably give VIP seating to Robert Fox because he definitely needs to to be educated on maybe dispelling some of the myths that he has on Section eight voucher holders, because that's definitely something that we need to do. Not everybody that holds Section eight, as you saw, is Georgina is not a drug dealer, is not a gang member, is not some sort of criminal. And we're not trying to to protect them because there are laws to get them out if they do if they do violate some sort of laws. But we do need to educate the community and those property owners that still holding on to those myths about Section eight tenants and and just maybe educate them and open their minds a little bit. Thank you very much for all the work on this. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor and other members. Other council members actually came here for a different reason, but I thought I would propose an idea. It's a long term shot, but I actually represent a landlord that borders a Section eight housing community in North Long Beach. The people there are generally good people. My proposition is find contractors, contractors, people that are willing to donate lumber, maybe renovate some projects in Long Beach that could use an uplift and find these people that were normally going to use the vouchers. Because it seems like there was two problems with your report, ability to use the vouchers and problems with the landlords so the city could then themselves become the landlord. And you hire or you teach these people that are willing to do contractors that are willing to donate their services, help people in need, learn a new craft. Therefore, they can be employed by the city afterwards, stay in Long Beach, pay taxes to Long Beach, and they live in a home that they helped build. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. John dilatory names on file. Mr. Honorable Mayor and City Council. I appreciate the opportunity to come up and speak with you tonight. Before I can go into my speech, first thing I'd like to say is I think, you know, what we're hearing here tonight is that there's hope, right? You're hearing from all sides and from everybody. There's hope because we do have a crisis. Right. We have too many people and not enough housing. It will take just like the last two gentlemen said, it's going to take a while and hopefully working together, we can come to that. So I think it's just it's encouraging as a citizen of Long Beach that we do have hope. So I am also an association member. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I just want to let you know, we fully support the recommendation that that's in front of. And we really appreciate all the work that Allison and city staff and the council members have put in putting this together. And we like that we were included as a part of this solution because really solutions only come if everybody's at the table has been said many times tonight and we really look forward to continuing being a part of the solution over the next 30 days, whether when this comes back. So, again, thank you. And we do support this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you council for tackling and looking to tackle this project. I'm a Bill Davis and I'm actually a property manager who does accept Section eight and I can testify that some of the inspectors do get a little bit unreasonable with their inspection items. But that being said, for. The most part, I haven't had too much. Of a problem with that. I do want to address I do agree with the three points that have been made in regards to on the incentive. Side and the education side. Those items are good. There is some very practical, non expensive methods. That can be used to alleviate some of. The timing gap that occurs and that would be in the preapproval aspect for the tenants. Currently I have a unit, I've had 20 people, 20 on on vouchers come through. Most of those were people that had their we're looking for a ground floor unit because they had some type of a disability. And in regards to a comment that was made that the price per zip code is not a fixed point in total. My experience is that is not true. The local office does treat that as a mandatory cap. They don't take the person's available income under the 40% and add two. They merely say what that zip code cap is, is what we're going to. Pay no matter what. So that has been an issue that has caused almost all of the 20 that have come to look at the unit to say, you know, look, I'd love to take it, but, you know, they're not approving it. The pre-approval thing that I've been working with the local office on is to be able to basically say, Look, here's the stuff that you're really looking for. It's pages three and four of the owners packet. That's what they're looking for. It says We have this many units that we've rented at this price. Here's the amenities that we're putting with this unit and to be able to subject that for the pre-approval, if we can keep that on file instead of having to refill out every time someone wants to come and apply for it, to be able to work with that local office and say, Hey, look here, you already know you're going to need a price exception or you know, because you're doing a mandatory cap on that zip code. If you could just keep these pages on file so we don't have to the managers don't have to constantly fill this out and send it back. It would speed up the process. Okay. If we can get the approval times down to a day, we can then get the inspections done in two weeks because that's generally about how long it takes them to get out. And that alleviates having to pay the apartment owners for an extra month. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. Next speaker, please. Good evening, members of the council. My name's Andrew Weil, and I live at 1995 Canal Avenue. I lived in Long Beach since 1986, and I've got rental property in the first District, the second District, the seventh District, and the eighth District. And I'd like to especially thank Councilmember Pearce, because I found out about this meeting and from one of her relentless emails. And what I want to tell you is why I'm no longer taking Section eight. And there are two reasons. Number one is last year I had an inspection for one of my tenants and they point out some things are wrong and we fix and they put in a time and they did the rent anyways. So I'm quite angry about that. And now the end. But here's the main problem. I think that probably affects most other landlords, that makes them reluctant is, you know, over the years I got my first Section eight tenant back in 1991 and over the years maybe they had a dozen or two. And I found that the vast majority, the vast majority of them are bad housekeepers. A lot of them don't even know they're bad housekeepers, but they're bad housekeepers. And a huge percentage of them are horrible housekeepers. And what's the consequence of that? Always, roaches. And when they move out, it's just a terrible condition to try. You get to do so much cleaning, replace so many things. So, you know, every year and over the years, how many how many times have you ever been cited for this bad housekeeping? None, even though it's right there on the inspection form. So what I would recommend is that, you know, you hold us accountable to a certain standard because we have a yearly inspection, is that you should hold the tenants accountable to a to a standard, hold up their end of the bargain. And for those that need a little help and and a little direction that you provide that to them so that we know that when we rent to Section eight, we're not going to get someone who's going to be creating a problem for the neighbors and a problem when we have to come and redo the apartment. So and was those are my $0.02. I thank you very much for your time and have it evening. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. I really wasn't planning to come today and speak tonight, but I've got to take this time to thank everybody that's up in front of us. Let me just say, I've lived in Long Beach for 77 years. I've been on housing cabinet and, you know, helping them. And nobody is doing a better job right now. Than Rex and Alison. Let me just tell you, I've been up the 50 vouchers that I've had under my control. I grew up in the projects of the Carmelites, and now I live in a better part. I love this system because it's better than the projects where you put everybody. The kids are playing with other people that are going to work and doing it. All I can say is we're here tonight. Fox I mean, everything that people have said here, it's true. It is truly true. I haven't heard anybody get up here and say something that I would say was a lie. But the thing is, is what we're doing now is we're correcting it. This is the first time. And believe me, I've been way before, Alison and Reggie and Laura and, you know, the whole bunch. We used to have committees that got together as owners. Now I'm the chairman of the board for the Apartment Association. I think they gave it to me because we never had a chairman of the board just because they didn't want me to leave. And I've been in that even longer. So with that being said, we're on the right track, guys. And let me just tell you, Robert, believe me, talk to them, because I've had the same thing happen to me that's happened to you, but to communications. We're going to change it. Thank you. That's enough for my time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Bill, Mayor, City Council. Thank you for taking. A minute. To listen to me. I work for our county, contracted our peer run community center in Huntington Park. And I worked in a lot of there this this nonprofits, agencies, places throughout the county because we have over 200 groups that are assisting individuals who have lived experience and are now doing better recovery. The part of the system that we're discussing today and I thought it was important to show show up and converse for a few seconds about our agency. There are alternatives. There's a share program. They have a program where they share space to individuals. They have different places like National Affordable Housing, where they have Section eight listings in different states and they let you apply there. There's, you know, a few alternatives, but as you can see, it'll all work somehow. And the Wells Fargo Bank has a two year waiting list with Habitat for Humanity. And that's because they have to do all the process, find the people that volunteer for them. So we've discussed some of those particular alternatives. But when I went to Japan a few times, it's really difficult because they have a place where I went to and it was just outside of Tokyo and it's a combination hotel, hot springs and restaurant, and they train individuals who leave the mental health hospitals with a ten year minimum stay, and only one owner is a doctor of that place. So he's responsible for everybody there. So it's really difficult over there. I brought this to the attention of individuals here at the county level where I am assisting with peer run wellness centers throughout the county. There are 69 of them and I let them know that it's not enough because basically there's a lot of people and I can show statistics where Proposition 63 was put to the vote twice and twice. The voters said, do not use that money for anything else but mental health services. So the. Money's there. Somehow we have to find more inclusiveness for individuals like myself, who is a person with lived experience and has continued to work diligently to somehow alleviate the problem with what is available out there and what people can understand and want to be a part of. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Very good to address on file. Following up on this comment from the speaker a few moments ago, relative to some of the Section eight people being bad housekeepers, as it were. Perhaps what the city should do is take a city staff member well-trained in that, you know, our Marine. Bureau. Has. I know. People that do a great job of keeping the restrooms around the area clean and other facilities as well spotless and had that as of have them go in and if they are challenged, if their housekeeping knowledge is challenged, show them what to do. And if not, then read in the riot act and say, if I got to come back and clean this up again, you're out and see how that works. Thank you. Thank you. And say no further comment. I just want to thank everyone who joined us tonight. And later, comments like to the city council and the staff. And even if we move the needle just a little bit, it's going to make a big difference to Long Beach families in need. Seeing no further comment. Comment members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. And thank you all for coming and for your involvement. Appreciate that. Okay. We're going to go back to the regular agenda. We do have some members of the public that signed up on on non agenda items.

AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; conforming the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 22.202.080, 22.206.160, 22.206.180, 22.210.030, and 22.902.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119584

The report Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Agenda Item one Capital 11958 4,000,000,002 residential rental properties conforming to Zell Miller code with changes in state law. The committee recommends the bill pass. Just remember Herbold. Fantastic. Thank you. So back in February of 2019, I sponsored Resolution 31861 that proposed certain legislative changes originating from recommendations from the Women's Commission in the Housing Justice Project Report Losing Home. The recommendations in the report identified specific harms in our eviction system, impacting tenants in marginalized communities, particularly women, the African-American community, seniors and transpeople. Following up on Resolution 31861, passed unanimously by the Council in the 2019 state legislative session, advocates at the state level and housing champions were in were successful in passing changes to the Residential Landlord Tenant Act Senate Bill 5600 was sponsored by Senators Patty Couteur and Mona Das and House Bill 1440, sponsored by Representatives Jordan Robertson and Nicole Macri. These bills have been in effect since the end of July and SDI, the Department of Construction Inspections, is already conducting outreach and education on the changes in this bill. They've been working to notify landlords who are currently registered with the rental registration and inspection database, about 19,000 landlords, and they've been incorporating into future landlord trainings and curriculum the new requirements under state law. This harmonization bill that is before us today makes consistent with our own unique city laws the new rights granted to tenants by state law. It passed unanimously out of the August 13th Civil Rights Utility's Economic Development and Arts Committee. What the legislation does is three primary things. First, it extends what was a mere three days that tenants had to pay rent or face eviction, for which they a reason for not paying the rent would not be accepted by a judge is only looks at whether or not the rent was paid within three days. The new law gives tenants 14 days for nonpayment of rent. This extends the amount of time a tenant has to access services, support or the next pay period in order to potentially get up, get caught up and avoid eviction proceedings. Secondly, the bill redefines rent as, quote, recurring and periodic charges identified in the rental agreement. The reason why this is so important is it allows a requirement that rent be applied past due, rent be applied before other costs like lease late payments damages, legal costs or other fees. And so that makes sure that when a tenant is behind in rent and also has other costs owing like late fees, that when the tenant pays the past due rent, it gets applied to the rent that is showing to be owed and ensures that the reinstatement of tenancy is based on on that rent and not the other costs. And then finally, the bill extends the minimum notice of all rent increases in the city of Seattle to 60 days. And under current law, most rent increases can only go into effect after 30 days notice. With the exception in Seattle for rent increases greater than 10%, they previously required a 60 day notice. Under this new law, all rent increases, regardless of their size, will only be effective with a full 60 days notice. And those are the main points of the bill. We're going to have another couple of pieces of legislation that we're going to be continuing to work through, through our committee. Also coming out of the Women's Commission Housing Justice Project, Losing Home Report. But we'll talk about that another time. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any questions or comments on the legislation? Okay. Looks like we're good. So please call the role on the passage of the bill. Thanks. John Gonzalez. Purple. Hi, Suarez. Let's get to O'Brien Pacheco. So what? President Harrell. Okay. Nine in favor. Nine opposed the bill passed in show senate. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

Consider Directing Staff to Prioritize Efforts to Increase Safety and Reduce Crime. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on May 15, 2018 or June 5, 2018]

AlamedaCC_06192018_2018-5523

One one it sounds like. Okay, okay. The next motion. I'm sorry. The next item nine be. Considered directing staff to prioritize efforts to increase safety and reduce crime and to do the same as place on agenda at the request of mayor. This is another one that I had placed on that I had submitted quite a while ago. Um. So who's going to vote against prioritizing safety and reducing crime? Okay. So then so that a motion. Okay, their motion for my. Yes. Well, hang on a second before you do that, because I want to make sure that's I just want to make sure that the referral I want to see what the action is in the referral before we. That's more my reaction to. I think it was a moot point maybe. I think they're doing that for the. There's any I just haven't seen any thing to tell me that we're not doing that and the chief's not doing that, and the department's not doing that. Thank you. Yes, very. Sorry. I mean, I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Martin. I mean, I don't I don't see anything that our, you know, police department is not doing to either solve crimes that happen or prevent crimes from happening. But I did want to point out that I think there was some discussion offline about Prop 47 in a study that came out by the PC. And, you know, the. The headline. You know, one is that violent crime has not increased in California due to Proposition 14 or Proposition 47. And the other headline, even though some people are touting this on the right, that some of these property crimes have increased, it's important to note that, you know , they've increased. They went from the lowest on record and the increase was to the second lowest on record. So even though there may have been a slight increase, which you may or may not attribute to Prop 47, we are still in a really good period when it comes to property crimes, especially when you compare it to the rates back from the seventies and eighties. So I just want people to, you know, not get caught up in the in the data because Mike McMahon used to tell me there's lies, damned lies and statistics. So I just want to make sure we don't rely on statistics to prove some point. And I don't know, one on this council did. So I'm not saying anything about anyone on this council, but there was some offline communication that I received from some of the outside the council. Vice mayor. I of course, support reducing crime, but I draw the line at Fourth Amendment protections and civil rights. And if this is a resolution to push forward or somehow bolster support for expediting the cameras, I'm not going to be in support of this because I think that that's a conversation that we still need to have and it's already on the agenda. And certainly one thing that we did hear from our chief at our budget workshop was that it looks like we're going to be at full staffing and that we have new recruits coming in. Right. And I think that that's a significant step forward, because we do know that community policing, having trained officers who are out in the community, is is the most effective thing that we can do. And also working with our citizens to make sure that, you know, that that they know what to look for and what to report and how to engage or, you know, to to improve their safety is another thing. And so I don't I also don't want this to be kind of a. Read as a comment against our department and the work that they've done. To get up to staffing and to go out and actually do the do the good work that they're doing. Hey. Well, I brought I actually don't know when I submitted this. I know it was a while ago, but I do want to I think it is important that we prioritize efforts to increase our safety and reduce crime. And that's why I brought the referral to get it to have it come back. And my understanding was at some point this can come back like in December or something. And I think maybe it was moved up in one of our meetings. I'm not really. Sure. So I mean, I think the general idea of supporting, you know, to prioritize efforts to increase safety and reduce crime, I mean, we I think we can get behind that. I'm not sure what we would bring back. We are, um, you know, on the uppers. We had discussed that on the 18th. We plan on bringing back the policy as well as, um, if there's a RFP. So I think we're clear on that. So I don't think any of it we wouldn't be planning on bringing anything back on this. And when a staff planning to bring that back at this time, that. Is coming back in, I believe, in September. At a nice handed engagement. They. Yeah. Yeah. So personally, I don't know if it's possible to move that up, but if it works out that it works where he has the twenty-fourths and sooner and my preference would be to have it come to this, you know, whenever, as soon as possible. So but I think the referral honestly was written quite a while ago. This has been. You can tell. Yeah. So it sounds like it's coming back on September 4th. That's about as quick as your as we're going to get. Great. Okay. So September 4th sounds good. I know it had been later date at some point and we moved it up, so I appreciate that. Okay. Nine C visitor directing staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of gas powered.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s criminal code; amending Sections 6.36.020, 12A.06.120, 12A.06.180, 12A.06.195, 12A.14.080, 12A.16.030, 12A.20.100, 12A.24.010, 12A.24.150, 18.12.255, and 18.12.257 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding Sections 12A.10.150, 12A.10.220, and 12A.24.105 to the Seattle Municipal Code to conform the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law and make technical corrections.

SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118576

The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118576 relating to the city's criminal code amending Section 6.36.020 12 8.06.1 to oh 12 8.06.10.195. 12.1 4.080 12 8.16.030 12 8.20.100 12 8.24.010.150. 18.1 2.255 and 18.1 2.257 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding sections 12.10 .150220 and 12 8.24.105 to the Seattle Municipal Code to conform the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law and make technical corrections, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Herold. Thank you very much. So every year in Olympia, I should say after Olympia, pass a state law, as the city then changes both its criminal code and civil or traffic code to conform with those changes and make sure we are consistent. So this bill and the next bill are our annual attempts at doing that. This is on the criminal side and basically our municipal scheme of laws now will now be consistent with what was passed in 2015. More specifically, it creates the crimes of allowing the unauthorized practice of massage, violating a vulnerable adult protection order, violating in order to surrender a firearm, disclosing intimate images of a person without consent, furtively carrying a pistol, allowing a building to be used for the discharge of a firearm at a person and using selling or possessing powdered alcohol. It also adds a $15 fine to the penalty for violating a domestic violence protection order. And it changes the classification of a first offense escape, first offense escape, and expands the infraction of consuming marijuana to include marijuana concentrates. So those laws were changed this year, and these are the corresponding changes to our city's criminal code. The full council is recommended to pass these changes. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Gonzales. I'm still learning the rules here. I think I'm supposed to stand up. Councilmember Harrell, when we met in committee to discuss this particular. Ordinance, I. Think there was a concern that was expressed or at least questions that were expressed with regard to the particular amendment around 12, a point to 0.1 hundred in terms of opening or consuming marijuana products in. Public, and in particular concern around how that interplays. With. With enforcement and disparate enforcement in particular. And how in implementation around what a. Marijuana concentrate actually is and how that's going to be identified. And I thought there were questions raised about about that particular issue, and we were supposed to get more information about it. I'm not sure where. We. Left off. In terms of next steps with regard to. That particular piece of. This council bill. Sure. So one of the parts of the discussion at the committee table were how would our police department actually know how to enforce the new laws, this particular legislation? Quite candidly, we can't change the language of it because it's strictly adopts the same language that was adopted on the state level. So I think the follow up action is to make sure that once this law was passed, that the city attorney's office, possibility of coordination from the executive and the council sort of communicates to the police department and the police department communicates to us and the public how we are to enforce this, to make sure that the law , for example, on marijuana, that it's one of our least prioritized offenses, that the policies were in place to make sure that we look at disparate impacts. All of those are sure to comply. So the long winded way of saying is that the letter of the law is not change. We're simply adopting the letter in the letter of the state law in our municipal code. But the follow work between our Seattle Police Department and our city attorney is certainly still needed and I trust will be done. I don't think anything has happened between last week and today, but that's the kind of follow up work that we should have in our work, our action plan next year. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Back shot by Gordon Gonzalez. I Harrell. I. Look to I Rasmussen. I. And President Burgess seven in favor nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item ten through the first semicolon. Agenda Item ten Council Bill 118577 relating to the city's traffic code.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West. Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties from E-SU-D and E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1 and E-SU-D1x, located in the Villa Park, Barnum, and Barnum West neighborhoods in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.

DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0343

Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1111 I's Council Bill 20 2-307 has passed. Thank you, Edson, for the staff report. Councilmember Kasich, would you please put Council Bill 22, dash three, four, three on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill 20 2-0343 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-343 is open now we have the staff report, please. Yes, thank you. My name is Libby Adams. I'm with Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units in Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West. This application is sponsored by Councilmember Torres and the Map Amendment rezoning all single unit residential properties that currently do not allow for use in Villa Park , Barnum and Barnum West to allow for aid to use as it had previously. The application is located in District three, and so the request includes nearly 3000 properties or 439 acres bounded by Sheridan Boulevard, Federal Boulevard and then Alameda to the south and 10th Avenue to the north. And the proposed zoned districts are the same as the current zone districts, except that they allow the accessory dwelling unit use either within the primary structure or in a detached structure. The proposed rezoning area is currently zoned urban edge single unit D and urban edge single unit decks. Both districts are single unit residential districts, allowing the Urban House primary building form with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet. Additionally, the Eastside District allows a suburban house building form. There's one historic structure in this area located at 666 King Street, so any development proposed on this site would be subject to landmark review. The area is mostly single unit residential land uses with some public quasi public uses scattered throughout and a small handful of two in multi-unit uses. And the proposed rezoning is adjacent to a single unit two unit multi-unit commercial office mixed use public, quasi public and park and open space. Here's some images from within the proposed rezoning with Philip Park on the top, then Barnum and Barnum West. And then here are some images from the surrounding area. And then for public outreach. The District three Council office began outreach in the summer of 2021 and included postcards, fliers, yard signs, meeting with registered neighborhood organizations, a dedicated phone line, virtual office hours, virtual town halls, and in-person town hall, which is pictured here, and then a survey with 140 respondents. And these were both in English. We had bilingual, bilingual meetings as well. And so for the process, the informational notice was sent in the beginning of December and this went to planning board on March 16th where they unanimously recommended approval. And then for public comment, Councilwoman Torres included letters of support from the Community Coalition for Barnham and Villa Park Neighborhood Association with the application. And then during the process, staff received four letters of opposition, mostly citing concerns with increase in traffic, crime and trash. And then staff also received 33 letters in support, citing a desire to add an extra unit, particularly for family members, and to add density to the neighborhood. Additionally, the council office received mostly support for the rezoning from the survey they created. Because this rezoning is legislative, it is only subject to the three review criteria shown here. The first review criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are five plans that are applicable to this rezoning. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040, which are outlined in the staff report. So moving to Blueprint Denver, the future of the future neighborhood context is urban edge. And so the proposed zone districts are consistent with this plan direction of predominantly residential areas with single and two unit uses. And then most of the proposed area for the future place type is low residential and these are mostly single and two unit areas where 80 ewes are appropriate. The northern portion located in Villa Park is in the low, medium residential future place type, which is a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit residential options which allow for single unit with 80 ewes. And then there are small portions along corridors that are designated as local and community corridors which I permit primarily for shopping, dining and commercial uses and may also include residential uses. So overall, the proposed districts will expand the allowed residential uses consistent with all three of these future place types. And most of the future street types are local streets and residential collectors, which are mostly characterized by residential uses consistent with the proposed rezoning. And then under the Blueprint Growth Area Strategy, a majority of the area is within are expected to see 10% job growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. And then the areas along shared in Alameda are designated as community centers and corridors and are anticipated to see 20% of new jobs and 25% of new housing by 2040. So the additional 80 use permitted by this proposed rezoning are consistent with the strategy. And then blueprint also includes other specific policy recommendations. So policy for of the land use and built form housing section says they've tested diversify housing choice and through all of our residential areas in the city and then policy 11 of the land use and built form general section provides guidance to implement plan recommendations through larger scale legislative rezoning such as this one and then policy five of the land use and built for general section focuses on the importance of mitigating and voluntary displacement, which I'll discuss in the coming slides. So all large map amendments should be guided by the equity concepts detailed in Blueprint Denver. The Access to Opportunity Score is a composite of the neighborhood equity indexed event developed by Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment. Proximity to high capacity in frequent transit and access to centers and corridors. These neighborhoods have moderate scores in this category, with lower access to health care, grocery stores and transit, and high access to parks in centers and corridors. So the proposed rezoning to allow it to use throughout these three neighborhoods will bring more residents to an area that has access to job services and parks. And then the vulnerability to involuntary displacement score is calculated by the Department of Housing Stability and based on median household income, percentage of renter occupied units and percentage of residents with less than a college degree. And this area scores as more vulnerable, based on two of the metrics median household income and educational attainment. So the proposed MAP amendment will provide opportunities for existing homeowner homeowners to supplement their income, while also increasing housing options in the neighborhood, allowing people with a greater range of incomes to live in the area. And then this equity concept also includes supplemental data that highlights demographic and market changes in the area to give us a better understanding of the areas of vulnerability to involuntary displacement. So all three neighborhoods have a lower percentage of non-Hispanic whites than Denver as a whole, which could make it more vulnerable to displacement . And two of the neighborhoods have seen an increase in the non-Hispanic white population. And while Barnard West has seen a decrease. And then Villa Park Barnum and Barnum was all have lower median household incomes than than the Denver average. And Villa Park has seen incomes increase significantly, which may indicate that some displacement may already be occurring. And then the three neighborhoods have similar percentages and residents who are over the age of 65. But in recent years they have seen an increase greater than the citywide percentage. And then the neighborhoods within the proposed rezoning have all seen a greater increase in median residential property taxes than the citywide average, which again may make these areas more vulnerable to involuntary displacement. And then moving to the housing diversity score. And the housing diversity includes five measures percentage of middle density housing, home size, diversity, ownership versus rental housing costs, and the number of income restricted units. And then the neighborhoods have below average diversity in terms of missing middle housing, housing costs and affordable units. And this map amendment to allow it to use will introduce a new housing type that is typically smaller and at a lower price point than what exists today. Additionally, is constructed through the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative, an organization that helps finance AIDS are required to be income restricted and which could lead to more affordable units in the area. And then lastly, this map shows the mix of jobs in areas of the city with the dominant industry depicted by color. So you can see this area shows a greater percentage of retail jobs in the city as a whole. However, there's not enough data in to classify the mix of jobs in the majority of the area, which is why it's not depicted by color in this map. And then it will have a negligible impact on jobs and that it doesn't allow for any commercial uses. And there are efforts underway in the West and other neighborhoods to help reduce barriers to ADA use, including the West, Denver Renaissance Collaboratives West Denver Single Family Plus Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Program. And this program allows moderate and low income homeowners design, finance and build an ADU in nine West Denver neighborhoods, including Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West. There are also resources to help with the permitting process that CPD has developed in the ADA use and Denver project is currently underway to make it easier to construct drives and make sure they fit within the different types of neighborhood contexts. So then host five year strategic plan was adopted this past fall and contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this MAP amendment. The plan recommends supporting efforts to advance affordable housing strategies and blueprint Denver, such as expanding its use. And then the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan applies to the properties that are north of Sixth Avenue. And so the land use and zoning recommendation strategy, too, recommends discouraging development that is incompatible with the scale and quality of the neighborhood, and adds are a way to introduce general density that will fit within the existing character of the neighborhood . And then the Barnum Barnum West Neighborhood Plan applies to the properties that are south of Sixth Avenue. And this rezoning will meet several of the land use and zoning goals, including maintaining the existing low density residential character, upgrading the quality of the present housing stock, and encouraging the construction of new low density housing. And this map amendment will result in the uniformity of district regulations within the urban and neighborhood context, in it furthers the public health, safety and welfare by expanding housing, diversity and opportunities to help residents at a range of income levels to continue to live in these neighborhoods. So finding that all review criteria have the Met staff recommend City Council approve this legislative proposal? And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Libby, for the staff report. This evening, we have seven individuals signed up to speak. Our first speaker all are joining us virtually via Zoom. Our first speaker is Mara Owen. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, please. You mean devastate council? My name is Mark Owen and my address is 1035 Osage and the program manager for the West Immigrant Science Collaborative EDU Pilot Program, which is a program of the work with Habitat for Humanity and the city of Denver to help qualified homeowners design, finance and build affordable EDU on their residential property. So the EU pilot program began 2019. We have had 157 inquiries from West Denver homeowners. Without zoning, these homeowners reached out to our program. Interested in learning about building an affordable adu only to find out that their zoning does not currently allow it. Even if their neighborhood neighbor across the street or a friend in a nearby neighborhood can. Of those who did have zoning, the overwhelming majority of homeowners who have inquired to build an idea are hoping to house family, whether that's housing a grown child who is struggling to live in the neighborhood where they grew up. A parent in retirement, wanting to age in place near family, or a family member with a disability who needs a long term affordable housing option near their support network. In addition to housing families, aides are also a tool homeowners can use to create long term stability and prevent displacement. You can write a homeowner with additional income and flexibility to be resilient in the face of economic instability, such as job loss or sudden medical needs. There are now 42 individual homeowners in Villa Park, Farnham and Barnham West who applied to our program and are unable to participate currently because their zoning does not allow it. Supporting this rezoning would give those homeowners and many others in those neighborhoods access to the same tool and the option that many of their neighborhoods already have. Building an 80 year old house family create long term stability and economic resiliency to stay in place. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessica Calderon. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. My name is Jessica Calderon and my address is 613 Equipment Street. I am a resident of Villa Park. My history in the neighborhood is that. When I was two years old, my parents moved here from Texas so that we could have additional opportunities. We were from a very small town. Moved to Denver where I had an uncle Emmanuel, who lived on 10th and equipment. And so I spent my first couple of years of my time in Colorado as a two year old in West Denver. I went on to live in other areas of the metro. Before finding my way back. To West Denver with my husband, where we bought the home we currently live in. We spent a lot of time raising our. Three. Boys there and one one of which has recently passed. And so that is our family home. It is our foundation and and where we are strong together. Currently, I have a 25 year old son. Who has a child type of grandson. He could not buy a house in our neighborhood. If he wanted to because he's priced out. I have a 19 year old son who is a sophomore at Sea Boulder, and unfortunately, in two years when. He graduates, even if he gets a decent paying job, he likely could not buy a home in our neighborhood because he's priced out. I have. Aging parents who maybe someday would need to live. Near me. And so for those reasons, I would like the zoning change so that we can take this opportunity to build an EDU on our property, so that if our family needs support. And they want to be near us and they want to be in the neighborhood where we feel closest as a family, they would have the opportunity to do that. I also. If there were. Even if it weren't family or it's not needed by. Family right now, we could offer it to other people who want to stay in West Denver in a place that they can afford. If they don't want to leave the neighborhood. So for that reason, I am asking all of you. To consider passing the. Zoning for these adus. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rene Martinez Stone. Go ahead, Renee. You'll just have to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Great. Good evening. My name is Rene Martinez Stone. And my camera is not quite. Okay. Might want to. Tilted a little bit more. Renee. Yeah. My shirt is clean. Yeah. They got anything? Thank you for having public comment tonight. I'm a resident of Denver, and I'm the director of the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative. It is, or one of the new tools that can help current affordable housing needs in Denver. As you've heard tonight, there is a solution that do not require an existing home to be demolished. They utilize existing lots, locks, utilities, and they fit in the character of existing neighborhoods. This is welcomed by residents that are seeing a lot of change within their neighborhoods where affordable homes are being replaced by quite expensive homes. It is provide a way for residents to personally invest and be a part of the housing solution in the neighborhood. And this is very often cited by homeowners who want to build a use. If approved, this legislation, this legislative rezoning, eliminates the first step in a process that is complicated, costly and takes too much value time for homeowners as well as staff. It's the type of regulatory regulatory change that's needed to increase the number of use built in Denver. Overall, there's just not enough. Our pilot program, which Mara introduced to help homeowners navigate the process of building affordable homes. We have 12 debuts in development, and our participants have been in the neighborhood on average 18 years, some over 20, some over 40 years. All of the units are ground level and many have 2 to 3 bedrooms. So their housing family is a family unit. 83% of the participants identify as persons of color, and most have immediate need to house family. They aim to create multigenerational stability and secure a family asset. Just as Jessica described, is the desire to house family, students and school participants, the need accessible unit. And many residents have moved and are now doubled up living in another household because they can't afford. They are essentially homeless, temporarily housed by a friend or neighbor. I want to thank Councilwoman Scores for her leadership and responsive to the community. I want to thank many residents who did not understand their views but welcomed a solution for their neighborhood. And I respectfully ask the council advance this and future policy to help homeowners and renters access the relatively untapped. Time we have allotted fight. Speaker Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Janice Morris. All right. We're going to go ahead. And I believe Janice is on the phone. And Janice, we'll have to have you go ahead and unmute yourself. It's Star six. I did. Oh, wonderful. Go ahead, please. Good evening, counsel. My name is Janice Morrell. I've lived in the Barnham neighborhood at two, two, two Lowell Boulevard for about 36 years. I bought this house from my aunt and uncle. I would like to be able to pass this house on to and create generational wealth for my kids. But at the same time, be able to if I'm able to build an Adu on my property, not only could I rent it now to my son or even to provide separate space for my daughter to visit. Or allow my in-laws a safe place to live. That would be awesome. This is one tiny step that we're asking you to pass to clear the way so that more of us can utilize our properties. In a better way. Providing for our families, providing for our kids. Maybe even renting to people that are new to us. Our neighborhood, I feel, is inclusive and welcoming. But I think that we also need in Barnum the ability to stay or age in place at the same time keeping the wealth of our homes. We're lucky enough to have bought in this neighborhood and we want to stay. So we're asking you to consider clearing the path, clear the road, so that we can stay in our homes and provide additional income for ourselves and or help support our family. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Our next speaker is Valerie Kotch. Do we have Valerie with us? Valerie, I believe we're trying to bring you in to the panelists so you'll have to accept the promotion. I'm still seeing you and the attendees. We'll try to get Valerie into the queue. In the meantime, we're going to go ahead and move on to Adam Calderon. And Evening City Council. My name is Adam Calderon. I grew up in Villa Park. I attended Cal Elementary Lake Middle School and graduated from Denver West High School. I'm also a proud graduate and alumni of the University of Colorado, Boulder. My home address is 613 Quitman. I would like to see aid use allowed in our neighborhood. I have a I have a mother who is a 38 year employee of the city and county of Denver who lives off of 11 miles. And she's aging gracefully, thank God. But one day it's my hope that we could build an 82 onto our property so that she could come and live with us. It strikes me because a couple of weeks back, my neighbor across the street, Judith, was taken away to a nursing home. She was he she's about nine years old. She specifically wanted to stay in her home, but her family lives too far away. I don't want that for far from me. I want to be able to provide the opportunity for my mom to stand with her family as she is. She gets older and ages gracefully. I hope that you will find it in your hearts to pass this so that we can continue to grow as a family and and keep our people in place. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and try to get you into the queue, Valerie. So we're going to send you the promotion again for it. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris. Do we have Jesse with us? Okay. The producers are telling me that we seem to not have Jesse with us, so we're going to move on. Did we get Valerie? Into the queue. Okay. We don't have either of them. And so that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash three, four, three. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask if we could maybe have Renee Martinez Stone back in for just a minute. Yes. We'll go ahead and get her back into the panelists. Rene Martinez Stone. Okay. We've got her great back in the panelists. Go ahead. Humor. Renee, I wanted to ask you about. Whether or not we are seeing. An issue of some of the homes not having enough equity that affords the ability for borrowing against their property to be able to build the affordable adu on the property. And if if that is the case. Have there been discussions with the city about looking at funding to assist? This area of town in this particular these particular boundaries to assist the families in being able to build in aid to you. A lot of the applications we have seen come forward are our folks that may be in different economic. Categories, if you will. And I want to make sure that we create the same opportunity for people that may live in neighborhoods where the housing prices may be lower. And the either the value or the amount of equity that's in the home that could, you know, otherwise be used to help borrow the money to build and add to you. So if you can just kind of help address what efforts are in place or under discussion to try to ensure we're creating that same opportunity for folks in these neighborhoods. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Briefly, I will respond to participants within our program that we're piloting with the Department of Housing. Stability provides an affordable adu subsidy on any am I. And it reduces the cost of any of you by $30,000. So that goes with a 25 year restriction on who's ending you and how much the rent can be. That's quite means that an incentive for participants within our program. To your second question, the majority of the participants in our program do utilize equity in their homes because we when someone applied to the program, they get a bonus or they've been in the neighborhood a lot of time and so many of them have many years of home equity built up and they're utilizing that. We have seen a few homeowners who refinanced and did not retain those funds to build the yield, and they have a little bit more difficult time financing. We do provide housing counseling, which is available to most anyone in West ever that seeks it, even if they're not within our program to look at their options for stabilizing their situation. And so we observed of the 12 way to use that we have developed, there were 50 homeowners that participated in housing counseling. Just want to thank you for your efforts in working with the families in West Denver. I actually grew up in Westwood when I moved here from New Mexico and lived there for a number of years through graduating from West High School and Cowboys. So we had a speaker who was a West graduate earlier in. And so I think this is important work that you have been doing for these neighborhoods, and that's it for my question. So thank you for answering them. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And thank you, Renee, for answering those questions. We've got Councilmember Flynn. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. Libby, could you tell us, was there discussion during this process about the rule that says properties with an ADU, one of the units must be occupied by the owner of the property. The reason I ask is I noticed that one of the supportive statements from a member of the public stated that that she wished that that would be taken away so that both units could be rented at some point down the road. Was was there discussion about that rule during the process? No, not to my knowledge. But, you know, I'm sure I can go if I see she's aware that she must live on the property to do NATO. But there wasn't specific lease. I didn't have specific discussion. I don't know if Councilman Torres at any of the virtual town hall. Madam President, could if Councilwoman Torres has information on that, could she. Got right into the queue. Councilman Flynn. So go ahead, please. The reason the reason I asked is I'm I am up in the air over the issue of ADOS and how they. Result in long term affordability. Especially when there's this requirement that the owner must live there. The reason being that assessor, the assessors figures show that in the last two years. 240 242, 240 properties in Denver with 80 use on them were sold on in the open real estate market. The median sales price was $980,000. And it seems to me that once you put an ADU on a property, you have substantially escalated the the market price for that, which pretty much limits the the universe of buyers for that. And I'm wondering if that's an aspect that's been examined. The. Absolutely. I can talk about the first question because it came up a lot while we were doing community engagement. So a lot of the community. Community meetings. Thank you. Okay. I think I can still hear. Okay. I think that came up frequently in residents wanting to make sure that that the city was very clear to folks who build to use that they know those rules and further really wanting to make sure that the city's enforcing those. So for, for example, a neighborhood association conversations centered a lot around how does the city enforce those rules? I think the biggest concern tends to be too many of them being used for short term rental. I think the neighborhoods are overwhelmingly interested in long term housing for folks and in particular for keeping residents housed who who currently own homes. Anti displacements are a key factor for that piece. It has been raised and I don't think we've seen a property turnover yet on that kind of price point for selling any to you. We certainly are seeing properties that are getting flipped that current that have the zoning for you to use that are not building them probably to stay within a different kind of price point. But we just haven't seen the turnover yet on how homes that have built them and are now selling them. But it absolutely is still one of those tools for trying to keep residents there who want to stay and giving them either a source of income or a place for additional family to go. So it has been that that largely that kind of source of the conversation for why folks have been supporting this, but still very much with an eye toward long term housing stability. Mm hmm. Thank you. You know, there's a lot of things to weigh here, obviously, and we don't have a track record long enough to be to be able to draw a strong conclusion if this rule limits the universe of buyers to those who are wealthy. Enough to afford almost $1,000,000 investment and then live in that property. Is that better or worse than removing the rule and having both units open as rentals to outside investors out of town? Investors. Out of state investors. So it's it's something I think we need we need a lot more data to learn from. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Uh, and we'll. Go next to Councilmember said. Thank you. I have some of the same tensions around support and opposition to use. I think it's. An incredible opportunity to keep families together, to keep people aging in place. And also, I've seen how it exponentially increases the value of land in a speculators market. And so I am to a little bit curious about if there's a plan or potentially putting into place some more parameters around. Making sure that they're being used for affordable housing and not just becoming an income stream for someone's Airbnb who you can't necessarily prove is there 50% of the time or not? We've seen that challenge with the Short Term Rentals Advisory Committee and people in our neighborhoods, but I don't know if we have a real plan to go back and figure out how to track this information better. Yeah. Thank you for that question. So I will say that because the Western Renaissance Collaborative is in this area, those units do have to be income restricted. And, you know, I don't know the numbers of what's being built under that program versus not. But so that's in place. And that will those who are required to be, like I said, deed restricted. And it's possible to tie all of these that are being resigned to a condition that makes them go through a pilot or a similar program like the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative, just to make sure. I think the challenges that the West Denver Renaissance Club also has income restrictions and so not everyone will be eligible for that program. And so I think I think that would be a challenge to tie it to that program or something similar, at least at this point. When we first heard the stories. Yeah. So thanks for the questions. And I'd also invite Rene if she had any comment on on those pieces. That's one of the critical for reasons why IWD RC is so valuable in the space, because they do apply a long term deed on that property. And I think that's only triggered because you're accepting funding in order to in order to access that affordability. And and they're deliberately working with families who might otherwise get pushed out because of property taxes or or because family really wants them to move to a larger location. So both of those have been the crux behind DRC. I think one of the things that we can do to support is to actually get a DRC type model elsewhere in the city. I think we've proven that it's very effective. I think we've proven that not just the navigation through the complicated process, but the access to capital in order to help build has been a difference maker that the families that DRC is working with is exactly who we want to make sure that they're able to stay. And and all of that is really working beautifully there. But there is a component that we can't control. We have not, though, seen a flood of 82 permits run for four properties that currently have a to use zoning in West Denver. So it's still a bit of a hurdle for any property owner in West Denver to build in to you. Yeah, I mean, I guess when we started with DRC, we were curious about how to have a parallel program in on the east side of Denver and would love to if anybody is exploring that, we would love to to do that. And I think the land trust is positioned well to do the 99 year leases to ensure that. So I think that would be great because we too, have, you know, contemplated what would it mean for me to pursue a legislative rezoning? Is it putting us more in harm's way because we now have, you know, these million dollar properties for speculators, or does it actually help us to do it? So I think it's a great opportunity and potentially can help us meet the need. I just really, really hope that we can do some intensive tracking and take on some responsibility as the city, make sure even in our rental registry we have a category to identify these to somehow show us in our portfolio where these exist and what kind of people are applying and what support they need so that we can expand the work that we're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And I've been asked by the producers to ask folks if they're not speaking into their mikes, to please turn off their mikes, because apparently we need a few adjustments and that might be contributing to the feedback. And so thank you. Not seeing any other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-343 Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Libby, for shepherding us through this process. This this has been one that was responsive to community and what a lot of folks really wanted to see take place, especially as we were moving through conversations with the West Area plan, where folks were really identifying the limitations of blueprint and what needed to be allowed to get folks through. I think a really complicated and cumbersome process which is rezoning individual properties and just want to think, I think the the real initiator of of this model of thinking, which was Councilwoman Sandoval and really helping us think through what is a neighborhood wide process look like, what kinds of things do we need to consider to make sure that we're hearing from folks that we're giving them an opportunity to find out more information and get questions answered? And then, of course, to the residents who came out to support in DRC, always, I think, when establishing the foundation of empowering residents with information both about land acquisition, about development, about zoning in general, but then really trying to make it part of our civic vocabulary, what an edu is, what purpose it can serve, and how to really make it accessible to families who were absolutely threatened with displacement and having to find somewhere else to go. They have made it as affordable as possible by partnering with Habitat for Humanity, by really being there to walk folks through the entire process. This is one of those efforts that in and of itself does not solve displacement in West Denver, but it absolutely puts a new tool in property owners hands that if they want to stay in Barnham, in Villa Park and in Burnham West, they have a new way to make sure that they can do that and then pass on an asset to their children and family members. So I. Very grateful for everyone who supported this. We started it nearly a year ago to my team and I really do think all of the folks involved and would appreciate a lot of support from my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres, and happy to support this this evening. I think at least in my neighborhood and others were following closely the edu conversation. And I want to congratulate you, Counsel Pro-Tem Torres, because when you look at this, it's nearly 3000 parcels, approximately 439 acres. And this is creating a path forward. One of the speakers spoke about adult children living with her, and that is a reality in the city and county of Denver today. And so thank you for your leadership on this. And I am more than happy to support it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash three, four, three, please. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark All right. Flynn. I. Cashman can h. I. Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-343 has passed. Thank you to the members of the community who spoke. And thank you, Libby. We're going to go ahead and move to our final hearing this evening.

Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width, Lane Width, Crosswalks and Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices; and Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff on Tools for Improving Safety at Intersections. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287) [Not heard on March 17, 2020]

AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7761

That. This is harder than it looks at first glance. Sorry about that. They got set up. So, my name's Andrew Thomas, planning director. I am representing for today's item a team, a team of transportation planners and also public works department staff who have worked together on this. This has really been a joint effort. Today on the phone, I think I also have with me to help answer questions if necessary are our excellent city engineer, Scott Wickstrom, our well qualified. Senior transportation planner Rochelle Wheeler, and our overqualified part time transportation planner, Brian lives. In a tie. Oh, hi, Brian. Good. Is Brian wearing a tie? That's the first time I had to look at the name plate. But no. Okay. Just a little background. Back in September of last year, the city council approved a council referral to direct staff on transportation priorities and in advance of active transportation plan work. This resolution that we're presenting tonight addresses several of the requested short term actions that this council requested of us back in that referral. So we're responding to that referral. But it also and just as important. This this policy really is a step forward in the ongoing effort that this council is making to really transform Alameda transportation system, to make it safer, more environmentally sensitive, and just work better for all of our users, particularly our most vulnerable users of our transportation system. On November 5th of last year. This City Council adopted a Vision Zero policy aiming at reducing and ultimately eliminating severe and fatal injuries caused by traffic collisions in Alameda. This policy that we're bringing to you tonight, which was put together by our two departments working together, establishes safety as the number one priority for the design, reconfiguration and maintenance of city streets. Vision. Vision Zero dictates that we change the way the public right of way looks, feels, and operate. To achieve Alameda Transportation Safety and Climate Action Goals just for some of the viewers who might be listening in. This is a very important issue here in Alameda. This council taking a real leadership role in this, that the just one data point here between over the last ten years are on a ten year average between 2009 and 2018. Each year, an average of two people die and nine suffer severe injuries while traveling by either car by four foot on Alameda Streets. And just last fall, 12 collisions involving school aged children walking or biking occurred on our city streets. So we think this policy is an important step in transforming our network to be safe for all of our residents. It's not the final step. We still have a lot more work to do, but we do think it's a very important step. What I'm going to do now is just quickly, I'm not going to go through the entire policy and every single step, every single piece of it. But I want to just highlight some of the major policy directions that that are included here. This policy really states and reinforces the Vision Zero policy by stating that safety is our first and foremost priority when designing or redesigning streets. The resolution establishes a hierarchy and clear priorities for how we're going to allocate rights of way space. When we designing, redesigning or resurfacing streets safe and convenient, access for the most vulnerable road users is the highest priority, including children, seniors, people bicycling and walking. Transit priority is the second priority, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility. And then third priority will be space for on street parking. So we're establishing a very clear hierarchy with this policy. We know that all of these things are important to Alameda residents and businesses, but it's important to set that higher up that hierarchy so that when we have to decide how to use limited space, we have a clear set of priorities. The second aspect of this policy that we think is very important is that this relationship, that if we want to reduce deaths on our streets, we need to reduce speed. And by reducing and we can reduce speeds of vehicles by reducing travel. LANE With measures that reduce motor vehicle speeds can save lives. A person walking has only a 50% chance of living if hit by a car that's traveling 42 miles an hour. But if that same person but that same person has a 90% chance of living, if the car is only traveling 23 miles an hour per ngakoue, the National Transportation Organization's Urban Street Design Guide. Wider travel lanes are directly correlated with higher vehicle speeds. So what this policy says is that our streets in Alameda, our goal is to have our streets be 25 miles per hour. That is not only how we want to establish speed limits, but also how we want actual speeds to occur. What we see in Alameda is even though in some of these streets that are assigned for 25 miles an hour, we have people driving much faster. So with a couple exceptions, of course, we have Doolittle Drive and Harper Bay Parkway. So this policy says our standard width for travel lanes in Alameda will be ten feet. This as per national standards. There is an exception when working with trend on transit streets where we have transit busses or designated truck routes. Will the standard will be 11 feet. Less than ten feet is also possible when we are dealing with low volume residential streets. In other words, we're going to keep those travel speeds low. Next that I'd like to highlight bicycle lane and parking lane with the allocation of space between an automobile travel lane and the curb for bicycle lanes and on street parking. This requires a really careful balance and marking of space to ensure the safety of the people. Bicycling The people on the bicyclists on a bicycle are the more vulnerable of the users. So what this policy states is that the use of space for the safety of people bicycling is a higher priority than the use of space for on street parking. The policy states that separated bicycle lanes should always be provided instead of unprotected bike lanes whenever we can. So if we can find the space to protect the bicyclists, that should be our highest priority. And there's a standard width for a parking is eight feet, but seven feet is acceptable if necessary, to provide that safe bicycle facility for the more vulnerable user on the bicycle. As we move on now to the pedestrians, crosswalks and bulb outs, pedestrians and children walking and biking or being struck by automobiles in Alameda, shortening are crossing distances, slowing turning movements and visually narrowing roadway through the use of marks. Ball boats will increase pedestrian safety in Alameda. The safety impacts are even greater when accompanied by the use of bollards and other physical barriers and indicators. The City of Oakland did a study and found that 80% and 80% increase in the frequency of drivers yielding to pedestrians after they installed a paint and bollard pulled out at the uncontrolled intersection of Harrison Street and 23rd Street. This resolution states that more crosswalks should be placed at regular and interval and frequent intervals, arterials and collective streets that going forward. We are going to look at not just how many pedestrians cross the street today when we think about where to put pedestrian facilities. But what how many would use this crossing if we put in a safer crossing or with future development in the area? So looking forward to future pedestrian levels as well as current and looking ahead, placement will be prioritized according to high injury corridors, uncontrolled crossings at arterials and collector streets and locations, corridors and typologies identified in our upcoming active transportation and Vision Zero plans. Finally, the resolution also acknowledges that striping adding crosswalks both about this will require additional adventures of limited public funds for roadway improvements. Yes, we felt it was important to acknowledge that these facilities, bollards and striping require maintenance and physical barriers, will reduce the efficiency of things like the city street sweeping program. But we will we acknowledge in this resolution that these increased costs will need to be reflected in future city budgets, and that those issues and cost implications will have to be addressed with each, you know, capital improvement program and city budget as we move forward. And there may be tradeoffs between things like street paving priorities and other things. So this policy, we think, is an important step, aided by by no means the final step. We still have lots of work to be done to transform Alameda Transportation Network into that network that is safe and convenient for all users, especially the most vulnerable , and a network that supports our immediate climate action goals. As work continues on our planning effort, we will still we will be back in the future with more pieces of this and more steps in this process. It's going to be a long process, but staff is committed to working with the council to achieve these goals. It's not just about the climate. It's not just about traffic reduction. It's really about saving lives. So from our perspective, there's really nothing any more important than that. We're here to answer any questions you might have about the resolution. I think we have Scott and Brian and Rachelle and maybe some others on the phone to help me answer those questions. So with that, I'll turn it back. Turn it over to you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Great report. Important topic, miss. Why do we have any public comments on this item? We have three so far, and one more person has said that sending it in in the moment. Okay. So right now, I just want to hear from council. If you have any clarifying questions to ask of Mr. Thomas, we'll hold our praise and our discussion and all that after the the public comment and even have any clarifying questions. Councilmember Otis. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of quick ones. And forgive me for asking this because I know we discussed this, but these buttons have been in the news. Could we do something on that already? Because I didn't see anything in there. And the belly button. You know, I might like to call on our city engineer, traffic engineer, city engineer, Scott Wickstrom to answer that one. Yeah, you are. Scott. Hello? Hello? Yes. Enter the number of his question. Beg buttons. We're not specifically part of this referral. And if I could just ask that you tell us what a big button is. But actually, let me just go to Mr. Chan, our city attorney. I do try to keep him happy, or Mr. Rasch or both of you in tandem. Segments can be about crosswalks. So, yes. You know what that what you're talking about, it's the button you press to ask for the pedestrian crossing icon to come on. And so. Yeah. Status sufficiently related to the topic at hand? Yes. Yes, I think so. Okay. All right. This is Michael. Can you hear me? Yes, Michael. Yes, I think it's relevant. It's relevant enough in this whole scheme of the transportation discussion. But I think it's appropriate question for for the best guy to answer. Thank you. Thank you both. Okay. I just want to make sure. So. So tell us I mean, my my description was a little brief that when we when we hear the term big button, what does that mean? Yes. Really, it's a pedestrian push button that you'll see at signalized intersections and at some particular locations. The pedestrian is actually required to push the button in order for the green walk symbol to come up. And that's referred sometimes as a garden, as a possible tree in response to something very complex. Here's the first one is this referral is really the first component of the referral is really looking at the lane with some crosswalks and some bollards. There will be a separate response coming back to look at what is termed intersection access equity, which is a broader term between the relationship and the priorities between cars, bikes and pedestrians . We will be coming back. Transportation engineer Daniel Mira and I leading that referral at some point in the future. There's a separate question more related to the COVID 19 response, and we are looking into exactly where in the city the number of instances where pedestrians are required to push the button prior to cross. And we're looking to get that information gathered by either end of this week or early next week to have ready that make up for making it better. I appreciate that. My second. Question. You had a in your outstanding questions you asked us should crosswalks I think place intersection pairs of clubs. Can you kind of maybe talk about the pros and cons of of pairs versus clubs to help us provide input on that question? Right. I will go ahead to start on that. I might ask Rochelle to kind of add a little bit of context to that as well. We have a number of locations where for one reason or another, historically, there's only been a crosswalk on one side of the street. And what would what attend obliges a pedestrian to do is to walk. If they're just trying to go across that one leg without the crosswalk, they have to cross three sides of the road as opposed to going straight across. So the question, the desire, is it whenever possible to have them in pairs or quads? We're kind of speaking, soliciting your input on it. There are times I will say and it's not common, but there are some times where it is preferred from a traffic safety standpoint that you would only locate on one leg and not on all legs. But if there's no traffic safety consideration that's found, that's more of a general question. Would you prefer them in pairs? And we can't do anything to add. Hi, Michelle. Welcome. Hi. I know I don't have anything more to add. It's it's a matter of. Visibility of. Pedestrians. To motorists. By having more of the. Crosswalks straight. So to for. Rather than just to it's I think it's also a matter of. Signifying to the roadway. Users, all of the users that the street. Belongs to everyone to use. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. My time to run. So just be aware of that, and I'm done. Thank you. Oh. But, madam. Okay. You're running out of time. But, Madam Clerk, we make sure that you're timing the speakers, including us. So Larry's muted the. I'm sure she's nodding her head. There's the. Um. So any other council clerk. Staff reports. I see no hands. I have questions. Tony. Yeah. Can you hear me? I think things are going in and out. Oh, dear. I'm losing people here. Oh. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. I can hear you, Jim. I don't see me at all. Oh, yes, you're right. I think she. I hear her, but I don't see her. Oh, I don't hear her. Sorry, Marilyn, I don't. The voices. Her face is back. Okay. Yes, yes. Same with me. Um. I only hear you, Jim. Is there anyone else? I'm here. Oh, okay. All right. Not not talking to. Yeah. Only I can hear you, too. Okay, so I go ahead and ask my questions. Okay. Okay. I'm going to ask you a question. Oh. I'll hold off on them and say something. I want to just be. Okay. That was that. You took it from there. Oh, I shouldn't. Yes, you are correct. Great. I can hear you merrily. And I'm sure the staff is. Yeah. I think staff is frantically. Working on it. It's appear that people are we're having some various bandwidth issues. So I'm getting. So you're lucky. Well, I see. And seeing if there's anything we can do about it. But if you end up losing both video and audio, I would suggest you put your video on mute and your audio will hopefully continue better. But we just think, okay, you want us to put our video on mute? Just if you run into bandwidth issues again. Okay. And I have I have a request, Laura. I actually think I should be watching this meeting in real time. But we should not have we should not have to email them to get their attention, especially after last night. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Please. Yep. Okay. It's like, you. Know, let's just hold for just a minute because I think the city clerk may be working on getting us a connection, but. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. Thank you. I hope that people establish. I think. Okay. But Laura. Yeah? I texted. I like them, and we're getting them in real time until I adjourn this meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I hear you. Yeah. Lightning is not going to strike twice. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so our next clarifying question is you Councilmember De. Well, thank you. I have several clarifying questions. The first is I received an email from a Web history business owner who was concerned about the placing on street parking as the lowest priority. What concerns and particularly he he felt that that would definitely affect small businesses, not just on Webster Street, but elsewhere. What kind of thoughts have been given to how this affects local small businesses on Webster Street or Park Street? I'm sorry, what was it that what what particular aspect was hit just. So at the very top of page three, that three of five at the very top, there's the first bullet point. And I think the second or third sentence says that the on street parking will be the lowest priority. So the question that I have is, in what ways has staff, you know, discussed among themselves as well as stakeholders, how this affects small businesses? Got it. Okay. And Mr. Thomas is going to address that. Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you just fine. Yeah, no, it's a great question. I think it's we we have to be very clear here. What we're saying is we're not. This policy does not say we are going to run out and start removing a bunch of on street parking. We know on street parking is important. We know it's important in the business community. What this resolution is saying is if we are balancing a situation where we have an unsafe situation for a vulnerable user, like for pedestrians who might be walking to that same business or children biking to school and the we have to decide how to use a limited amount of space. The priority is going to go to making sure that we we, you know, we make that pitch that that. That location safe for the user, the most vulnerable user. And in this case, it is going to be the child going to school or the senior crossing the street. Obviously, we want to be able to provide for everybody's needs. We get it. We local businesses need parking. I think. In in. Cases like Webster Street, where we are looking at pedestrian safety. Issues. On Webster Street, if we have an intersection where we do not meet our our visibility needs, you know, the recent council policy that said we need 20 feet at at two daylight intersections. Yes, we're going to for example, that policy already establishes the priority. We remove the parking space to get the visibility for the pedestrian. But this doesn't mean that we just randomly go around the city and start pulling out parking just for the sake of pulling up parking. It's only where we need it to ensure that the other users are are safe. So this is not we will always try to preserve as much on street parking as we can. But if it's a tradeoff between a single parking space and preserving somebody's life, we're always with this policy says we're always going to air on the side of saving somebody's life. Okay, follow up question, which is separate. Coverage. Okay, great. Is it correct that the transportation element hasn't been updated since 2009 or. And so, if that's correct, what thought has been given to doing this kind of changes that are contemplated tonight within the context of the transportation element, as well as within the larger context of the general plan, updating the general plan as a whole in June and updating the general plan as a whole, one chapter, which is a transportation element, you're looking not just at traffic transportation issues, but in combination with a set of other issues housing, how you want your built environment, etc.. So I think I think I think that as the as the planner guy, I love that question. I think that's a great question. I completely agree with the the direction of that question, which is we have to make sure that all these documents are consistent and that they are comprehensive and consider all these different issues. So what this this you know, your staff under the direction of this city council is working on multiple fronts simultaneously. We have a complete rewrite of the general plan, load it up on the city's website today. The one chapter that we are probably the final chapter that we're updating is the transportation element. It will be up on the city website probably within two weeks. Meanwhile, we're doing an active transportation plan, which is the plan for bicycle and pedestrian planning update. Meanwhile, we're doing a Vision Zero plan which the council authorized. So all of this work is going on simultaneously. It was really the count this council that said, yeah, we and this goes back to the when you authorize the contract for the active transportation plan and when you did this September referral that this council said, yeah, we don't I mean, this is my words, not yours. But essentially this council said, don't wait. You know, we don't want to wait for a year and a half to see these plans start bringing some of these policies to us as soon as you can. And from that perspective, we love that approach because it is each of these opportunities come back to you with these policies are an opportunity for us to check in with you and and make sure that we're headed in the right direction. So if you adopt these policies tonight, some of these policies that are we are bringing to you now in this draft policy are also when you see the transportation element posted on the website in probably two weeks, you'll see these same policies there. Now, of course, tonight you say, hey, we don't want these policies, we don't like these policies. We don't support them more than we'll pull them right out of that draft transportation element. And as the taskforce says, if you if you adopt these policies tonight. You will see these policies not only in the transportation and also in the upcoming active transportation plan. So where we're doing it all at once and we agree it all has to be coordinated. So the general plan looks at and updates the policies in the general plan around climate change, around transportation, around land use and housing, around economic development. So it's all being coordinated together. I think it's the right way to do it. It's a big job, but it's the council's up for it. Staff is certainly ready and putting you in position to take action on all these plans. The one wrinkle in all of this has been COVID 19. We can't we're not scheduling any public hearings other than these council meetings at this point on the general plan. We're going to wait. We're putting stuff up on the website, but, you know, we're not holding big public meetings on the general plan update. So until things settle down with the COVID 19. I have one more question, but I can wait. You want to wait until after we hear the public comments. Or if other council members have questions? Okay. Any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Okay. Councilmember Desai, if you have another clarifying question and you appear to be the only councilmember. Before we go to public comment. So I do. Ask. I do. Mike, I sent an email last week and there was a pretty strong statement in the staff report that correlated narrow streets with safety. And the question that I sent was if there was any academic research to back that up, because when I read the the when I read the article in the the staff report , I thought that was a very strong statement in that and that that some kind of. Data is there. Is your question is there academic research behind it? Because this is clarifying questions. Well, what, you know, I guess did in addition to Marketo, which is a stakeholder organization, did you find academic research to support that claim? Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Well, Nextel is a national organization of transportation professionals that set guidelines that are followed by cities around the country. And they've done a lot of research on the relationship. And there is quite a bit I don't have the study at my fingertips, but we can certainly provide them. There's there's a lot of research. Let me hand it off to Brian Maguire, if it's okay with you, Mayor, to help out with it. Is that okay with Brian? You're ready for that? Sure. Yeah. Brian McGuire. Just just to jump in and add that the standards that Maxo uses and that we're trying to adopt here are based off of several like FH subway research and people, you know. Tell us that. Why don't you tell us what that acronym stands for, for this insiders? So to answer the question, yes, the data is used in study by academics to study like Federal Highway Administration type data and other resources to develop these standards. So they are are definitely academic, you know, academically valid studies and and data driven standards. And that's okay. Thank you. All right. So seeing that further clarifying questions, I am going to go to public comment. So, madam, quickly, you call first or read our first comment, I guess. Yes, I can read the first comment. I think there are 545 comments now, so we still get 3 minutes each. The first one is from Linda Astbury, West Alameda Business Association. Please note that within the WAPA Business District we value our customers that prefer bicycling from there for their form of transportation. However, on street parking is a critical element in the preservation of local business. The agenda item in question six May 20, 2070 761. That parking identified as the lowest priority, suggests the business district and the local businesses are a low priority, particularly when we will be Post-Coronavirus times. Business revenues will be down to reduce street parking hits businesses even more. To reduce parking would be a large hit for small businesses in the area. Parking preservation should be noted as a priority, not as a dismissed item. Okay. Okay. That was one. Okay. You did that in less than 3 minutes. Okay. Yes. Next is RN and I'm going to apologize for the at you. Very, I believe. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as commercial and residential property owners in Alameda, we would like to express our deep concerns of providing vision and or plan language within the resolution item six eight, which may and will be utilized to eliminate on street parking. The city utilized similar language, a vision and or a plan to place the current plans being developed involving the arterial roads on Central Avenue and Webster Street and its intersection in development at an approximate cost of $12 million. The outcome of this language and idea they will push traffic away from the business district and toward the city owned developing property at the old Naval Air Station by lane reduction or on street parking elimination on the arterial roads of Alameda without any serious development consideration as to removal of on street parking and its effects on homeowners , businesses and the business districts as a large mistake during any time the business community and property owners who have contributed investment dollars, tax dollars, sweat, blood and tears seem to be being left out of consideration by the elimination of on street parking without as much as a study as to what each parking spot lost equates to within a business district or on a non residential street. Parking lost means lost to home values, lost to business, which means lost staff and loss of our lives. The return on investment is what Mom and Pops are counting on in their retirement and from their prop real property investment, presenting parking as the lowest priority. Denigrates the business district's small businesses, which rely on local parking in each and every real property owner. Hurting the financial position of property owners does not do anyone any good. You must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can survive long term in a business shutdown like we have now more than ever on street parking. Preservation needs to occur and needs to be a high consideration. Having on street parking saves businesses, saves lives and save cities. And the next speaker is Jay Lucy. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as longtime property owners in Alameda. We are surprised that this item is before the council at this time. The perspective of parking preservation for on street parking remains the same as with the Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection. Within the best business district on street parking is critical. A critical element in the preservation of local businesses. Resolution item six eight presents that on street parking be noted as the lowest priority, suggesting the business districts and the local businesses are a low priority. Business districts are critical to the city, the residents and real property owners. It would make a lot of sense for the City Council and its staff to openly discuss this topic with the city's business associations, local businesses and property owners on an upcoming agenda. On street parking, preservation should be noted as a priority. Hurting the financial position of businesses and property owners only denigrates the city the council must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can thrive. Let's preserve on street parking for the future. And the new speaker is Jim Strelow, a lifelong resident. Deaths and injuries are just statistics. Accidents happen. We need to drill down into fault factors. Was the pedestrian or bicyclist or the driver distracted e.g. cell phone? Or both of them was accident caused by poor lighting, fog or dark clothing? Worn was either person under the influence travel lane width narrower than ten foot road lanes can lead to more head on collisions, which would send crashed vehicles into straight bike lanes, making bicycling more dangerous instead of less dangerous. Delivery trucks and moving vans on narrower streets create an even more hazardous passing situation, meaning three and a half feet. To clear a bike, a six and a half foot wide, average vehicle width means zero inches as vehicles pass each other on the roadway. How safe is that on the streets now? All Alameda streets are straight. Not all Alameda streets are straight. Streets that curb half to allow for a truck's slept width where a truck travels inside the curve or outside the curve of a roadway. Are you allowing for the AFC? T o's slept with wit pass recommendations. The Transportation Commission was concerned about enforcement, police, understaffed and policy versus guiding principles. Where the Commission argued against the details of ten foot lane width and using bollards since your policy policy just. Should just be general strategies. There is no mention anywhere for of safety for the evacuation of the island. Narrowing lanes reduces the width of many streets necessary for the safe evacuation of the island in an emergency for convenience. A very limited few bicyclists versus the necessary safety of a majority population in Alameda are misguided priorities. Is the port in the policy is accepting these priorities necessarily prioritizes the preservation of on street parking. Adoption of this resolution will result in less space in the public right of way for the short and long term storage of private vehicles, taking away parking spaces from businesses at a time when businesses need all the help they need, all the business that they can muster is again the wrong priority for this city. Thank you. Thank you. And one more comment, right? Yes, that's the last one. And this is from Suzy Hofstetter. Mayor as the Ashraf City Council members. My name is Susie Hofstetter. Hofstetter and I am both a constituent and advocacy manager with Bike Eastbay. I have already submitted comments to you via email and I'd like to add a comment for the public meeting to repeat my many thanks to our excellent staff team in transportation, planning and public works for developing excellent standards for transportation safety in our city. As Mr. Thomas said, we have had an unfortunate sequence of tragic crashes on our streets in the past few months. The standards you are reviewing today are the first step in a more robust revamp of our standard designs that will take place during the process of the Vision Zero Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The standards ensure that new projects coming online during re paving and redevelopment will be as safe as possible, reducing traffic speeds and making our city safer for the most vulnerable road users. Thank you in advance for your support of street safety. And that is the last. Thank you. That's what I said. I just want to I have a clarifying question about some of those comments, especially from the business community. Mr. THOMAS I've attended a few of the Labor West Alameda Business Association board meetings probably then this week and this week this year, but last year and all of the ones I attended, you were also there. Have you made it a point to attend business association meetings to talk about these plans? Well, we've been we've been meeting with we've been talking to business associations, various groups around the city about Vision Zero, about and about specific plans. And I think that's where there seems to be some misunderstanding here. This is an overall policy. This is a policy establishing what the city will do when we have a specific situation where we're trying to balance the needs in a specific location, space needs. This is not a policy that is saying, hey, we're going to go and start taking out all the on street parking in the business districts. Of course, we're not going to do that. This is when we do a project in the business districts. We always involve them. We've been working with the labor, the West Alameda Business Association for years on the Central Avenue Project. Rozelle met with them today about the active transportation plan and future plans for Webster Street to make it more bicycle friendly. This is, you know, I guess I'm I'm a little bit. So I think there's this misconception. I mean, I guess no. Have we have we gone to the business and said, hey, what's more important, a parking space or the life of a child? No, we have not, because we think we know what their answer would be. It's of course, the life of the child is more important. And I don't want to belabor the point and we'll get into the council discussion. And by the way, Mr. McGuire, could I say I love the cat rocking back and forth cat and they should be safe on the streets, too. But I just and you have done your outreach to the business communities for years, and that outreach continues. So this is. Yes, I. Wanted to confirm. So with that, we've had our public comment period and we didn't receive any further public comment. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Public comment. Okay. So then public comment is now closed and we will open the discussion and entertainment of the the this resolution. So who would like to start? Council member delegate. I see your hand that. I. Your muted. Did I see your hand? But I didn't. I didn't. I didn't raise my hand. But I'm happy to say that that lovely blue background, a three off a little death. I'm Mai Mai. I'm calling in from my son's playroom so I can. I can simultaneously mom and participate in the meeting my son had. That's what we do. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I want to thank staff for their work on this. This has been a priority of the council as we've been talking about it for some time. I know that there's been a lot of outreach and a lot of conversation, both with the public and among the council at our publicly notice meetings. I did want to just say, you know, again, from a perspective of a mom and somebody who routinely walk the west end of our need, especially down Webster Street and in the surrounding areas, you know, the return on investment of removing a parking space to save a life is. Huge. It's preserving the safety of pedestrians. And we have a farmers market that draws in a lot of people that walk over there and a lot of people that walk to the businesses on Webster Street. And I want to make sure that, you know, everybody who's walking and biking over there, especially now that we have the the bikeway that's going to be crossing out and needed across our new trail, that that we really are making our streets as safe as possible. And so there really isn't a price you can put on saving a life and making it safer. And so if that means removing a parking spot from a corner so that we can make sure that there's better visibility, I think that that's a just an easy, easy fix and something that that really doesn't take a lot of thought on my end other than let's do it and let's get that done. I hear what the businesses are saying. I think that, you know, one of the things that's come out in this during the shelter orders is that we're seeing a lot more delivery and then takeout and pickup. And I think perhaps some of what we need isn't for potentially long term parking, but we need more, you know, kind of short term parking zones in our business district so that people that are picking up and doing the food delivery have a place to kind of pull in safely rather than double parked, pick up the food and go. But I also think that one thing that is coming out of all of this is that many, many of us are now walking or biking to go pick up our takeout food and enjoying the outdoors on the way over. Obviously, masks and following social distancing protocols. But I think we all need to evolve and I think traffic safety doesn't stop just because we're in a shelter order. In fact, we've we did have we've had a few bike versus vehicle or vehicle versus bike accidents. One was a fatality and that was during the shelter order. And I think we need to keep that in mind. And so I think that it absolutely makes sense that we continue forward with implementing what's safe. But I'm looking forward to supporting staff recommendations tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember and Councilmember Data. Well, thank you very much. I will have to say that I'm very troubled at the direction that this this item is going, in the sense of how we're linking traffic safety issues with, you know, changes to the physical environment. Um, you know, I'm not a traffic planner or a transit planner, but I did go to Berkeley's City of Regional Planning School to get my master's of city and regional planning from Cal. And I think one of the basic things that you always learn is when it comes to safety, you want to incorporate the three, the three E's, which is basically taking into account, you know, educating people kind of change the culture of traffic and the way in which people use the roads. So there's education. E And then there's also the engineering. E which is, you know, altering the streetscape in the, you know, perhaps in the manner that we're doing so right now. But then the third E would be enforcement. This is all very basic. And the thing that's concerning me about the trajectory of a discussion is we're we're really going overboard, in my opinion, on just emphasize emphasizing engineering aspects to all of this. I mean, if we really care. If we really care about the the the tragic statistics about, you know, two deaths per year and that, you know, one death or any death whatsoever is tragic. If we really care about the increase in society of pedestrian safety issues or basic life issues, and we can't just look at this from an engineering lens. We also have to certainly look at it, you know, from a from an enforcement position. Leading up to this this evening last week, I had asked city staff to give me some data on on traffic on citations for traffic speed violations. So, you know, speeding tickets, basically. So I asked for 20 years worth of data from the year 2000 each year until the year 2019. And I also asked for data on the number of traffic police officers, police officers in dealing with traffic. The interesting thing, though, is that. Over the course of those 12 years of those 20 years of the course of those 20 years, in 12 of those years, we had five or more traffic officers. And when we had five or more traffic officers, on average in those 12 years, they had citations. They generated citations of roughly 2300 speeding citations. Now, right now, I believe the number of traffic officers, we're down to three and four. And when you look at the average for those years, over the 20 years as well, of the 20 years we had 12 years where we had five traffic officers or more. The balance eight years we had five less than five traffic officers. And when you look at the amount of speeding citations on average in those eight years, we generated basically 1500 speeding violations per year. I mean, that's obvious. You have more you have more traffic officers. You catch more people who are speeding. It's obvious. It's very basic. And I think we're overemphasizing the engineering aspect of this. And as a and to me, as alarming as the fatality statistics are, as alarming as the as the pedestrian accidents are. To me, that's crying out for an emphasis or looking at this item with a lens, especially of enforcement, when you have five officers or more, if you generate on average 23,000, 2300 traffic speed citations a year, when you have less than five, 1500, that's a 55% difference. And and and it does go back to the very first question that I asked about, you know, why aren't we looking at this within the context of our general plan and within the context of our transportation element? Within the general plan? Because I think when you look at things like what we're dealing with tonight, you can't just look at it in isolation. You can't just look at it, you know, with the the lens of an engineer. There has to be an education component. There has to be an enforcement component. And finally, there has to be certainly an engineering component. But I think tonight we're looking at a document that's just too heavy on the engineering. I want to close on this much on this note. You know, I think one of the reasons why you're hearing a lot of concerns about Webster Street is we have to remember that Webster Street lost a lot of parking. They lost a lot of street parking because of the the bull belts that we've created. And they're wonderful. People use them, especially the one in front of West Cafe, the one in front of, you know, the other places on Webster Street. But also, we've also created those bus extensions. And so Webster Street does feel especially hard hit. So I think that's why they're they're clamoring right now. And, you know, the concern about the Central Avenue Webster Street bike project, certainly let's not kid ourselves necessarily is an issue here. I just want to end by summarizing. I think this is way too heavy on the engineering view of things. I think we need to look at it more holistically. As you're taught in basic, you know, city planning school, we need to look at how engineering enforcement and in education come together to bring down those fatality numbers that we're talking about. So it will be very hard for me to support this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I've seen that I have not had his agenda, but he has his hand up. So your next vice mayor. Thank you very much. I well, I appreciate the the comments that have come before me. I have to say, I'm a little flabbergasted in the. Okay. Sorry. Everybody just froze for a second. In in in the transportation, planning and world, it is very well understood that the environment and the design of the environment is the number one thing that we can do to make sure that we have safe streets, that that is what actually pushes the behavior. And when you're finally getting to the point of of enforcing behavior, it means you've designed the streets badly. And now we're penalizing people for behaving the way that we've encouraged them to do it. So. Well, I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the educational background of Councilmember Dessau. I would say his basic planning tenets that that he outlined represent more of an old school perception of how this is done and that the folks coming out of Cal and UCLA and University of Texas and and MIT and whatnot would would beg to differ. Today, I'm going to move forward. Again, I want to reflect I understand the concerns that we've heard from from Ms.. Astbury and onwards and and folks. And I think Mr. Thomas did a fine job of explaining that this is not an attack on parking. This is a win. There is a tradeoff to be made in something that is unsafe and people dying and and a parking space. We're going to choose protecting the residents and the safety of our residents. And I think that that is consistent with the policies and plans that we've put in place over the last 18 months. I think it's consistent with the policy and the planning that's been done in the last three or four years by the majority of the city council. And so I think this is a continuation of it. I think we have a very solid transportation element and that these these policies, as they're moving forward, are just a continuation of that. And I see no reason why we can't move forward. I want to thank so I'm excited. I will be supporting this. I do have one minor change. There were there were some questions in here. I also just wanted to we've received this as a part of this item, a number of comments asking about so streets. And I wanted to thank staff for circulating the map with the pilot, the two street pilot that's going around excited to see that we are moving forward with that concept. I want to really call out that in my mind, the pilot is a scheme, it's a short term pilot so that we're. Going to stay on topic. I understand. I'm also going to talk about traffic safety just for a few seconds. So I do want to make sure that that that the pilot really is our short term first step and that it leads to a more city wide, brighter place. I want to make sure back to back to the letters we got that as we're considering the safety impacts, including future projects like the Slow Streets that we're building, networks that will support our businesses as we come out of the time of COVID and maintain our social distancing. I want to highlight and concur with Councilmember Ody. A number of our cities are really moving forward with the intersection access in the time of COVID, COVID at a time when we don't want to be touching public infrastructure, people are turning their the pedestrian buttons off at their intersections. I see no reason why we can't be doing that. I don't think it should take a council direction. I think we can just start now where where activation is not required. We should just turn these things off. The council or the staff ask stuff five questions. And so on the question of intersections, I think Mr. Wheeler did a just fabulous job of explaining why we would want to have all of the crosswalks painted. It's because it signals that you're allowed to be there. Right now we have designed again back to design. We've designed a network where people who are in their cars actually think that that pedestrians have to be channeled is, as the question puts it, to a specific place where they are allowed to cross in any way, whether they're crossing that or isn't paint is there is thereby illegal and it basically inhibits people walking, it makes it less safe and it and it causes confusion. So I think that the pairs is very important. I understand that there's concern about the cost of extra paint and the wear and tear. And that's that is very real. I think that use of zebra striped crosswalks without the perpendicular bars has been shown in some cities to be one way to at least reduce the impact of those cross costs, because a lot of the cars actually travel between the bars and so there's less wear and tear on the actual paint. On the question of balancing safety versus areas where we want to create safety, you know, I think that our staff think through the active transportation program as well, can look at some sort of balance. Right. You're never going to be able to say it's just one thing. We're not going to do it. We're not going to say only high crash areas and we're not going to create safe places around schools so that they become high crash areas. I think that we can find a way to do a 7525 split or something like that whereby we can reflect that safety is our priority, but that there are also generators like schools, parks, business districts, etc., where safety, safety improvements are very important, not just from a safety aspect, but also from a encouraging people to use the space aspect. On the question of speed, obviously we want to be smart and data driven, but we also want to make sure that we don't plan ourselves into inactivity. And I think that, you know, I will continue to push for us to be tactical in our ways of implementing quick and effective things. That may not be the perfect solution, but they get us 95% or 90% of the way there while we're doing the data work in the background. And I say all of this with great respect and appreciation for the the the small but mighty staff that we have working on here. And I know that everybody is working very hard. And so my words are not that anything is being done wrong. But if you ask the question, should we do more now or should we plan to do more sometime later? You know, the answer is, of course, yes. And then lastly, the question about bollards and I think this is not just about bollards. Bollards can be ugly. I think it's unfortunate that people drive illegally and require us to put bollards up so that we can make sure they don't park in places that they are not supposed to , that they turn slow enough that they don't run over people, etc.. But at the end of the day, much like the trade off between a parking space and safety, I think that it's very important for us to get to safety and that concerns about ugly people think everything is ugly when it's new. The bollards are just a new piece of infrastructure and we will get used to them and their garish yellow, pink, gray and purple colors. And sometimes, I mean, 15 years ago, if 15 years from now, they'll look like the the trash cans we put out every night. I remember when that changeover happened in Alameda about 15 years ago and people flipped out about the garish trash cans. What happened to the metal? You never rarely hear that concern anymore so quickly. Yeah. Again, I want to thank staff. This is a fabulous staff report. I really appreciate it. The one change I would like to propose is in the final voyage of the first. Now, therefore, be it resolved that separated bike lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes. And when you do not swipe left. Hey, John. I'm on paper. I can't tell you. Well, could you count because it's a five page reserve, so maybe. Okay, when you say so sorry. Yeah, hopefully we're going to run out of time, but I think it's about time. Thank you. Page three to look for the page. Thank you. I'm going to go with page three of the resolution. Okay. And fourth. Fifth, pull it down to two. Okay. Separated bike lanes. Yeah, separated bike lanes. Okay. So where it says separated bicycle lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes. When feasible, I would change that too, unless not feasible. I think that language needs to say that we should assume we're doing it unless we can prove that it's not as opposed to making the decision now, they don't seem feasible. And then we move on. I know it's it's just a little tweak, but I think that the goal here is to basically say we want the highest level of safety and encouragement and that that becomes a meaningful just reminder as people are thinking about the policy that I look forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you. And I would add that, Jody, before I go to you, I just wanted to ask Mr. Thomas if you could just comment on the vice mayor's suggestion. Is there is that is it feasible to change when feasible to less invisible? And just go ahead and mute yourself so we can hear your lovely voice. Yes, it's fine. It's. It's fine. Okay. Do you hear me? Yes, I did. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So keep that in mind, Counsel, and then we'll go to Councilman Brody. Thank you. I want to thank staff for all their hard work on this. And I'm going to adopt a lot of what the vice mayor said. So I'm not going to take the whole 8 minutes or 9 minutes that I have. You know, I appreciate that they took this referral and ran with it. And, you know, I've been reading the updates from the city manager and at this time, you know, still working. Everyone's working really hard, but, you know, you're still working on your your area, working remotely and able to produce some high quality output. So I appreciate that. Just quickly on the questions. All right. The you know, I asked the question about the pairs versus Clark because, you know, there's really not my my area of expertize. So I'll defer to the engineering folks when it comes to that. And I would agree with the vice mayor that, you know, the more across work opportunities we have, the better. And, you know, if we can even have some of those X ones where the whole intersection is shut down, you know, that's even more the better and the limited resources and where to prioritize. You know, again, I'm kind of going to defer to staff on that. I know that every time we have an accident, you know, there's a lot of clamoring and the squeaky wheel and so on and so forth. But, you know, sometimes we're told by our our professional staff that, you know, well, this is the first time that's happened there, and there are other areas that need more priority. So, you know, I'm happy to defer to you. You know, I do think there is around school, though, our high priorities there is around parks in the areas, you know, in our business districts where we have, you know, the most pedestrian traffic. So as far as I mean, you know, I don't think ugly, you know, they serve a purpose. Well, I think it's I believe when people run over them and, you know, they're not replaced or we put one there and it gets destroyed and we don't go back and fix it. So, you know, the more we could do on there to help change behavior, the better. I appreciate the hierarchy. You know, it's not that we're saying that parking is a low priority. We're basically saying that life, especially children's lives, are a high priority. And it's interesting that we're having this discussion. At the same time, the national discussion is about, you know, do we reopen the economy at the risk of hundreds of thousands of lives or do we keep everyone safe and make that our priority and then, you know, open when it's safe? So, you know, just kind of food for thought. You know, I think when we had a big discussion on parking and bike lanes, you know, I think it was the Central Avenue traffic. And if I remember correctly and those that were there can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we took out one parking space on Central. It could have been two and it was on the eastbound side, so it wasn't even anywhere near going towards the business district. So I'm glad that we're to codify these these priorities. You know, there's always a risk that some, you know, road councilmember in the future may, you know, behind the scenes try to kill projects and you know now that it's codified and and also staff gets you know an idea on how to write their staff reports and our council gets an idea on, you know, what the priorities are. We won't have that lingering like we did with Central Avenue before. So I know that we've talked about the three E's and, you know, when the vice mayor and I had a town hall or what it just seems like forever ago, it was only like maybe two months, you know, we added the enactment. E because, you know, some of these solutions need an act in the state legislation. But on the engineering side, I think that we kind of under emphasized engineering, and that was the message that we kept hearing from residents across the city, you know, whether it be on websites or whether it be on LinkedIn, whether it be on Bay Farm, whether it be on, you know, Park Street or Otis, you know, we haven't done enough engineering. So and I also caution, you know, enforcement is such human capital intensive activity and we continue to ask more of our police department with, you know, fewer or fewer resources for reasons that pretty much are outside our control. So I think we have to be cognizant of that. But see, and, you know, I know there was some concern about the lack of traffic, but I think there are solutions that the engineers could look at, you know, try to cut off people from going or stop people from going from cutting around. And, you know, I remember that that the discussion was, well, if you put this bike lane in on Central, then you're only going to have maybe like a minute or two delay. So I mean, to me, a minute or two delay, whether you're going to make a left hand turn or right hand turn, I think is is totally acceptable if it means that you're going to save somebody's life. And we're just going back to the engineering. I mean, there are little things we do that impact that reduce the need for enforcement. I mean, I'll say a stoplight is one of them. And the speed bumps, you know, it's kind of a moderate example. You know, that's a that's an engineering tool that, you know, if it is deployed, right. People are not going to speed. I mean you can go to. Extreme and say, you know, every time that a stoplight comes up, you're going to put a pretty foot barrier and then nobody will ever go through the stoplight. Right. But, you know, that's not feasible. But the point is that fine line and a balance between enforcement and engineering and we need both. But, you know, I just think we're under engineered right now. So lastly, I think this also ties in with our goal. You know, we want to make a more pedestrian friendly design in this district. I mean, that is, as the vice mayor said, you know, that's what the experts that are coming out of school now say you want to do before San Francisco shut down Market Street. You know, this is the trend, Sixth Street or Fourth Street in Berkeley. And these are the places that we kind of want to emulate, you know, not where we have cars rushing down our business thoroughfares, you know, 80 miles an hour. And the last point, I can't even read my writing. Oh, it's also about, you know, the current thinking. Now, there's a lot of ink spilled about how poorly designed our streets are, whether they're in California, generally, the Bay Area or Alameda. So, I mean, the sooner we can go about it, fix that and, you know, undo the bad engineering and put in good engineering I'm all for and I appreciate all the hard work staff has done and I appreciate my colleagues for prioritizing this. And I'm glad that, you know, for once we're complaining about a problem, but actually coming up with a solution. And that's what I love about this council. All right. Thank you, Mr. Oteh. Okay. And to that, I'm going to take my comments next. And again, thank you to staff all of you who have contributed to this report. And this is is a very important topic and near and dear to my heart. And I'm going to start with the topic of speed and slowing down drivers. One of the things I've noticed now in Alameda that we do have less traffic on our streets because most businesses are closed, the schools are closed, the people are driving faster. They're driving faster than the 25 mile per hour speed limit. I've talked to our police chief, Paul O'Leary. He confirms that if the officers are out and see you, you can count on a citation. But in the meantime, and I say this every chance I get, more people are out walking because although we are physically distancing and we're sheltering in place except to go out for those essential activities, getting some fresh air and exercise are essential activities. Take your mask with you. I would suggest wearing it because you may run into other people closer than six feet away. But get out and and walk. Explore the city. We're flat, you know, take a different route every time you go out. But my husband and I try and walk in the early evenings and we're very careful crossing streets because and we carry a flashlight if it's starting to get dark because drivers are going fast. So this is not a good thing. And by the way, speaking of the restrictions from COVID 19, I do appreciate staff bringing this forward to us. There are things that are important and just can't wait and traffic, safety and the lives of our residents are certainly among them. So I want to also ask or just inquire to take this under consideration, to go after as much grant funding as possible for for these projects. And I know your office always does your department. Mr. THOMAS As far as the concerns from the business folks that we heard from, I was a little surprised because I have been at some of those meetings where Mr. Thomas is there and answering questions and presenting, and I know he's doing it at our business associations around town, so that's great to go out and inform people. It doesn't mean you get by it. It doesn't mean that everybody agrees with you that the fact that someone disagrees is one data point that needs to be considered. You weigh all the factors, and I and I look to the professionals who are informing this this decision or helping us make informed decisions. I did not study traffic engineering. I'm not an engineer, but I went to UC Davis. And one of the things I loved about Davis, besides the fact that it's an all bicycle campus, your professors will be riding alongside of you, that the whole city is bright as a bike, bicycle, friendly city. The bike lanes are wide enough in one direction for two people to ride side by side and have a conversation. And drivers understand there's bikes all over the place and they they stop. And so we can learn a lot of things. But I think good design and all of the inspired thinking that went into this report are so important. And as far as the enforcement piece, of course it's important. And of course, our police department takes that seriously. That's a reality, as in Councilmember De. Alluded to this. We only have a certain number of patrol officers out on any given shift, and that is the reality. And as with everything we do as a council, we play the hand we're dealt. We can aspire to have more officers, but we also deal with the reality on the ground that the workshop that was organized by Vice Mayor Knox played in Councilmember O.D. and noticed is a public meeting so others could attend. And I did. It was very impressive. We had our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom in, and Dana Emery, our traffic engineer, Miss Wheeler presented and the police officers. Oh, I'm just going blank on his name. Tall. Yes, there are many of them tall. Their his grandiosity. And it was such an informed decision, good audience participation. I think one of the maybe last public forums we had that the police were definitely on top of this, but they could also use the help with the good design to be able to to help keep people safe. But but but we are seeing how cars are speeding with these wide open thoroughfares that are they're finding right now. So so we do need to protect our the safety of all and and the accessibility of our streets to all. And I am looking forward to opening Alameda up again for business. It'll be gradual. As the governor said last week in his press conference, the new normal will be anything but. And so to our Planning and Transportation Department, I want you to be thinking about maybe some new ways that you haven't even contemplated yet, because, A, we don't know exactly what things are going to look like. But the governor certainly told us that, you know, restaurants, for instance, they're going to be removing tables because they'll need to do some physical distance. It's not just a matter of flipping a light switch and we go back to the way we were. It's going to be a gradual process. So think about, you know, new ways of of maybe dealing with all that. But I do hope that one of the things that will come out is always the silver lining and the fact that we've been sheltering in place, but getting out for some exercise. And I'm seeing lots of walking and I hope people will keep that up. It's a great habit. It's a healthy habit. You know, discover your city. Don't just walk down the same streets, try, try different ones. And I think that will also impact and benefit our business districts. And I will say that Webster City I mean, I do go to Webster Street and have coffee and shop and whatnot. Usually I'm on my bike, but when I sometimes I'm in my car, I always find parking at the municipal lot. I will say quickly that I know during the farmer's market days that's that's used as a farm, as part of the farmer's market. But I always find parking maybe not in front of the business that I'm going to, but down a side street, it's healthy to walk a little away from your car. And I know for people who are disabled and need to park right there, we've got those spots, too. And let's see really quickly, I wanted to ask two quick questions. One of Mr. Wikström, which is about the so-called big buttons. I thought I saw an email, I think, from you that said, the reason we can't just go and flip a switch in and be done with them has to do with some of the the equipment we're dealing with. Is that is that accurate? Mr. Wickstrom. That is correct. I think it's been brought before the council when Dani presented in February that we have a very old system. If you look at our aggregate, 87 intersections with a variety of controllers and not all of them are easily programable to just quickly remove where buttons are being attached. So we have to look at intersection by intersection. Another consideration that we also keep in mind is some of those intersections are programed for what's called audible pedestrian signals. The status and accessibility component for someone blind that we also want to keep those active. So they hear here there's some signage, things that could be done to improve that so that people know they don't have to do that. We are we're looking into really trying to catalog our entire system and then trying to attack it systematically. Okay. Thank you for that. And by the way, for anybody out there wanting to cross the street, don't touch it with your hands. Use your elbow. That will activate it. And and then last question is for you, Mr. Thomas, on the Central Avenue Project. I was under the impression that we were still waiting on Caltrans. But remind us, where are we on the Central Avenue project? Thank you for asking. We just met about it today. We will be we are refining the design with our consultants. We hope to be back to the council with those final design refinements, including the final design for the portion that goes by Webster Street Transportation Commission and May Council in June. That will then set us up for the final step with Caltrans. That then puts us in the construction drawings. If things go very well and we can go sort of everything goes as, you know, full speed. We would hope to start construction next calendar year, 2021. But it's a it's a big it's a big step. I mean, it's just a big, complicated, expensive project. The money for the public, just to the public as we have the money ready for us to spend on the construction. So it's just about getting through the design process with Caltrans, we hope in the near term to start construction on the Clement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from Grand to Broadway for the Cross Army Trail. That project is ahead of Clement. And then the project that is we're hoping to that's even ahead of that will be the bicycle pedestrian improvements for Otis. So the council has set up a whole series of of actual, you know, projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Central is just the biggest, most complicated of the three that we're working on right now. And just as an example, all three of those have had extensive public process. So just to reassure the business community, if we're doing anything in your business district, you will be seeing a lot of us before we start changing any on street parking. So that's I hope that is. What it is. Yes, it does. Mr. De Soto, you have 12 seconds. What would you like to tell us? Weekly Vice Mayor Knox White called my views on the three E's and traffic safety as old school. Actually, it's not. All you need to do is Google three E's in traffic safety. And I, in fact, came out with a I found a study put. Out by. Time. Next year, your time is up. Well, thank you. And thank you for your take you all for your comments. And and this is this is a good, lively discussion. I appreciate it. Okay. With that, what we are being asked to do is to vote in a resolution. Vice Mayor. And I thought you had your hand up. I'd like to make a motion. My right. What's that motion? I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation. With apologies for my lack of clarity to Councilmember De Saag, I meant the his views on the. Unemployed of. Engineering. I just wanted to apologize. And you can take that off line through the motions. Thank you. We always strive, by the way, not to be personal. I'm sure it was meant with this. No, we're okay. Okay, great. Okay. We're okay. And so what was that modification with. The modification of the bullet separated, changing as discussed when feasible to unless not feasible where the under the separated bicycle lanes to shall be provided bullet tried it. Okay, we have that motion. Do we have a segment? Okay, we have 2 seconds. That's a force. So our I think it's thought councilmember village hand at first that at the thank you there'll be more opportunities. Okay. Could we have that roll call vote please. Councilmember de Cut. Three. Not one? No. Not slate. I with an e0di with enthusiasm. Oh, good. That was good. Fellow. I may or as the Ashcroft that's I with for it that's already. That carries I five eyes. All right, well, now I want to take care of your math to find out why you might not want to do as. I was getting too excited, too easy. All right. Okay. So that is that takes care of item six. A item six be has been continued to. Our next meeting on May 10th. Let me pull my counsel really quickly. People, do you want to take a quick break now? Do you want to do another? What do we have? We've got four more. Do we have four more items? Yes. Yes. Everybody. Vice Mayor. I was saying five more items. Okay. Five more items. Thank you. And has them restaurants. Yeah. No, it's for. It's for. Yeah. I didn't remember from my pile. Apologies. Okay. So to have a break or not to have a break. Is that? Keep moving, Mr. Eddie. Yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'd prefer to take of if we could. Yeah. Okay. He's hungry. Hi. Sorry I'm not serving food tonight, but there's good takeout support. Alameda business is okay. So much for that commercial. Okay, our next item, Madam Cook. Introduction of ordinance amending the Municipal Code Chapter 30 Development Regulations to modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations to implement and comply with State Law and make other administrative, technical and clarifying amendments pertaining to appeals and youth center definition as recommended by the Planning Board. Thank you. And who is that? You, Mr. De? This is L.A..

AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the University Community Urban Center goals and policies, as well as the Future Land Use Map, as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118470

Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118470. Relating to land used in zoning. Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the university community, urban center goals and policies, as well as the future land use map as part of the Periodic Review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. And there's a divided report on this legislation. So we'll begin with the majority report. Council member O'BRIEN Thank you. So the probably clearest way for folks to track this is to look at the attachment attachment one amendment to the future land use map. And that should give you an overview with the little bubbles that explain all the different changes in the map, where the changes are being proposed in the legislation as it came out of committee . This series of changes is all in anticipation of a neighborhood rezone that we're anticipate receiving from Department of Planning and Development sometime in 2016. It's something that's been discussed for a number of years. For a while, it was anticipated in 2015, but we expect to get that next year. And these are the future land use map changes that would accommodate the range of changes that will be be proposed in that in that rezone. Normally, we might take these concurrently. We know we traditionally do the comprehensive plan changes in March, but because next year we're doing comprehensive plan changes as part of Seattle 2035, and there's going to be a longer process. I anticipate that those changes won't come until much later in the year. And if we don't do these now, that would inhibit our ability to do the university rezone until after that was done, which likely would be too late in the year. Specifically in committee, there are a couple of differences. All that Councilmember Lucado speak to his alternative, but there are a couple of changes that we heard some concerns about. We discussed those. And Councilmember Burgess and I felt felt strongly that the proposal from DPD was solid. Thank you, Councilmember Licata. I will be voting against this legislation because I well, I do recognize that there was a lot of participation by community members as well as our staff over a period of a one or one or two years. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of opposition still remaining in that neighborhood from the community council and particularly from folks in the residential areas that were included in the areas that are proposed for changes. The there was some compromises made in reducing the area. However, people living in that community felt that it did not go far enough. And they're concerned that the nature of the university district will dramatically change, particularly since this will open the door for increased uptake of zoning and therefore probably what they call the towers that will change the. I think the quality and I think the quality of living as far as casting large shadows, increasing of traffic and make it more difficult to provide even more open space in an area that does not have that much open space. They had asked that more time be used to take a look at those concerns. They felt that in particular the community council was not involved enough and that they are concerned about the University Community Urban Center potentially being impacted. So there'd be an increase in displaced residents from the existing available affordable housing as it was torn down for new development and without a plan to see how those individuals would be housed in the future so they could still have access to university without having to move further and further away and therefore contributing to the overall congestion in the university district. That is, plan should at this time be on hold. So I support their efforts on that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, Councilmember Rasmussen? Thank you. I would like to hear from the majority of the committee how their response to the concerns that Councilmember Lakota raised about what I would describe as loss of neighborhood character, displacement of affordable housing, and what we see now, if you go to the university district, an incredible homogenization of what is a very eclectic community, both with regard to the type of housing income levels who are able to live there are in cultural organizations, longstanding community organizations as well. So this is what I think Councilmember Lakota, you've expressed concern about. And if that is true, then how how can we prevent those risks and those losses from occurring if this legislation goes forward? Is this the last opportunity to prevent those kind of losses? But anyway, I would love to hear from the majority their response to Councilmember Carter's concerns. Councilmember O'BRIEN So the I think a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Alucarda raised. Are probably more directed towards what will likely be part of a discussion around the actual reason for the university district. The you know, if you look at the map on attachment one, the specific changes we're making on this amendment to the comprehensive plan are relatively modest. There were some concerns about in some of the pockets of the neighborhoods where they would be. There's nothing specifically about these amendments that I mean, even without these amendments, there's lots of areas that could be considered for zones and towers throughout throughout the university district. But where and how we do that will be determined in that process, which is to come in 2016. I can speak specifically to, you know, within the urban village there is no single family zoning. It's all multifamily and commercial. There's a couple tiny pockets where we've expanded the urban village. One is around a church that wants to be able to add more ADA accessible accessibility from a parking lot. But they're not allowed to do that because it's in a single family zone. I didn't hear any opposition to that change. There's also a small piece of single family that's going to be incorporated now along Ravenna, and it's going to be turned into commercial mixed use. Again, I had I didn't hear any I don't recall hearing specific concerns about that. There were some folks that wanted to see some area taken out of the urban village. And we took a little bit out and they asked to take more out. And there's an area that is where there currently is a tower that's currently zoned multi-family residential. And the map would allow that to be multi-family, residential or commercial mixed use like an some Seattle mixed zone. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Student Bagshaw. Hi. Gordon. I harrow. I. Licata. No. O'Brien. I. Okamoto. I. Rasmussen. No. And President Burgess high seven in favor to oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? We will reconvene at Councilmember O'Brien. What time? Three, ten, three, ten, 3:10. As the Select Committee on Affordable Housing, the council is adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, to provide assistance to low-income homeowners for the construction of accessory dwelling units. Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, Colorado for $500,000 and for two years to provide soft second mortgages of up to $25,000 to low-income homeowners participating in the West Denver Single Family Plus program to assist in the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to serve as an income-generation and anti-displacement tool in Council Districts 3, 7, and 9 (OEDEV-201846549-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-20-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-27-19.

DenverCityCouncil_05132019_19-0245

So do you council president. We can do the comment first if you'd like. All right. Let's go ahead and do that. Councilman Lopez, Mayor Secretary, if you put that one on our screens, Councilman Lopez, you want to go ahead with your comment on two, four or five? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to highlight this. This is something great. This is a great program. It's the West End for Single Family Plus one program. This is out of the out of a great office, an idea. Renee Martinez Stone had this opportunity. This is something that we've been working on with OED as part of the city. I brought this program, this funding for this program, asked as a request of council. The last time around, we weren't able to get it, but we were able to identify funding in the general fund for this program . What this program does is it identifies well, that's actually part of the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative. We started in 2016 as a partnership between the Housing Authority and and the city of Denver to really look at a solution involving involuntary displacement in West Denver and looking at a to use as a model, especially in this area. Right. In a lot of a lot a lot of area, a lot of land area and zone districts in West Denver is actually open to use now that we we still have need to use our additional dwelling units, converted garages, things like that allows folks to be able to stay in the community, live at home, or even rent out the 81, live out of the house or the other way around, and pay off that mortgage and those house payments. They serve about 65,000 residents and 25,000 households over ten neighborhoods and three council districts, three, seven and nine. There's a little bit of a little more background information, statistics, housing and affordable housing, involuntary displacement and use. And, you know, as two top priorities in this city, we had about 6000 residents that have been contacted, contacted about West Denver, single family plus one. There's been 60 series anchor inquiries about the program. Five are already moving forward in the process. Those moving forward are in VR Park in Westwood. Three out of five applicants moving forward are under 80%. AMI now the first three years of the program was the DITO funding was a third of was a third of the Westwood Renaissance sorry West Denver Renaissance Project budget. We've invested 600,000 over the last four years. And what time that the WDC has leveraged leveraged 2.6 million in additional project funding and outcomes on top of community priorities. Like I said last October, I requested for another 300 K to go to the West for a single family plus program to make sure that it was funding. Funding funded through the pilot phase. It wasn't. We were able to get 150 identified through the general fund. My ask of this council and folks who are here is to remember that this program works. This is a viable program. It's a program that we can really take advantage of in West Denver with all those own districts that allow for Adus. We purposefully did that back in the day because there there are a lot of folks that are living out of converted garages already that are not in code. There are a lot of folks that are still living with their families that can continue to still live with their families. It allows for like a multigenerational cultural exchange. And also it's a solution. It's a real solution. A part of the solution to our affordable housing crisis is. Now, I want to make sure that as we have these discussions in the future, that we look at models like this, this is viable. Yes, they are expensive. And that's why this is important for us to be able to step in to help with this program. I want us to see I want us to see light in the budget every year. We really have to invest our resources and innovative ideas like this, ideas that were born out of out of these neighborhoods and our folks that are on the ground in these neighborhoods. Yes, there are other tools and mechanisms that we're investing into. But this program in particular has proven to be a success. And I think it's going to be really, really helpful in some of these numbers. So you're seeing displacement with the threat of gentrification. So I just want to just highlight this, bring it out how these statistics are in front of us. And I hope that the administration and data will work and will continue to fund this industry extremely important programs. So with that, I just wanted to say thank you, you guys. I'm so not used to saying. Dito I feel weird saying it already. Dito So yeah. Economic development.

Adopt Resolution of Intention to vacate a portion of public right-of-way on the west side of MLK Avenue south of 6th Street, set a date for a public hearing on the vacation for Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.; and authorize City Manager, or his designee, to accept an easement deed in order to create parking spaces on the south side of 6th Street, west of MLK Avenue; Adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6972 for the Alamitos Park Project, Street and Storm Drain Improvements (on 6th Street, 7th Street, MLK Avenue, Alamitos Avenue, and Atlantic Avenue); award the contract for the Base Bid to Palp, Inc., dba Excel Paving Co., of Long Beach, CA, in the amount of $1,942,256, and authorize a 15 percent contingency amount of $291,338, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,233,594; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; Adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6986 for the Alamitos Park Project, Park Improvements; award the contract to Monet Construction, Inc., of Glenda

LongBeachCC_02032015_15-0096

Yes, both. I think we need two items on item 17. It's quite lengthy, but that can be taken as one motion. But we need to separate 17 and 18. Okay. Mr. Clerk, item 17, please. Item number 17 Report from Public Works Financial Management in Parks Rec and Marine Recommendation two Amendments to the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to one way streets and alleys adopt resolution relating to traffic, authorize or right away exchange agreement with the Archdiocese Diocese of Los Angeles adopt. Resolution of intention to vacate a portion of public right away. Adopt plans and specifications for the Alamitos Park Project. Street and Storm Drain Improvements. Award the contract to Excel, paving for a total contract amount not to exceed 2,233,594 to monitor construction for a total contract amount not to exceed 1,000,862 668 to Smith Corporation for a revised total not to exceed amount of 1,000,031 400. Adopt and accept categorical exemptions. Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund by 250,000 and increase appropriations in the Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund by $400,000. District one. Councilman. Councilwoman Gonzalez, your item? I am so very thrilled to actually partake in this final, you know, approval of the traffic reconfigurations. I have to give many thanks to many different people, and you all certainly know who you are. First to our City Public Works City Manager and Public Works Director Sara malloy and our Parks Director George Chapman for getting going after our state grants. I know it was such a long process over the last six years that I had been in office or that I had been with the former council member in office. It was a lot of work. I remember the criteria just for being able to qualify for these state grants was such a tremendous task and being able to coordinate all of the meetings with our Craftsman Village or East Village Arts Councils, our DLP. A So many of you that participated in this wonderful project, and I think now we're finally at a point where we can, you know, say that we've accomplished this. So congratulations to many of you and thank you so much for being a part of this. So. Did you want to make a motion? Okay. It's already there. That's right. We're back to our technology. Councilman Gonzales made the motion. Councilmember Turanga. I made the second. Let me open up for public comment and go back to council. Is there any public comment on item 17? Casey None. Council member you ringa. Now just want to congratulate the councilman in the first district for pushing this through and getting it forward, looking forward to having a better and steadier flow of traffic in that area. And congratulations. And I also want to give my support for the staff to putting this together. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. We're all trying to figure out how to adjust our. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez as well. And to everyone associated with this project. I know a lot of the neighborhood associations throughout the first and Second District are in support of this project from its inception. And I wanted to also recognize Brian Maciejewski, whom I think is in the audience. He brought this forward to us several years ago and has been very tenacious, along with lots of members of the community to get this done. And it isn't that things take this long necessarily in the city, but it's an important enough issue that required a lot of in-depth review. And so I'd like to thank our community partners for their perseverance. Not only is it going to make this area much more attractive, but really safer for pedestrians and vehicles. And I think that balance was important to strike, and it did take as long as it did so that everyone, especially in our engineering, traffic engineering division, can feel supportive of this. And so with that, we were able to do it. So thank you and thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez, for seeing this through. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Thank you. I also want to offer my congratulations to the first District Council member for getting this through on your watch. This is exciting, unique and creative youth for space in in in a very, very dangerous area. I would think it creates obviously green space, but also improves traffic safety along MLK and Seventh Street, that interchange. But I'm a little bit confused. I had a question just for staff regarding subsets, section C of the staff report where it basically it kind of confuses me to determine whether or not this can and will be designated as an actual park. Mr. Malloy. I'll turn this over to our public works director, Ahmed Ahmed Lawan. Thank you. Honorable mayor, honorable council members, Honorable Austin, thank you for asking this question. I know it's kind of a difficult subject to to discuss, but for for the public right away to to to become a park, there are only two ways of doing that. Either we have to vacate the street. If we vacate the street by state law, the adjacent property owners will regain back half of the street. Therefore, they would not. No land would be left for us to produce any kind of park. So what we're doing is we're changing practically the use of the right of way. We're eliminating access for vehicular traffic. But again, it's a public right of way. People can walk and bicycle. And and also we have to have access for for the armory. So that use is still going to be remaining for the purposes of subsection C. We're basically saying that if you had a property that had a sister parcel number, pen number, then you could dedicate that for park purposes. And therefore under Section nine or five of our charter, any time you want to revert, take that use away. That means if it was one acre park, if you want to take that away, you have to have a 2 to 1 ratio. You have to bring in another park somewhere in the city, twice the size in order to be able to do this. We're saying here that this is not dedicated land for park purposes, for that section, but for all intensive purposes. It's a it's a park. It quacks like a duck. Walks like a park. It is a park. So you can change the name, use it as a park. And it is also underlying it's a it's a public ride away with a change of use. So a park is a park. Park is a park as a park. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. And I just wanted to make sure I think I mentioned him, but my head's been a little all over the place. But Mayor Garcia, I know working with him for the last five years prior to being elected in the Keys, the one that really drove a lot of this. And so I have to thank him as well for a lot of the work that he's been doing in addition to all the community members. And yes, Brian Laskowski, I told you this was your fault. So all of this happening right now is certainly your fault. And we thank you so much for that. But. All right. Or George, can someone go over just the park? I mean, it's been some time since we've talked about this, just to talk about some of the nicer elements of the park and what we can expect in the square footage because it's such a huge impact. I want people to really understand what we're working with here. Can we have the PowerPoint loaded, please? Yeah. Mr. Mayor and members of the city council. This will be for us a very active park. The size is about 36,000 square feet. 36 five, actually. Again, with Prop 84 funds, there's two art pieces that are going to be donated by the city. You'll see playground equipment on the north end of it. I'm sorry. Here we go. Right. Here's the playground. There's going to be some bias wheels here, kind of a bridge over here. There will be a skate element incorporated in this in this park and an area where the community can use for concerts, movies, that sort of thing . A nice open space that can also be utilized for programing of outdoor movies and concerts, that sort of thing. So basically, you know, playground equipment, skate park, boswells, open space, kind of a bridge, a natural bridge that the kids can actually, you know, it makes it look like they're in kind of a nature area. And also an art piece incorporated into the in the site. Great. And can you just describe a little bit about what the grant consisted of? Like the criteria that we had to meet. I know we were one of three that we received during that state, Prop 84 of funding opportunities. Is that. Correct? Yes, this was we we received $2.8 million for this from the state Prop 84 grant. And and one of the big criteria for them for the state really is the lack of park space within walking distance, within 15 minute walking distance, within a quarter mile. And this area is very woefully lacking in park space. So that was one of the big criteria. The other was community process. And they were very you know, they wanted the community very engaged in this process in terms of design. And we held, I think, five community meetings engaging the community in this process to design this park, pick the site and design it. So really, those were the key criteria for the state. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks to both of you. And I also have to extend an also a lot of gratitude to Mola, as well as the Pacific Island Ethnic Art Museum. I know both of them were very, very helpful and making sure that we had community meetings, we had a place to meet and that they were at the table as well, which is very important. So thank you very much. And that is it. Thank you. With that, we do have to take public comment. There's a motion on the floor by Councilwoman Gonzalez, seconded by Councilmember Oranga to approve item 17. Please, please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero. And item number 18, which is, I think a companion piece to this.

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Edwards offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Michael Bonetti and Judy Evers in City Council effective January 31, 2022.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0252

Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 025 to please. So I condemn a 0 to 5 to council of playing foot council. EDWARDS The chair seeks suspension of the rolls of passage of dockets 0 to 5. So, Mr. Clarke, please call the roll. Lucky number 0 to 5 to council Arroyo. Yes. Council Arroyo. Yes. Council a baker? Yes. Council the baker. Yes. Council aboard. Yes. Council aboard. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Council Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Yes. That's what Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Council clarity. Yes. Council clarity. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Council of Flynn. Yes. Council area. Yes. That's hilarious. Council of Louisiana. Yes. Counselor. Louisiana. Yes, counselor. Me here? Yes. That's what making a Councilor Murphy? Yes. Councilor Murphy? Yes. Councilor Warren. Yes. Councilor World. Yes. Mr. President. Docking number 0252 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke, please read docket 0253. Lucky number 0253. Council of Playing for Council Edwards.

AN ORDINANCE relating to new residential rental tenancies; giving a tenant a right of first refusal of a new tenancy after the expiration of a tenancy for a specified time; requiring a landlord to have just cause for declining to give a tenant the right of first refusal; requiring notice in advance of asserting just cause; creating a private right for action for the tenant; providing a defense to eviction when a landlord fails to give a tenant a right of first refusal; allowing a tenant to rescind a termination agreement; and amending Sections 7.24.030, 14.08.050, and 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_06072021_CB 120090

Agenda Item five Council Bill 120090 An ordinance relating to new residential rental tenancies. Giving a tenant a right of first refusal of a new tenancy after the expiration of a tenancy for a specified time. Requiring a landlord to have just cause for declining to give a tenant the right of first refusal requiring notice in advance of asserting just cause. Creating a private right for action for the tenant. Providing a defense to eviction. When a landlord fails to give a tenant a right of first refusal, allowing a tenant to rescind a termination agreement and amending section 7.24.30 14.0 8.050 and 22.20 6.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with Council member Sergeant Morales and Lewis in favor and Council Peterson opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Sala and Morales is customer Morales going to take the lead on addressing this one or are you just one? Oh, since we're both sponsoring, I'll speak as committee chair then of course, Councilman Morales and also Luis, I'm sure will want to add points. Perfect. Take it away. Thank you. This bill, as I said, is jointly sponsored by Councilmember Morales, his office and my office and co-sponsored by Councilmember Lewis. This bill creates a right of first refusal for renters to renew their lease unless a landlord has a just cause for refusing to renew the lease. As I've said before, this issue has been discussed by the Sustainable Living and Renters Rights Committee since March, and I really appreciate members engaging on this issue and appreciate being able to work alongside the Councilmember Morales office on this bill. We've heard as a committee from two panels of impacted renters and renter rights activists. We also discussed two previous draft of the legislation developed by our two offices, and through those discussions and technical feedback, it has become clear that what renters really need in these situations is the right of first refusal, where a landlord is required to give the current tenant the first chance to sign a new lease before offering that lease to any other renters unless there is a just cause. When there is need a new lease long before there's any question of eviction. I mean, we've heard from hundreds of renters who've been in the situation or who are about to be in this situation and who are strongly advocating for the passage of this bill to make sure that Seattle, just those protections cover all renters. Few renters who are told by their landlord that they will not have their lease renewed are going to refuse to leave because the law says they cannot be evicted because in real life, renters will end up doing what's called self eviction, which is starting to look for a new place to live, even though they know that it's unjust and that they cannot be evicted because understandably they don't feel confident with having to potentially fight it out in court. And in the course of discussing our bill in the committee, we heard from dozens of renters who called in for public comment and several who testified at the committee table who all recognize this legislation as basic common sense. And I wanted to express my gratitude to all the rank and file renters, not only those who testified publicly, but also who signed the petition community petition release from my office and just hundreds of rank and file renters who have spoken up about this issue. But I wanted to quote Lee, who is a Starbucks worker and a trans activist who also testified at our committee who said, quote, As a barista in this city, I struggled for months to find an affordable apartment to rent. Now, the apartment that I moved into has become less affordable each time I renew Molly's because they raise the rent every year. I'm afraid each time my lease is up that they will refuse to renew my lease, essentially putting me on the street and quote and maddeningly whom I quoted earlier, a public school educator who spoke in favor of the ban on solo evictions, but also spoke in favor of this bill, who said for the first time that I was evicted. It was after living in the house along with five roommates through two full six month leases without any problems filling. Our rooms are paying rent on time. After the conclusion of the second lease, however, our landlord abruptly decided that he would not renew our lease and that we would all be having to move out. The second time I was evicted, my landlord told us he was planning to convert our unit into an Airbnb and that we would not be able to renew our lease despite having no problems with us as tenants, unquote. So this bill puts the right of first refusal into the part of Seattle's law, which is Chapter 7.24 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has the power to enforce. That means that if the landlord does not offer a new lease and does not have a just cause 60 to 90 days before the end of the lease, that's called the date that they can back up in court. Then CCI has the power to follow up, investigate the other landlord that they either need to offer a new lease or present a just cause not do. Is DCA going to issue a citation or a notice of violation and started showing fines if a landlord refuses to follow the law, all this can happen before the lease ends . So ideally these issues can be resolved and the renter can get a new lease without anyone going to eviction court. And besides discussing with renters, we also discussed in my office with some landlords who contacted us that as I resigned from the council this morning, several small landlords we have spoken to support renters like legislation. Some even signed our community petitions, but some landlords that we talked to oppose this legislation. One of the landlords made an argument to us against this legislation where he said they are that some renters are a quote unquote headache and the end of the lease is a convenient time to get rid of the so-called headache renters. But the fact is, over the last seven years, my office has supported many renters facing abuse from their landlord. So when I hear claims like renters are a headache, I would ask what that means. I mean, this legislation allows landlords to refuse to a new lease if they have a just cause to refuse to do so. But, you know, it's a question of having been complying with Seattle just cause the list of just causes to review refused to renew this lease, not just any headache. So, in other words, if a renter reports a landlord to the Seattle Department of Construction inspections or housing code violations or violating the renters rights, that might be a headache for the landlord, but it is completely legal and just for the rent out you seek redressal. And it's not a just cause to kick out the renter. And as I said before, it is not a hypothetical example. This is a case that we've seen happen many times. Just in closing and the initial remarks, of course, I speak in closing again. But but last week's Councilmember Morales, his office in my office distributed four technical amendments to this legislation, clarifying the language. The amendments are attached to the agenda, and none of them make any substantive change. And after Councilmember Morales and Lois make introductory remarks, we can move those technical amendments. If Dr. Morales wants to move those amendments, that's. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember. Silent for the initial introduction of that particular bill, Councilmember Morales or Lewis, do you have any additional comments you'd like to make? Yeah. Morales, please. Q I'll be brief. I do think, Councilmember Salmon, for providing a good overview of the technical aspects of how this will work. And I think, you know, for 40 years, tenants have benefited from some kind of just cost protection in the city, which is has been great. Those protections for no guarantee that their home will continue to be their home once their current lease ends. And that's what we are trying to solve for here. So this bill brings, I think, the best elements of the two previous bills that councilmembers and I were working on, and much like the prior legislation, proposes a really simple fix that will ensure all tenants, regardless of where they are in their lease term or what kind of contract they have, that they'll be protected from a threat of no fault, no cause removal from their homes. It provides tenants the first right of refusal to either stay in their home on a new lease or a month to month lease or to voluntarily leave. And it also allows landlords to pursue removal if they have reason to cause reason for doing so. And then lastly, it does strengthen the tenants bargaining power by allowing them to rescind a mutual this termination in the case where they were pressured into signing one. So this is another way to make sure that we are keeping folks, our neighbors who rent, keeping some protections for them, extending protections from them, and also ensures that more renters in our city will benefit from tenant relocation assistance that is offered by the city. So, you know, as we as we start to move through recovery, as the emergency tenant protections are lifted, it's important that our neighbors who rent continue to receive some stability. And this is another way for us to make sure that that happens. I do want to thank Devon Silver now on my staff. He's been a trooper, really making sure that all these different tenant protections, the work that we're doing to try to protect our homeless neighbors all reflect what we are hearing from community and from our our houseless neighbors and from our renters in communities. So I really want to thank him for helping Shepherd bring their ideas into our council office and before full council today. And he is all I have, Councilman. That's all, Alex. Thank you so much, Councilman Morales. Because we're. Lewis, please. Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to be brief on this and rest mostly on my comments that I made a committee. You know, I did have the opportunity then to address that. Several of the issues that have been raised by a lot of folks that have concerns over this bill are are mostly. Addressed by the. Fact that with with just cause there can be notice provided. So it's not a, you know, if you still do not want to, for whatever reason, renew a lease. So this is a pretty reasonable change to make sure that the spirit of our just cause eviction protections are defending tenants when they. Are. Seeking a renewal to roll their tenancy that they've depended on and the place where they have found community and living as our neighbors. And to continue to do that, I think we in a lot of ways tend to take for granted the the investment the tenants make when they really put down roots and become part of the neighborhoods in our city. And this is really making sure that we continue to hold tenants as as equal members of our neighborhoods and not somehow folks that that are more fungible and that don't deserve the kind of security that folks who own homes can enjoy. And I think this gets us one step closer to that. And I'm happy to support this. And I don't really have anything else to add, but the co-sponsors did not add. So in the interest of time, I think I'll leave it there. Thank you so much, Customer Louis. Are there any additional comments before we close out debate? Actually, we're not going to close that debate because we have four amendments we need to consider. So I. I got ahead of myself there. Okay. So looks like there's no additional comments from the sponsors of the bill. So now we're going to go ahead and consider we have four different amendments to consider, and I am going to hand it back over to council. So want to give me some direction on who is going to advance those amendments. But it doesn't matter to me. Councilmember Rawlins, did you want to move the first three amendments and I'll move the last one. Sure works for me. Shall I? I move. Amendment 1/2. All right. It's been moved and seconded to adopt a proposed amendment one where. Morales, would you like to describe Amendment One? Sure. As I said, this is a technical amendment that acknowledges that federal law supersedes local law in this matter. Three. Any comments or questions on proposed Amendment one? Hearing none. Will the court please call the rule on the adoption of Amendment One? Or as I. Lewis. I. Morales Yes. Mosquito I. PETERSON Hi. Suzanne. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I. Seven in favor and then oppose. The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the amended bill an amended bill is before the Council proposed amendment to Councilor Morales. I move amendment to. Is there a second chicken? It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill is presented on amendments to. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Morales to address Amendment two and then we'll take comments. Sure. This amendment just clarifies that a new lease will start on the day following the expiration of the previous lease. Pretty straightforward. Are there any additional comments on proposed amendment to. Hearing none will accept. Please call the role on the adoption of amendment to. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales. S. Was scary. I. Peterson I. Want yes council president Giddens follows. I. Seven and seven unopposed oppose. The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilman Morales for Amendment three. No. I move Amendment three. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Wanted an Amendment three. So Casmir Morales I'll let you quickly address it and then we'll take comments, if any. Sure. This just clarifies that a landlord and tenant can agree to a new lease before the 60 to 90 day window mandated in this legislation. Any comments or questions on proposed Amendment three? Harry. None will accept. Please call a vote on the adoption of Amendment three. Whereas I. Lewis. I. Morales as mosquera. I. Petersen I. So want. Yes. Council President Nicholas. I. Seven in favor and unopposed. The motion carries. The amendment is adopted and bill is before the council. Council Member So once you have amendments, once. I move amendment for. The second. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment four because they were silent. Would you like to address Amendment four? Yes. This is also a technical amendment it refutes if it removes redundant language about how mutual termination agreements work when the renter has a housing voucher. Are there any additional comments or questions on proposed amendments for. Hearing that all the parties call the roll on the adoption of Amendment four. Whereas I. Lewis. Hi. MORALES Yes. Must to. I. Peterson. Hi. Swan. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I seven in favor and unopposed. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Okay. That does cover all of the proposed amendments. So we now have a fully amended bill before the Council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Peterson, please. Thank you. Council President I think I would have been able to support this legislation. Council 4120090 Especially with these technical and these good technical amendments today. If a similar state law had not recently passed, but a similar state law has recently passed House Bill one, two, three, six and in my opinion, counts 4120090 is preempted by the state law, which includes but is not limited to that House Bill 1236. As I understand it, local laws are generally preempted by state laws that conflict on the same subject matter, even if the state law does not expressly include a preemption clause. So it's not clear to me why the city council is proceeding to adopt a city law that could burden the city with substantial legal risk. So consistent with my vote at the committee level, I'll be voting no on Council Bill 1290090 because of the concerns of preemption in state government. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any other comments about the bill as amended? Right. I'm not seeing any hands raised because, remember, Sam wants more Alice or Lewis. Any closing remarks? I do the closing remarks, but I'm going to do all this to. She's saying she doesn't have anything else she wants to say. And I'm not seeing Councilmember Lewis. So you get the last word, councilmember silent and then we'll call this bill to a vote. Okay. Thank you, Contreras and Gonzalez. And thank you again to Member Morales for your office's work on this alongside our office. It's really important that we have brought this bill to potential passage in a few minutes. And thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for co-sponsoring. This bill is part of the overall important victories that renters are winning today in Seattle as protection from unjust and devastating eviction. With this bill, we are closing the loophole, as Morales said, for decades left renters on external leases like a one year lease or a six month lease with zero protections at the end of the lease . And, you know, we we in this council meeting, we passed legislation providing renters with additional eviction protections for rent due to COVID eviction protections for children during the school year. And we've urged the mayor and the governor to extend the eviction moratorium. These are all crucial victories. But we also need to be clear that eviction is only one issue renters face. It's a very crucial issue. But in addition to that, we also know that renters are facing unaffordable rent increases. And as far as the corporate landlord lobby is concerned, it's going to be business as usual. Now that vaccinations have been available and the economy is starting to go back to what seems like a little bit of normalcy since the last year. But nationwide, we're seeing every time average rents increase. And this was pre-pandemic, every time average rent increase by $100. Homelessness increases by 15%. The staggering causal link between rent increase and homelessness increase and rent in Seattle have increased by $100 many times over. So as I've informed the city council before, my office has prepared several renters rights bills related to rent increases. Including rent control that we will be bringing to the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee later this month. But first, what we are. What we have is a bill that we will introduce requiring landlords to give renters six months notice for rent increases, which has been a successful measure in cities around the world. So we won't be charting new terrain here. We will be following other cities that have already passed such a law. We also have sent to the City Attorney's Office for introduction a bill that creates relocation assistance for renters who are forced to move by unacceptable rent increases. And as I said, we showed a draft rent control bill that will limit rent reasons to more no more than the rate of inflation and is devoid of the many problematic loopholes that laws in New York or California have introduced, which end up affecting renters badly and also damages the credibility of the ability of rent control to actually provide protections. For the last several years, I've called for a renter's bill of rights centering around rent control, but also including all these other issues. And I thank Morales for also calling for such a bill of rights that is really important. And once again, I want to thank our in our office everyone in my office specifically want to recognize Eduardo and Jonathan Rosenblum, who were part of really making sure that we had everything ready and making sure that we had all our technical work and our organizing work ready to go. I wanted to thank Adam, Jim Koski and Nick Jones, and sarcasm are also and also the volunteers who have been working with our office and talking to renters around the city. I wanted to thank everyone who called in support of the renters rights bills today and in the previous committee meetings. And I urge everybody who is watching to join us at the next meeting of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on June 22nd to begin the discussion of the upcoming Renters Rights Bill. Thank you. It's so much conspiracy and that does conclude debate on this particular bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Whereas now. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mesquita I. Peterson So. Excellent. Yes. Council President Gonzalez. High. Five in favor. Two opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the caucuses affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any other further business to come before the Council? Hearing than colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Tuesday. I'm sorry, is that right? Tuesday? I think it's a monday. Monday, June 14th. Monday, June 14th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We're adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute the necessary documents with Dell Marketing, LP (Dell), utilizing the approved Dell Master Purchase Agreement No. 28280, for the purchase of personal computers, in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a lease-purchase agreement, and related financing documents, with Banc of America Public Capital Corp, of San Francisco, CA, for the financing of personal computers, in an amount not to exceed $1,290,000 including escrow fees, principal, and interest, payable over a five-year period. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08042020_20-0724

Item number 34. Could you please begin? Or from technology and innovation recommendation to execute the necessary documents with Dell utilizing the approved Dell Master Purchase Agreement. The purchase of personal computers in an amount not to exceed 1,200,000 citywide. Okay. So you probably got. Yes. We have Dave Shukla. Your time starts now. Oh, boy. Last, I promise. Same considerations of those on many previous consent calendar items. We need an Office of Public Data Protection and Office of Public Data Control. Public Data Advocacy. Something we think. Yes. Could I please get a second on this? I come from Iraq and that's moms and dads. She. First. Okay. Progress and and counting, Miranda. District one. I District two. District two. District three. By. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. By. District seven. By 809. That motion carries. Thank you.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, all necessary documents and amendments, with the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), to receive and expend grant funding in the amount of $2,700,000, to support the Long Beach cannabis social equity program, for the approximate period of June 15, 2020 through June 14, 2021; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $2,700,000, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05192020_20-0452

So let me go to these other items. They should go rather quickly and then we'll get to the other items. Item item 15, please. Report from city manager recommendation to adopt resolution to execute an agreement with. Job is to receive and expend grant funding in the amount of 2,700,000 to support the Long Beach Cannabis Social Equity Program citywide. Got a motion and a second. Councilmember Ranga and Councilmember Richard send any comment by either not seeing any. Kind of text that I couldn't text fast enough. I'm going to recuse myself on this just to be safe. Go ahead and recuse yourself and just use the Q system, please. Couldn't text fast enough. I wanted to make sure I talked. From the from. The motion in a second. Members, please go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one district with no. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to report back in 30 days on the feasibility of a pilot ADA beach access mat at the Granada Beach ramp and opportunities to install in other beach and park locations.

LongBeachCC_07132021_21-0651

And then after 24, we're going right into item 30. Item 24 Communication from Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to report back in 30 days on the feasibility of a pilot Ada Beach Access Mat at Granada Beach Ramp. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to the community members who have worked with my staff on this topic, in particular Kim Long Indica McClain. This item is one that I'm super excited about to for us to have here in Long Beach, despite significant efforts by the city to ensure that all Long Beach residents feel welcome and have access to our city facilities and resources. One area is not yet accessible to everyone. Our wonderful beaches are not accessible to residents with mobility limitations. Our sandy beaches present a difficult access hurdle for residents using wheelchairs, walkers or other mobility related support. With the goal. Of allowing all residents to have access to our coastline, the city should evaluate the feasibility of developing a pilot Ada Beach Access mat at Granada Beach launch ramp or other location that the city staff might recommend to better understand the opportunities, impacts, maintenance and products available. With the goal. Of developing an ADA Beach and Park access program throughout the city. The recommendation for Granada Beach comes from the make up of Granada Beach and that it's already a launch and has a lot of a paved area already which would allow for wheelchairs and walkers and other devices that can't traverse the sand to have a further distance to go on the concrete before the map would be rolled out to go to the water. So I want to ask my council colleagues for their support of this item is long overdue. Frankly, I'm ashamed that we didn't bring this item earlier. To me, it's a no brainer that we should have thought about earlier, and I'm so grateful that we are now in the place where we can bring it. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor. But a big and special thank you to Councilmember Price for Agenda using this item. We live in such a diverse and beautiful city that continues to grow and continues to be a leader in so many areas, such as ensuring accessibility in city facilities and resources to on. Yet for years, we as a city shamefully have discarded the fact that people with mobility, limitations and other disabilities have not been able to enjoy the main feature of our city, which is the beach. So I am extremely supportive of this pilot program that will begin to change that and will ensure that everyone, not just some one or some of our residents, but everyone will be able to live, work and play in their own city. I had the personal experience of having access to the beach all the way in Malibu because of wheelchair accessible meant that was there. And I just want to thank the advocates, my fellow disability advocates, for reaching out and making this need known to us, the council on and really stressing how important it is for us to be able to include everyone and for everyone to be able to enjoy our beaches here in Long Beach. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this item forward and Councilmember Sun has an Allen for signing on. I really want to thank our advocates, Kim, as well as DICKERSON, many other who have been advocating for accessibility in our city. And I agree that it's just long overdue and so glad that we're able to that this items brought forward for us to do feasibility studies to ensure that we increase the ability in our city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ellen. Yes. I also want to thank Councilwoman Price for bringing this item forward. I think having access is so important and I've wanted to see expanded access. I'm ADA access to our beaches for a long time especially that goes all the way to the water, not just to like where the lifeguard towers are. I have spoken to city staff and with members of our Citizens Advisory Commission on Disabilities about the need for this. And I announced that I would be supporting such expanded access back in June, starting with the Pride Tower. So I just look forward to greater access at the Granada Beach and to our beaches and just thank you so much, Council on Price and Van de Hoss and also Sylvie for bringing this forward. Thank you. And then just before we start public comment, I just want to also certainly thank everyone that's bringing this forward, but especially I want to thank all the advocates I know that I see just Kim and Decker and so many others that you've been advocating, whether it's been through the commission or just as advocates, not just for this project, but also for so many other projects as it relates to accessibility and making sure that we are accessible for everyone, whether it's playgrounds, whether it's beach access, whether it's fixing infrastructure. So I just want to personally thank you all again for all that work would not be happening without all of you. And then let's go out and call public comment. Think McCain Newby, a florist. Gretchen Swanson and Kim Bong. Please line up. I want to make sure before I speak. I think you mispronounced my name. So you were trying to call Deacon McClain, right? Yes. Sorry about. That. Thank you. I feel like my name has been mentioned quite a bit, so I don't know if I need to come up here. Okay. Good evening. My name is Deacon McClain. I'm a former Citizens Advisory Commission of Disabilities chairperson. I've served for eight years on Cape Cod, and I'm very, very happy to see the council finally taking action on making beaches more accessible. This was an issue that had been discussed and recommendations were written about it. Years ago, but I want to make emphasis. This discussion started in 2017 and it was discussed in at least three or four meetings of key court. And one of those meetings, our Honorable Mayor Garcia was there. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and City Council for supporting beach accessibility and the installation of a moby Mac at the District three Big Beat. Last week you passed the cities for our Global Initiative. So not so let's not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. Let this be a beginning for a more accessible and inclusive Brown Beach that includes not only beaches at the waterfront, but also our parks in public spaces. All needs are. This is a necessity. I see the mobile map as the first of many steps, not the only step. It is no longer enough to just be do the minimum, to just be ADA compliant. We need to expand the conversation in action to make our city more inclusive and accessible. We need accessible items like these in. By saying this, James Baldwin said it best. Not everything that is placed can be changed, but nothing could be changed it till it is replaced. And today, council an honorable mayor. Today is the day we are facing you today with this issue. We invite you to face the issue with us and always remember, as it is said in our disability community. Nothing about us without us. Thank you. You'll be a force. I think Kim's going to go next. It's okay. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Kendra and I live in the second district. I also am a member of the Citizens Advisory Commission on Disabilities for the City. A couple of months ago, I saw a post on the new beach playground. I was the person who brought the need for more accessible equipment at the playground and an access mat on the beach to enable people with disabilities and to be able to get to the water safely and comfortably. My own experience illustrates this problem. I am an adult with cerebral palsy and I use a walker for mobility. I have lived on the beach in Long Beach for 11 years, and during that time I have never been able to get to the water on my own because I cannot use my walker in the sand. There are numerous beaches in Los Angeles County that provide access maps. This spring, the county unveiled its latest mat at Venice Beach. In Orange County, Huntington Beach, recently began providing an access map for beachgoers. The cost of the measure would depend on the distance, but judging from the company websites, it probably costs only a few thousand dollars . Mats can be rolled up and stored when the beach is not open and is remanufactured using durable materials that would provide many years of use. According to the U.S. Census, 7% of the population under age 65 has a disability and 11% of the population is age 65 or older. Since many of these residents have mobility issues, providing a beach access mat would be an investment that would benefit potentially thousands of residents and visitors to the city as well. In addition to benefiting people with disabilities, the parents with young children would benefit as well. Average, Matt can provide additional safety for a parent holding their young children. As the sand is difficult to walk in. It also would enable them to use strollers and other build equipment more easily. I feel that an access map can be a benefit to everyone that wants to enjoy the beach. I hope you will support and struggling to access beach mats in Long Beach for people with disabilities. Dan Tehan live in Belmont and they may not be able to get to that beach using public transportation, which many of them rely upon. I would like to also request an access beach map in the Alamitos Beach area. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Anyway. Let me take off my security blanket. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Nubian Flores and I'm a proud District nine resident and I'm chairperson of the Citizens Advisory Commission on Disabilities. I'm here to ask I'm here to speak in support of agenda item number 24, as the item reads, now that in 30 days you will receive a report back on the feasibility of implementing accessible beach pathways to the water for our residents that require mobility support like wheelchairs and walkers. I would implore, I would implore you to please also lay out actionable and swift steps to have mobility maps at our beaches as soon as possible. These are long overdue and already in use in our neighboring cities. I would also ask that you install these beach mats in at least three of our beaches, at least one in each of the waterfronts that cover districts one, two and three. We cannot just take into consideration we cannot just take into consideration improved accessibility at the beach. We must also consider public transportation and our most accessible walkways to these waterfronts. Take into consideration the travel, time and accessibility for a resident of North Long Beach to Belmont Shores. Let's not just keep being about the minimum. Let's offer options, give residents choices. We know via our Cape Cod Commission that we have approximately 47,000 residents that identify. As having as a. Disability. From children to seniors. Last week you adopted the Cities for All Global Initiative, a pledge that and directive to make public spaces accessible and inclusive. The pandemic has showed us the importance of outdoor spaces like our parks and our beaches. As we continue to make our way back to community. Let's take action and make spaces like our beaches as accessible as possible and do it with urgency. Thank you for taking this first step and thank you, Councilmember Price, for leading this initiative. Thank you to the council members who have taken the time to meet with US Commissioners and listen to the recommendations from our commission. We're in this together. Let's get this done for our residents of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you to the commission again for all the great work. There is a motion in a second on the items. Swanson. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. How many more public comments do we have. That can please public comment? Well, that concludes public comment. Did you call another name? Yeah. Sheila. She's not here. Okay. All right, so let's go ahead and take a vote, please. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor Richardson. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE granting IC/RCDP Seattle Hotel, LLC permission to continue maintaining and operating a pedestrian tunnel under and across Seneca Street, between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123539; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120076

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. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized to give the committee report. Thank you. Colleagues, this is the fourth and final item. It's a renewal of permit for an existing pedestrian tunnel as described in the title of the council bill. Our committee unanimously recommended approval. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any comments or questions on this item? Not seeing any. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS Yes. MORALES This was set up. By. Peterson. High. Council president pro tem vote yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. Moving forward to item 14 on the agenda, can you please read item 14 into the record? President Pro-Tem, did we get your signature on the last council? Bill? You got me. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you. So yes, moving forward to item 14, please read item 14 into the record. Agenda item 14. Resolution 32006. A resolution requesting the Federal Aviation Authority to transfer excess property around the air route surveillance radar facility at Discovery Park to the city of Seattle for Seattle Parks and Recreation Purposes.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Public Works Department to prepare a report exploring the costs and feasibility of expanding the Alamitos Beach parking lot and adding additional parking on Shoreline Drive and surrounding areas.

LongBeachCC_08102021_21-0769

Okay. Thank you. And with that, we will go here. Item number 13, please. Item 13. Communication from Councilman Allen. Recommendation two requires city manager to prepare a report exploring the cost and feasibility of expanding the Alamitos Beach parking lot and adding additional parking on Shoreline Drive and surrounding areas. Councilman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sure that we all know that parking is a major issue, especially in my district. And boy, did I hear a lot about that when I was knocking on doors and campaigning. I do want to thank Director Eric Lopez and his team for their insights and for working with me and the team and staff. This is a really big deal. As you know, parking is difficult for residents, businesses, visitors throughout the second District and the pandemic has further contributed to the reduction in available parking. And as the city continues to grow and we emerge from the pandemic and as businesses, events and community organizations begin resuming their normal operations, adding additional parking is going to be imperative. The Alamitos Beach neighborhood is especially impacted with the completion of the Café concession stands and the upcoming proposed installation of the We Built Water feature, which I'm really excited about. And the 2028 Olympics is on the horizon. We are anticipating more tourist and people visiting Long Beach for events and recreational activities. This this item today would significantly expand both the parking lot and public access to the waterfront areas. I think it's also important to look at transportation issues holistically, and therefore I've asked public works to look into expanding alternative options, which include secured bike parking, destination scooter parking zones, storage lockers for pedestrians and bus riders, electric vehicle charging zones, and any and all other creative solutions that can be deployed that are have been deployed in other cities. I'd also like to see in the future some kind of outreach to our residents and see what their appetite is for creating a parking improvement district, possibly buying parking lots or creating shuttle systems. I just think it's important that we look at all of these these options. So this will be the first of many items that I will be introducing to tackle this issue. And I look forward to seeing what public works will bring back and find solutions that improve our parking and transit capabilities. Thank you. I do have a quick question. I have heard from residents at the Villa Riviera about late night noise and activity in the parking lot. What are our options for securing that that lot at night and. Is a gate or any other physical barrier possible. Council member. The we are installing some security features. We're actually working right now to install some security cameras in that area. And there is infrastructure in place for a potential gate arm. We just need to do additional evaluation with any regulatory permit restrictions that we may have from either Coastal Commission or others. So that is an item we can look at and we're happy to see what we can do in order to help with what the issue. Thank you very much. Thank you. Seeing no further council comments. Any public comment on this of comment? Okay. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending terms and conditions pertaining to the emergency bill assistance program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) emergency; and amending Section 21.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_11292021_CB 120225

The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120225 An ordinance relating to the City Life Department amending terms and conditions pertaining to the Emergency Bill Assistance Program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 Emergency and amending Section 21.4 9.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Thank you so much. I'm of the past council. Bill 120225. Is there a second? Second? Thank you so much. It's been. The bill has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Peterson, you are the sponsor of the bill. I'm going to hand it over to you to address the item. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned, council briefing this morning, these next two council bills on the agenda will extend a key release program for overdue utility bills for lower income households that are customers of Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. Seven months ago, on April 19th, the Council approved enhancements to our local emergency assistance programs that lower the overdue utility bills for struggling low income households. Those enhancements were set to expire next month, due in part to the persistence of the COVID pandemic. These two bills would extend these program enhancements to the end of 2022. On today's agenda, the first item that will vote on is council 120225, which is for Seattle City Lights. The second item is Council a12022640 Utilities. Our City Council central staff reviewed both those and had no concerns. Both utilities and I recommend passage of these bills for the emergency assistance programs. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120225 Agenda Item one. Hearing. No additional comments will please call the role on the passage of Council. Bill 120225. Agenda Item one. Verbal. Yes. Juarez. I. Louis. Yes. Morales s must gether. I Peterson. I so want. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez, i. Eight in favor and oppose. Thank you. The bill passes and the terrible Senate bill to please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the quick please read item two into the record. Agenda item two Council Bill 120226 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID induced customer delinquencies and amending Section 21.7 6.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

AN ORDINANCE relating to property at Sand Point; authorizing the Director of Housing to execute an easement agreement for a sanitary sewer main line with the University of Washington; authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of cottages for people experiencing homelessness on a parcel owned by the City and leased to SP Cottages LLC; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11152021_CB 120218

And the item for Council Bill 120218 an ordinance relating to property at some point authorizing the Director of Housing to execute an easement agreement for a sanitary sewer main line with the University of Washington. Authorizing related agreements and actions to support the development of cottages for people experiencing homelessness on a parcel owned by the city and leased to SB Cottages LLC. And ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. I moved the past council bill 120218. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. I'm going to hand it over to Councilor Mosquito, who is the prime sponsor of this bill in order to address the item. Thank you very much, Council President. Although this legislation is very technical, I am still excited. This legislation helps us advance a long anticipated project like Cottages for People Experiencing Homelessness. By way of background, in 2019, the Council approved legislation to lease city owned property on the former Sandpoint Naval Station site to Lehigh. That's the low income Housing Institute for creation of 20 to 25 units to serve individuals from families making 40% of the area median income. The project will serve homeless families who are children, seniors, veterans, people with physical disabilities, their community members. And we're really excited about the cottage vision that has been drawn up for this location and the way in which it integrates directly into community and creates thriving, local, connected neighbors. The cottages will have living and sleeping areas lofts and kitchens and bathrooms on site. The community will include common buildings, community gardens, outdoor recreation space and walking paths. Construction on the cottage is currently underway. There are being built modular through modules. I can't say that word around offsite by students in pre apprenticeship programs and using vocational training programs. These modules will be assembled onsite by a general contractor. We anticipate groundbreaking will occur January 2020, with tentative opening in September or October of 2022. This legislation helps move the project forward by enabling the Office of Housing to enter into an easement agreement with Connect with the connected University of Washington's adjacent sewer line. Thank you to Councilmember Peterson for your interest in this legislation as well, and happy to have you as a co-sponsor on this. I want to thank Representative Frank Chopp for all of the work that he has done specific in this area and helping to bring this vision to reality. I look forward to working with all of you over the next few years to do more of more projects like this, and specifically in bringing this project to life later next year. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Mosqueda, are there any additional comments? Councilmember Peterson. Go ahead. Thank you. Council President Thank you, Councilmember Skinner, for taking the lead on this. And I want to thank University Washington as well as Lehigh. And and like you said, Representative Frank Chopp, this project follows in the footsteps of other long term housing projects. And in District four, such as Gossett Place and Marion West and our court and the solid ground housing already at Magnuson Park and Mercy Magnuson housing there as well. This project is on the western edge of Magnuson Park and then of course the Cedar Crossing projects, which is under construction right now on top of Roosevelt Light Rail Station. So proud to be supportive of this low income housing infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Peterson. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing no additional hands raised will occur. Please call the will on the passage of the bill. Paterson. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Skinner I. Council. President Gonzalez I am in favor and oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any further business to come before the Council? I'm not seeing any hands raised. So Collins is just going through the items of business. On today's agenda, our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on November 22nd, 2021, at 2:00 pm, the very same day we are slated to vote. Take the final votes on our budget. So I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. I will see many of you later on this week, but for now we are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Flagship Airport Services, Inc. concerning janitorial services at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Flagship Airport Services Inc. for $182,986,361.33 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for janitorial services at the main terminal and concourses at Denver International Airport (201953023). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-16-20.

DenverCityCouncil_01042021_20-1530

Yes, Madam President, I move the resolution 20 dash 1530 be adopted so I can thank you. It's been moved. And we've got the second from Councilman Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to postpone. Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that consideration of council resolution 20 dash 1530 be postponed to Tuesday, January 19, 2021. All right. Thank you. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Airport staff contacted me shortly before the meeting and asked that this bill be delayed to that date. And they asked me to read a brief statement explaining why. So this is from DIA or Dan? I still call it DIA. Dan celebrates individuality and the uplifting of all races, ethnicities, national origins, ages, abilities, religions and LGBTQ A-plus plus communities. We support access, inclusion, equity and diversity and have worked hard to reflect that in the contracting ad. Then we understand that this contract has raised concerns in the community and wish to take time to listen to their concerns and to discuss the intent of this contract and its novel approach to not just including minority and women owned businesses in contracts, but helping them to succeed. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. When I. Herndon. I Hines. Hi. Cashman. All. You need. I think. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 eyes. Consideration of Council Resolution 20 Dash 1530 has been postponed to Tuesday, January 19. The next item up is Council Resolution 20, Dash 1472. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on 1472. Thank you, Madam President. We actually got the answers to these questions right before. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. The next item up, did you get your questions answered on 1531 as well? No, that one. I still have questions on, so. Okay. All right. Great. If you wouldn't mind going ahead with your questions on 1531, then. Yes. Thank you very much. I believe Laura Walker's on the call and I had a couple of follow up questions from their responses. I was curious about this contract because it seems like this company has had the contract for quite a while, and we were told that they're the only vendor who can provide this service. And I'm wondering when the last time it was that it went out to bid. And what is the challenge? Why aren't other vendors able to to provide this service? All right. Thank you, Councilwoman and I on my seat here I have Joe. Separate. And I see we've got Laura walked her up as well. So whoever wants to answer that question. Good afternoon, members of Council. I will let us take both Josep Prieto from Technology Services, take the lead on answering those questions. And I believe we also have Steve Hahn on as well. Yes. This is Steve on. I'm on Joe. I'm happy to go. The question is, when was it last sent out to bid? This was a contract it was entered into in 2008. And I spoke with some people from technology services and we don't have couldn't find the records of the RFP from 2008 so. We can't tell you whether it did or didn't go out for competitive process at that time. But in the resolution request, it was designated as noncompetitive. And why is that? Why is what? Why is it noncompetitive? So it's. It's. Was marked as noncompetitive, I assume. And Joe, you might want to chime in because because records couldn't be found from a competitive process in 2008. Joe, can you confirm that? Yeah. I looked into al fresco, I believe, for notes and comments when the original contract was initiated. And I believe that it was noted as a. Professional preference or a sole source. So that's the information I passed along in the resolution request. Sexual preference or a sole source by Denver Police Department. And can you explain to the public watching what that means? That means in lieu of doing a solicitation process, the agency's subject matter experts have deemed a certain product to. Meet all the needs. That other products can't meet. I guess in essence, it's it's they deemed it as the product that meets all the needs that other other products cannot meet. And what are those needs exactly? What does this system do? So this system is explorer? Yeah, this is our records management system. So this is our system in which the police uses. It is in our vehicles. It is in our. On our iPhones. And it keeps track of all the all of our criminal records. It integrates to all of our our. It's. Out of our other criminal justice tech technologies. It integrates with our jail system. It integrates in with our court system. So it tracks all of our our police records. And so do other cities use this company or did this company come into existence just for us? Other cities do use first term. I don't know which which ones do use it. And also the Mayor Hancock, he added in in zero eight and 2012 regarding the competitive selection policy. So back what happened in 2008, I'm not sure what did happen in 2008 regarding the competitive selection process. And are they a local business? Joe, do you know where they're located? I do not know where they're located, but I certainly can find out and let you know. And so is there a plan for this to go out to bid next time, or are we keeping it a sole source contract? And what what prevents us from finding out if other people will provide this service? It's my understanding that this amendment is for three years. So through 2023 and we are currently in the process of looking at public safety technology consultants and just looking at taking a look at our CAD system or our system and just looking at how all of these systems integrate. So we'll know more and you know, in the future regarding. What we want to do, regarding. The future of arms and CAD public safety technologies. Every time we do an amendment, we ask those questions whether this should be built out. If there are other competitors on the market. And I believe if this information is in the resolution request that I submitted, we do take it. We do analyze the market. And there are other products on the market. But then we get into the expense it would cost to rebid and possibly go with a new vendor. And that gets into implementation services, data migration, training, etc., etc.. So that that is analyzed every time we do an amendment and taken into consideration before we just extend the current contract. And so real quick on this, because it came up with another safety database. Is this a data system that the independent monitor has default access to? No. The independent monitor does not have access. I don't believe the independent monitor has access to this to the system. What you're thinking of is the evidence scheme system, which we're working through. No, I'm actually just thinking generally of all of the systems an independent monitor should probably have access to. And I'm wondering why why an independent monitor wouldn't have access to police records. These are all of the criminal justice records that I can definitely look into that question and get back to. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. The. We've gotten some email about. This money is not coming from the budget. I think this was also a public comment not coming from the Denver Police Department budget. We vote on every contract that's over a half million dollars, regardless where it's budgeted. Is this in the Denver Police Department or in the Department of Safety 2021 budget? This contract is currently budgeted within the 2021 budget of technology services. And just after that I can speak more to that. I echo exactly what you just said. This is not an expansion to the tax budget. It is a current, currently budgeted maintenance payment. And it has always been since 2008 in the technology services budget. I don't know. Off the top of my head, I can find that out for you. I guess that that might be a tough question, but let's say in 2020, was it a decade in technology services at the time? It's not like we moved it out of the police department. If it wasn't in safety in 2020 and now in technology services in 2021, I guess is definitely my question. That's correct. It was never in the police department for. To my knowledge. So definitely not in 2020. And I don't I don't know the the authenticity of of Wikipedia. But they say that verse a term is a is a company based in Canada and they've got several different police departments on Wikipedia article. So I would I would certainly encourage that we have shorter periods of time between contracts like a 12 year no bid contract . That seems it seems like a long time. So I would encourage safety and technology services to to look at this before it comes up, before council again, so that we can see if we can find a U.S. or even better local vendor. And and and we can come up with a more a more detailed explanation as to why other vendors don't don't fit our needs. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. So in other questions on that resolution, we're going to move forward. The next item up is council resolution 20, dash 1482. And thanks, Joe and Laura for helping out with the previous one. But we have Councilwoman Ortega. Please go ahead with your comments on 20 Dash 1482. Thank you, Madam President. Rather than calling out all of the Oracle contracts, I just picked one to make some comments about. So, first of all, I want to just commend Dottie and I want to thank Jason Gallardo and some other Dottie staff who met with me last week to walk through the changes that they have made to the contracting process and to the transparency of providing quarterly reports and information on these on call contracts. As you know, if there are no EMB goals attached to any of them, we approve them on the front end and we never know what happened to them. You know how much they utilized, you know, just all those details. And so these quarterly reports will have a lot more information. We talked about some things that are missing in the reports that they're going to work on for the next quarterly report that we do get. But I think this is a huge. In addressing equity. And as you know, with the mayor now mandating every agency to incorporate equity into their work. This is a huge part of unbundling contracts, making sure that we are spreading the wealth with the vast amount of money that comes through this city for contracting and ensures that we are working with local businesses for this this work to be done. That's basically it. I mean, I could get into a lot of other things. But the bottom line is, is that we've made some pretty huge steps in correcting some. Deficiencies in the transparency of us doing our contracts. And you all know that I hate to call contracts, but I know this is a way and just for the public that's listening. You know, we've got 45 on call contracts tonight on our agenda. But what happens is there's like a mini bid process. So they're not all for the same category, the same type of work. And when we have a specific project, they'll be like a mini bid process that will be done to then figure out of the, say, ten people in this one category that got approved, they'll then define the scope of work on the project and then select one of those ten companies that would then do the work. And part of the transparency, that's important. Ensure that we don't keep using the same companies over. And those same companies keep using the same subcontractors over and over. But that. More of our local businesses into the mix and that we're far more successful in spreading that wealth and making sure that we are. Working with everybody in our community. So thank you, Madam President. Those those are my comments on this. I don't intend to call it out for a vote, but just wanted to make those statements. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We have Councilman Sawyer up next. Thanks, Madam President. I think, you know, many people know I agree with Councilwoman Ortega's statements. I absolutely cannot stand the giant blank check contracts that have come through and vote no on them every time. It really concerned me. And just because from a transparency and accountability standpoint, we don't know where that money goes. We get quarterly reports on them and that's great. And I very much appreciate that. But, you know, it's it's very hard to track. It's very hard to kind of to keep track of where that money is going. And so this is a lot of extra work on the part of our staff, and it's a lot of extra work on the part of the Dismas staff that pulled this together for them. So I really want to thank Adrina and her team for the work that they did, as well as Jason and Ulysse and his team. They came together and and really revamped this entire process for us and listened to our feedback and our concerns and redid this entire thing. And I just wanted to give them a huge shout out and say thank you, because in terms of transparency and accountability, they made huge strides forward with these contracts. So thank you all very much. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I would just add quickly, I want to commend Councilwoman Ortega as she has been working on this for a long time. That's been a subject of interest to me as well. But I just am traveling in her slipstream. She's really taken the lead on it. And I want to recognize that as Councilwoman Sonya just did the work of public works or Dotty in improving the reporting. And I just wanted to point out to members that DIA is going through the same process, and I've been working with them to make similar reports on their own calls so that there will be much more information and data and transparency available to all of us. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, and appreciate the work of Dottie and Jason and their entire team. It's good to see us evolve with these contracts. So see in other questions. The next item up is Council Bill 20 1524. Councilwoman CdeBaca, go ahead with your questions. Thank you, Madam President. Is there anybody here who can speak to this? What this is actually intended to collect donations for or what type of donations we're anticipating? Yes. We have Rachel Barden and then Tristan Sanders on. So I'll let them choose. I'll defer to Tristan since he's the subject matter expert on this. Thank you, Tristan. Yeah. I can't wait to get back to. Thanks for your question. So my name is Tristan Sanders. I'm a public health manager in the Community Behavioral Health Division here. And the specific reason that this came about is actually related to a lot of work that we do with grants and we work in the communities providing emergency food assistance, connecting food pantries to different resources. And through our connections with other organizations, like whether they're funders or quasi state governmental entity entities, they often are looking to support the work that we're already doing in communities through the form of donations. And until about as long as I've been here, we've not had a mechanism to accept that. And in talking with the Division of Finance, this was a way to do that. So we would actually be able to get funds from organizations or funders that we could then put towards communities that we're supporting through a variety of our work. And how will those donations be communicated to the general public? How will we know who's donating and what it's for? Yeah. So we bother maybe a couple of ways, actually. First, we don't solicit any of these donations. These are not like, you know, we're we're not out asking for these donations. Generally, it is through committees and like community based coalitions where these other organizations come and say, how can we support this effort? And short of being able to give donations directly to community members, they often are looking for an entity that can accept those donations and then put it back into communities. So one way is through all of our reporting with the projects that we get, these donations for which we are required to do specifically for the grants that we receive, we have to report all of our grant activities and all of our other money that may come in supporting those activities. And then second, having this actually in its own revenue account, you know, at any time, this could obviously be audited or looked at and we could go through line by line what revenue came in through donations and then exactly how it was spent, which, again, we've not been able to do previously. Thank you for that. And our office would like to request that when donations come in, it be reported to us what they're coming in, who they're coming in from and what it's coming coming in for. I could easily see this becoming a place where, you know, our friends down at the Denver Downtown Denver Partnership donate to ramp up some of the cleanups, the sweeps. And I don't want to see it become that. And so I want to make sure that we're being very careful about who we are accepting donations from and what it is to do. And just one would like to make sure that our office is on notice about that. Thank you. That's it for my questions on this one. All right. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Kristen, for joining us tonight. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1534. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council bill 20, Dash 1534 on the floor for publication?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City of Seattle’s Maple Leaf radio-transmitter facility; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio-transmitter site at Maple Leaf reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound emergency radio network; and declaring a portion of property licensed for King County’s use in the same location to be surplus to the City’s utility needs.

SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119079

Agenda item 11 Council 1190 79. Related to the city of Seattle's Maple Leaf Radio Transmitter Facility, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio transmitter site at Maple Leaf Reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network, and declaring a portion of the property license for King County's use in the same location to be surplus to the city's utility needs committee recommends the bill pass again. Councilmember Gonzales. Thank you. This council bill authorizes the Director of Finance Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio transmitter site at the Maple Leaf Reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. As approved by the voters, this agreement will govern the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Networks use of the city's radio transmitter facility located in North Seattle, adjacent to Seattle Public Utilities, Maple Leaf Reservoir, FAA, US and King County have negotiated a license agreement which will govern Pearson's use of the Maple Leaf transmitter for a term of 25 years . I believe that the return for the city is about $30,000 a year. As a result of this licensing agreement, the Education, Equity and Governance Committee recommends the full council adopt this Council bill. Any comments? Colleagues saying that I'd move adoption of Council Bill 119079. Second for the discussion. The clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brien. Sergeant Major Gonzales, I Herbold. Hi, Johnson. By seven in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Agenda item number 12. Agenda Item 12. Appointment 848. Appointment of Rachel Stewart as Member of Families and Education Levy Oversight Committee for Term two December 31st, 2018. The committee recommends to see this appointment be confirmed.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $1,000, offset by the Second Council District One-time District Priority Funds, transferred from the Citywide Activities Department, to provide a donation to CityHeART to support HeART of the City 2022, which was held on April 28, 2022; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $1,000, to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_05032022_22-0472

Thank you. Let's go ahead and do the front transfer items. Which are 13, 14, 16 and 17. Banking in motion in a second on those. Item 13 Communication from Councilwoman Allen Recommendation to Increase Appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a donation to City Heart to support Heart of the City 2022 Communication from Councilwoman Sara Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $15,000 to support the Long Beach Cambodian Cultural Center Feasibility Study. Item number 16 Communication from Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager department by $1,000 to provide a contribution to the support the Mayor's Fund for Education and increase appropriations in the General Fund and the City Manager Department by 1500 to provide a contribution to the Long Beach Museum of Art. An Item 17 Communication Councilwoman Price recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $1,000 to provide a donation to support the Long Beach Juneteenth celebration. Let's see, there's a motion in a second. Is there any public comment on these? No public comment. Okay. I think the council have any comments you want to add to any of these. So seeing none members, please cast your votes. I'm sorry. Is there public comment? On Item 13, 14, 16 and 17, item 17, there is a proposal. Is there a public comment? Okay. Yes, please come forward. Snake I can face resident. Thank you Council for bringing this item to the agenda today. I want to thank the Third District Office for giving a, you know, a luxurious amount to our Juneteenth celebration. That's upcoming just in a month. That was the 17 number 17. Just wanted to say thank you and hope to see everyone come out. And there was a lot of officials and delegates and elected officials at the last one last year. So I'm sure as soon to come, everyone else will be just so generous. Thank you. See you soon. Thank you. And please cast your votes. Motion is carried. We do have a presentation tonight and that is going to be done by Councilman and Day House if we want to read the presentation.

Recommendation to receive and file report on the proposal of the Los Angeles County District Attorney to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to create and support programs for people with mental illness diverting them out of expensive jail treatment settings and into effective community-based treatment.

LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0877

Harry Martinez report from the office. Mayor Robert Garcia with the recommendation received from the report on the proposal of the Los Angeles County District Attorney to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to create a support program for people with mental illnesses. This is actually a request from our district attorney, Jackie Lacey. So she had asked if we would place this on this agenda, because this issue is coming before the county supervisors and she want to ensure that the council is aware of it. So I added it onto the agenda and I believe I'm going to turn this over to our director of health, who is going to give us an update, a brief update on what the city is engaged in on this on this task force. And I believe also Deputy Chief Luna is also involved in that. Please. Good evening. Thank you. We've been working very closely. With the Department of Mental Health, with Jackie Lacey and a whole lot of others as part of their team. They are looking at setting aside $20 million. Of the what would otherwise go to a larger jail facility. For L.A. County to. Divert people with mental health into better programing. The group has. Been there's been a seven that's been convened its activities judges, law enforcement advocates, providers of service for people with mental illness, prosecutors, public defenders. All of them looking. At different alternatives. Nationally, we're finding that about 70 to 80% of inmates. Have a mental. Health or substance use disorder. We estimate that to be about 50% for Long Beach. Those diagnosed with mental illness spend on average three times longer in jail than those. Without a mental illness. 25 days compared to 7.5 days. It also costs a lot more. For the county and in Long Beach to treat people in jail instead of in the community. Because you can not use insurance dollars, either Medicaid or other to treat people within the jail. So it requires public service. 95% of the inmates with mental illness in the Los Angeles County jail have offended before and cycled through. We see the same thing in Long Beach. And it's estimated that it costs on average about a $2,000 per arrest with jail time and court time. So when people are cycling through, it gets very expensive. And what we're finding. Is that when you do implement alternatives and diversion from jail for people with mental illness, you see significant reductions in incarceration, shelter, use and hospitalizations due to mental health diversion programs. Demonstrated outcomes include up to an 89% reduction in arrests and 86% reduction in jail time. The benefit to cost ratio for some of these programs is over 30 to 1. So Mayor and the members of the city council as a result of underfunded mental health care systems across the nation state and here in our county, police officers have increasingly become the first and often only responders to people in crisis due to. Untreated mental illness. The committee's goal is to achieve our public safety mission by getting low level mental ill offenders the treatment they need while attempting to avoid court and jail three through pre-booking and post booking diversion programs. The mentally ill violent offenders will still be jailed and subject to treatment while in custody. This project will also attempt to reduce negative law enforcement contacts with the mentally ill by creating consistent mental illness training in the county of Los Angeles to respond more effectively and appropriately to individuals in crisis. So just as an example, the law enforcement portion of this committee that we're proud to serve on has identified several priorities. Number one, training. Number two, develop a resource guide for improved communication and coordination for service delivery. Increase the number of code deployed teams in the county, such as police officer and clinicians. Improve the lack of dedicated mental health care facilities, which means space, basically bed availability and space for police officers that drop off some of these mental ill clients. And of course, this will take time. And just real quick, here in Long Beach, we're way ahead of other jurisdictions, but we were always looking for ways to get better. And here at the Long Beach Police Department, we actually have four code deployed teams known as my mental evaluation teams, which started back in 1996. We also have a quality of life team, which also works with the. Clinician from L.A. County Department of Mental Health. These officers are skilled in deescalating crisis involving people with mental illness while bringing an element of understanding and compassion to these very difficult situations. And we are always working hand in hand with our health department and other city departments in a productive and innovative partnership. And we stand. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ken. So the group that we've been working with locally is that we've been part of a broader. Summit in L.A. County. But locally we have the Health and Human Services Department, police department, fire department and the city prosecutor. And we've designed a best practice model as a result of these conversations. So we feel like we know how to do it. We're not clear on how much the 20 million would be designated for Long Beach, but we know diversion is the right thing to do for the community and for public resources. In addition, inmates from Long Beach are generally transferred to the county jail after a couple of days. So supporting change and L.A. County supports Long Beach. We plan to approach the county Department of Mental Health about potential funding options, as well as seeking other grant opportunities. We can provide additional. Information on this model as resources become. Available. And mental health. Diversion programs. Allow public safety to spend more. Time supporting community safety and reducing violent and property crimes while improving opportunities for. Success for those with. Mental illness. So we want. You all to know what we're working on and to support those efforts going on at the county level. Thank you. Thank you. And excellent work, Councilman Price. Thank you. I am very involved in collaborative courts and what I do my work. And I think that this is a welcome addition to the criminal justice system in terms of trying to rehabilitate and work with folks who can use the help. And so I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. My question would be, are we are we to approve this item. To receive in final. Approval? Okay, then I would move to receive and file second. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Based on my long thought. Thank you. Just briefly, I wanted to thank both the district attorney, as well as your office for bringing this forward. I know that there's tremendous support here, and certainly we have an opportunity to lead on this issue, focusing on treatment rather than simply incarceration. And so I'm very thankful for that. And thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I would like to echo the words of my colleagues and potentially consider a friendly amendment to write a letter of support to the Board of Supervisors on this item. With the maker of the motion. Yes, accepted. Okay, so there's a friendly amendment on the item. Any public comment saying nonmembers? Please cast your vote. Motion carries nine votes. 21. 21 is a report from the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Marine with a recommendation to authorize the city manager to. Oops. Wait a minute. 21. Sorry, I went a little late. To report from the city manager with the recommendation to receive and file the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Long Beach Downtown Parking and business improvement

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendment to Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District regarding the Platte Farm Open Space Detention Basin. Amends an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District by adding $500,000 for a new total of $800,000 for the design and construction of drainage and flood control improvements at Platte Farm Open Space at 49th Avenue and Grant Street in Council District 9. No change to agreement duration (201733020). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-14-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-3-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0337

Thank you very much, Mr. Breslin. That's all. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Well, let's bring up the next item. 337 Platform Councilwoman Connect. Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of those projects that started early in my first term, and it was a community vision. There's an area of open space that's blighted and is being misused for crime. It's being misused for dumping. And the community says we can do better. And so the city has a hard time with this because it's it's not clean. It's an area that has been capped. We've got six cell towers. It is a tough project, but everybody sticks through it. And seven years later, that's just my clock. The is probably at eight plus seven years later, we see this amazing partnership before us. This bill 337 is a contract between urban drainage and Denver to bring some funding because lo and behold, this area isn't just blighted. It isn't just a place that could be an open space that's an asset to the community. It's also a place we can mitigate flooding. So it brings together city goals of mitigating flood waters in Globeville, which has been a major priority for several of my colleagues on the council as well as the community. But it helps to bring a vision forward of how to do that in a way that creates an open space that community can really love. It's phased. It's got money from all kinds of different private sources that are coming in to supplement these public dollars. So on the northern half of this open space, most of that money has been privately fundraised by Groundwork. Denver So we have, you know, basically, you know, every kind of partnership you can imagine. We have the regional urban drainage of flood control along with the city of Denver. And we've got these community partners and we've got all these dollars from legal settlements and other grant funds. So it's taking everybody to get there. And we haven't broken ground yet, but some day there will be a shovel in the ground and we will see this thing come to fruition. And this is my first real proof. It's a dollar amount on an agenda, so I'm really excited and it's a pretty routine contract other than that. But I just needed to say thank you to all the city team who've here, Parks and Rec. We've had NRDC's support the last couple of years, as well as public works and all the folks in stormwater. We've also gotten, you know, some other help from other folks in public works regarding some of the other infrastructure pieces. So thank you to the staff. And yes, this is in the consent agenda, but I'll be really excited to vote yes on the consent agenda tonight. Thank you. Good work, Councilwoman. I know you've been working on this with along with the community for a long time, so it's excited to see this come through. That concludes all the items that have been called out. Everything else will be. All of the bills for introduction will be order published. So we are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember that this is your this is a considered block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, it's your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions for adoption of bills? For final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 0335033604180344034503490350030034600850086032203200321. All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur? Yes, Mr. President. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. Clark Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore I. Cashman can eat my new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. I That was an eye. 11 eyes are. Right. 11 eyes. Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed for final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be three public hearings. So buckle up. There are be require a public hearing for counts about 2 to 29 changes on a classification of 580 South fourth street in Washington Virginia veil a required public here accountable to

Recommendation to request City Manager to gather data on Illegal Dumping and draft an Illegal Dumping Action Plan to address the City's approach to resources, education, reporting and enforcement related to illegal dumping. The report should be drafted and returned to City Council within 120 days with subsequent updates on progress annually.

LongBeachCC_04042017_17-0246

Councilmember Mongo. Bush and Kerry's. Okay, now item 19. Councilman Urunga item. Item 19 is communications from Councilman Miranda, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Vice Mayor Richardson. Recommendation to request the city manager to gather data on illegal dumping and draft an illegal dumping action plan. Get married, guys. Well, go ahead and take it. Thank you. Elizabeth Tatum says it is a consistent and visible problem in the city of Long Beach. It contributes to blight in our community. It is also one of the most frequent calls we receive in our city council office. Decided to allow us to take a closer look at where items are being dumped citywide and develop a comprehensive approach to solving illegal dumping. We would like to study to explore current barriers to reducing illegal dumping. One of the biggest barriers is that we have no plan for our multi-unit dwellings as it relates to bulky item pickups . Our current policy as it relates to items dumped in alleys also needs updating. Currently, items don't do it and now they are the responsibility of the adjacent property. Owner and I are forced to call enforcement action. This is a policy that needs to be reexamined. And as we know that nine times out of ten the adjacent adjacent property owner has not played a role in the owners being behind their property and are now responsible for the disposal of it. I know that if we look at our goal on beach data, the calls for service we received through the illegal dumping hotline and the calls to city council offices, we can draft a comprehensive plan to proactively educate and reduce occurrences of illegal dumping in our city. I am glad that we are having this conversation and I know that we can make some improvements as it relates to illegal dumping. I want to thank my colleagues, Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez, Councilmember de Andrews and Vice Mayor Rex Richardson for sending in to the Senate with me. I also want to thank Craig Beck, Nicole Marconi in and the Public Works Environmental Services Bureau team for their work on this area as well. Thank you all to staff. Next up is Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Turanga, I'd say you're spot on. This is one of the largest, most significant reports that come into our office about dumping we got in our district. We've got two freeways that bisect our district and that, you know, makes us a little more susceptible to different items being dumped in the different pockets and the different alleyways that sort of end right at the freeway. So the more we can do to work with our neighborhood associations, to have a strategy that really targets these, you know, highly susceptible neighborhoods, I think that's that's the right direction. So you have my support for Councilmember, and I look forward to seeing what staff comes back with. Thanks. Yes. So, Councilmember Suranga, thank you. Thank you so much. I cannot thank you enough for bringing this forward because I will agree with you that, yes, this is like the number one thorn in our side as a council members. It's just really taking care of the little things, which is the illegal dumping. And as you can see, how horrible it could be in all areas of the city. I think that we do need to explore additional options, whether it's education, even looking at technology. I know we have go Long Beach, but how can we further support that through technology in getting these items picked up right away? So I look forward to that. And and again, thanks so much for bringing this forward and look forward to hearing more. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I do want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. Illegal dumping is a really big issue in my district. My team is out there every weekend and every single neighborhood cleanup. Our dedicated volunteers that there's always new stuff in the alleys. Last week alone in seven days, we had 31 cases of illegal dumping reported just directly to my field deputy. And so I think it's important that we're starting the conversation tonight. I know that Los Angeles also had a big challenge with illegal dumping and great good over there that works for Garcetti. I talked to me months ago about some of the work that they had done with changing the way that all their city staff addresses illegal dumping. And so I hope that in looking at a best practice, we are also looking at other cities and what has made the most sense and how they've done some of their work . So, again, thank you, everybody, for bringing this forward. Councilman Super. Now, thank you, Councilmember, for bringing it forward. And you know, it's a serious problem when Councilmember Durango wants to do a study. I would say, generally speaking, he does not like studies. So I think this reflects about how big an issue it is in reading over some of the materials and how these are just ideas , bullet points. But one of them I wanted to speak to is hiring of a waste enforcement officer or something like that. I want to take this moment to give a shout out to Frank Ramirez. I think he's one of the most meritless employees we have in the city. What strikes me is his institutional knowledge. Anytime I have an issue, I swear he knows the history of it, no matter where it is. And that's just my district. I can't imagine all the little nuances he knows about the entire district. So what I would like to recommend moving forward, if we can find a way to have Frank hold this position or somehow encourage him to hang hanging around a while because I think he could add so much value to this whole piece. So I'll get off my soapbox. But thank you. Yes. I forgot to request. I'd like to add a friendly amendment if we can have its states 120 days, I believe, for it to come back to council. Can we make sure it comes back to this body versus the two from four? That would be my friendly amendment. Would you accept? Thank you. Councilman. I would also like to add a friendly I would like to start off on. A positive note. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I also want to. Thank the member of the city council who. I've actually seen pick. Up dumped items in his. Own vehicle. Councilmember member supercar just driving through the community, literally picking up vehicles and putting them in his trunk. And taking them away. He's a good member of the community. We're happy to have him as. Both a trash pickup and a council. Member. And now onto a more serious note. The Long Beach app needs to be fixed. It is unacceptable. Our IT department needs to get it together. I have been complaining about this app since I was elected three months ago. It's inaccurate the. Information. We are constantly putting. Community members to work for us to gather the. Data and the. Behind the scenes of it all and the guts of it all is broken. The we have too many vacancies. We have other priorities. All of those things are all it's been too long and we need it fixed. And so I would like the go along each component and the community engagement component of illegal dumping and pick up to be a part of the report back to this council with a serious deadline with ramifications and implications to staff members. Who don't follow through and meet deadlines related to this app and the dumping. Because we have such an amazing resource of community members who care so much. I have reported in the fourth District. Many dumping off of Cherry on that app and it's. Terrible. They're picked up. They're not picked up. They say they have been picked up. You go by, they haven't been picked up. And so having used. The app on multiple things, I don't actually think it's public works fault at all. I think the app, I literally am willing to set aside money in the budget this year if that is. Necessary to have some. College kids design an app that would be more effective. And obviously our city staff wouldn't have to build it and I'm sure that it would meet whatever measure requirements because these college kids can data and donuts over breakfast and do something which would be more remarkable than what we have today. And it's just been too long and I'm so sorry to be negative. But the time has come. Thank you. Councilman Mengers phoned me up, so I'm going to comment. I was going to not say anything because I haven't seen most of the things. I think the staff and I just I just publicly say a few things. The first is I want to thank everyone that brought this up. I want to start just by saying that, you know, obviously, sometimes you forget the amount of work that happens. And so a lot of folks don't know. I think our public works team, they probably pick up close to 50 or 60, 60 mattresses a day. Is it a day or is it a week? A day? A day. Okay. 50 to 60 mattresses a day, which is unbelievable to think that that's happening. But that's what's happening. So and so is our our our, our, our, our folks doing an incredible job working with the resources. And they're absolutely doing great. And so you guys are out there, they're picking stuff up, we're calling things, and I'm incredibly grateful. But it's also clear to me that we do not have enough resources when it comes to cleaning the city. I've already mentioned this to you and Mr. West in this year's budget. I want to see how we actually begin to take care of this issue, which it's not acceptable to have litter and trash and waste in people's alleys and in the neighborhood. It's just it's not okay. And we must do a better job at at this. I think as a community and as a city, I've always I've been saying to staff, we have to sweat the small stuff. And the small stuff are the basics of just keeping the city clean and neighborhoods clean for the community. And so I expect that the amazing job that we're already doing because it's it's damn good Craig and you and your team are picking up tons of waste every single day. These guys need more resources to go out there and and do more. And if, if, if we need to double the effort that's currently in place and we got to double and figure out how we how we get there. But we've got to do more than what we're doing now. I'll just add to the Columbia conversation, and you've obviously been sending some messages about that. When the when the app first launched in its first two or three years, it was working so well. And I'm not sure what happened over the last particularly two years or so, but the particularly on the reporting of dumped items and other issues, it's not working. It's broken on the back end. And and we're providing and confusing residents by the messages that we're sending. And so I'll just uplift a lot of what Councilwoman Mongo said. She's absolutely correct. All this needs to get fixed immediately and we need to put more resources into this area because we're working hard, but we need to do a lot better. And every one and all the department heads and all the managers in the work force, they need to take ownership of the city in the way it looks. And, you know, be interested to know how many of our own folks are actually reporting stuff outside of the people that are actually picking up the trash , because I think that that is to me, this is everyone's job. Whether you're the department, head of another department or whether you're manager of another area, everyone should be interested in ensuring the city is as beautiful and a good place to live and work. And so that it's, I think, a challenge for our team to figure out in this next budget cycle. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank the people, my members, from bringing this item forward. Obviously, this is one of serious concern. I want to just just kind of piggy back on some of the latter comments regarding the app. I think it works. It has worked pretty well. But I think we also need to be mindful that there is a you know, it's great to be able to push a button and expect a result, but understand that there's human resources behind those buttons that we push. I had a conversation with the Public Works director a little earlier, and I was kind of astonished at what some of the challenges that he is dealing with as a department in terms of having the personnel to actually do that work. And I think, you know, that that merits some of our attention as well to assist with making sure that we have adequate a number of personnel to actually perform the duties because it is very laborious work. Folks who do that work suffer back injuries and other sorts of repetitive motion injuries. They're dealing with heavy loads on a daily basis. We have to be mindful of that as well. And so one week it could be working great because that team is out there and it's fully staffed. And then the next week it may not be working as well because there may be staffing shortfalls and so on. I don't want to make excuses. I do concur with the mayor's comments that it's everybody's job and my staff. We have a motto. We don't drive past the graffiti, we don't drive past dumped items. We make sure to report them. And I think if everybody had that mindset, not only city staff, but but residents, we'd have a much better city. Absolutely. Thank you, Smith RICHARDSON. Well, thank, councilwoman. Go for kickin up the comments for a second round. I got a little inspired by your, uh, your comments. So I wanna say first, good job for whoever handles the public works Twitter. I get a lot of Twitter stuff and if we just, you know, tag public works team it's handle 100% of that 100% . One of the best in the entire city is is the public. With the words Twitter. Fantastic. Secondly, you know, because I have two freeways that run through my district, I have 24 on or off ramps in my district. And simply, it is hard to navigate for a resident who wants to clean up an off ramp or complain. They come to us, they go to different departments. They hear it's Caltrans. Their process isn't clear. I'm not saying that the city should maintain the on ramps, but if someone takes a picture of it, we should at least make sure that Caltrans gets a copy of whatever, whatever is submitted because they should hear what we're hearing about the on and off ramps. So many times we we, you know, direct them to a field deputy or someone with Caltrans. But we should streamline that process because to a resident, they don't know the difference between the right away. It's Long Beach to them and it reflects poorly on our city. So but thank you, Councilman Tarango, for bringing this up. I think we're we're going to get something good out of this. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I just wanted to clarify and in my passion, I may have spoke a bit quickly, but I specifically did say, like public works is doing a great job. I think the big issue with the app is it will tell you it's picked up and you'll drive by and it's not picked up or it will tell you it's not picked up and you'll drive by it and it'll be like, We'll get back to you in a couple of days and it won't be. There was a television in front of someone's house for three weeks and I thought to myself, I am just going to put this on the back of my truck. And I thought, Where am I going to put it? I don't want to be in that little dumper dumping it into some other trash bin. So you're in this tough position. Of wanting to help but not knowing how. To do that. And so I hope that those statistics can come back to us on what is going on with the Long Beach, because I think that it's just too important. Thank you, Councilman Tauranga. Well, I guess I touched a nerve with this item here. Glad to hear all the suggestions in the comments and it's been an important topic for us in the seventh District. I also have two freeways in the river going through my district. So there's it's a big issue in my district and I'm glad to hear. Let me rephrase it. Now now I'm hearing that it's a big issue in yours as well. So, yes, it is another study, but I think it's going to be coming one with some great results. Thank you for for supporting this. Thank you. And I think it's important to note, of course, I think everyone appreciates the work that's happening already from staff and in management here. So any public comment on this kind of please come forward. Good evening. Again. So as I stated before, I work for the landlord AP Atlantic, which is right, 5150 Atlantic Avenue, which is in your district. Councilman Suber Now my initial question is, I didn't see you on this. Are you included in this or is the city entirely included in it? Okay. What address did you get? 5150 Atlantic Avenue. It's right next to the city of Long Beach. Which center? Oh, I thought this was your district. I apologize. So my main concern is I. The property. Where do I start? North via parcel, which is behind the Wick Center. There is severe dumping behind this, which comes at a great concern because when I walk behind the property, I find needles and bottles full of schizophrenic drugs. And you've got this in relation to dumping with mattresses, homeless people sleeping on the mattresses that are obviously using these drugs and needles. The street, to my knowledge, so serves no purpose to the community because it's directly behind the building. There would be no purpose for anyone to either exit or enter that street unless they were doing something that they shouldn't be. So my question to you is, should I be if I've been spending hundreds of dollars every month to take care of this junk? And I think cleaning it up, sweeping it up. And I really want to know if I should be filing for a prescriptive easement. And that's all I have to say, because, I mean, I'll clean it up. I'll put Gates on the side of it to help prevent the dumping, and I'll take care of it when it's dirty. So. That's it. Okay. I am sure. I'm sure that someone will will connect with you. We have already. Mr. West. Mr. Harrison, if you could talk to this gentleman. Yeah, great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. To me, the public comment. Okay. There's a motion of a second, actually, Councilmember Supernanny. Just a quick shout out to Craig Indico. Thank you for all your work. I agree with my colleagues. You guys do a phenomenal job. I just want to mention Frank in particular. So I hope you didn't feel slighted there. Also, just a follow up on the Caltrans issue. We met with Caltrans at the quarterly meeting a couple of weeks ago and they talked about the adopt a highway program and I ended up adopting a highway. So that's one other option that we can do, that council officers can get our own volunteers out there once they have training from Caltrans or you can hire a crew to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Kim. We have a motion on the floor and members, please cast your votes. I'm sure it'll be unanimous. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. We're going on to the next item, please, which is with the 2021.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118669

Agenda item for Council Bill 118669 Amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 budget, including the 2016 to 2021 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and from various funds in the budget and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilman Burgess. Thank you. This is the 2015 year end carry forward ordinance. It's typically used to reappropriate funds that were previously provided in 2015, but for one reason or another were not expended in 2015. This ordinance involves a total of $16.5 million, but of that total, only 3.5 million is related to the general sub fund. Thank you. Are there any further comments regarding this particular bill having seen and please call a role on the passage of the bill? Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brien. High Bagshaw Burgess, i. Gonzalez I. Herbold, President Harrell I. Eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair of the Senate. Next agenda item, please.

A proclamation in recognition of Matt Wager, Director of Traffic Engineering Services and Traffic Operations, upon his retirement.

DenverCityCouncil_01272014_14-0031

And I get to read the next proclamation. Okay. Thank you very much. I am going to read proclamation number 31 in recognition of Matt Wager, Director of Traffic, Engineering Services and Traffic Operations. Whereas Matt Wagers started his career with Denver Public Works in September 1991 as assistant director of traffic operations and has served the Department and Denver's residents diligently for 22 years. And. Whereas, Mr. Wager proved to be a highly talented manager, leader, collaborator, problem solver and team member who advanced to the positions of Director of Traffic Operations in 2006 and Director of Traffic Engineering Services in April 2013. And. Whereas, Matt has been at the forefront of ensuring traffic flows smoothly in Denver and has contributed to the success of many significant events that put Denver in the national and world spotlight, such as the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the National Basic Basketball Association, All-Star Game, the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and the 2012 presidential debate . And. Whereas, Matt places a high importance on understanding and recognizing the contributions of his employees. Is quick to thank his team for a job well done and whose thoughtful nature ensures decisions are responsibly made. And. Whereas, Matt's legacy will be forever remembered through his numerous professional accomplishments, including overseeing the implementation of a fiber optic cable network for Denver's traffic signal system. The development of three state of the art traffic management centers spearheading a major overhaul in the city's sign and pavement marking maintenance program execution of the Denver Public Works Strategic Transportation Plan, implementation of the 15th Street Bikeway striping of the hundred miles of bike lane in Denver. His work towards balancing all modes of transportation in the city. And. Whereas, Matt, strength, integrity, leadership his unfailing commitment to always cross the crosswalk and superhuman ability to go without a coat on Denver's most frigid days may be it Broncos could use it will be greatly missed by his friends and coworkers. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the council, the city and county of Denver, that Section one. The Council hereby recognizes Matt Wager thanks him for his dedication to the residents of the city and county of Denver and wishes him well in his future. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Matt Wager. And then I call on myself. I move that proclamation 31 be adopted. Second. It has been seconded and now we are open for comments and I call on myself again. Matt, I. I can hardly believe that I'm the one that's reading the proclamation about your retirement. I've only known you well, just almost. Three. Years, and I have just had the most wonderful time getting to know you as a colleague. And I know you work on streets, but I think you walk on water and I see all your colleagues, all the usual suspects from public works and transportation. And I know how much they all admire you and respect you and how much they're going to miss you. Your manner with constituents is wonderful. You can call a crowd like I've never seen anybody do, and I've I've watched you to see if I could pick up some hints on that. And then your ability to think up creative traffic solutions is just wonderful. It's going to be terribly missed. I know my district is better off for having you help us, and I am very sad that you're going to leave us, but very happy that you're going to get to retire. And we will miss you. And now I'm going to call on Councilman Nevett. Thank you, Madam President. I was. I was nervous a few minutes ago. Now I'm terrified. I hope there's nobody else important in this retiring fear. Madam President, I think we ought to put a moratorium on that. So I don't know. Again, you know, you've been such a. A great person to be able to work with in public works. And there's not a lot of you know, it's a turn of phrase. People say, oh, your your fingerprints are all over something. Your fingerprints are all over the city. Your fingerprints are literally all over the city. And that's that's pretty cool. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Nevett, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. You know, I really don't know which profession is more loved by the public lawyers or traffic engineers, but we are unfortunately sending off to stellar employees in those fields. I want to take the privilege to tell an almost personal story. My assistant, Nora Kimball, reminded me of this today as we were thinking about the meeting tonight. It was probably four or five years ago when my office was still on Colfax, and I'll try not to embellish the story. It was Christmas Eve. I had an issue she was working out for a constituent and was on the phone talking to Matt, who was also working on Christmas Eve on a traffic issue. And finally. He said, What are you. Doing there? You know, they both got to talking. What do you do? And is still in the office on Christmas Eve? And Nora says, well, someone came by and slashed my tires and I'm waiting. I got to figure out how to get my tire change. He was like, Oh, that's too bad. How horrible. And the conversation ended. I'm sure the constituents problem was solved. The next thing Nora knew, there was Matt Wager stopping traffic in Colfax and changing Norris Tire and talk about above and beyond. So that's really great. Oh, that's a great story. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Okay, Madam Secretary, I think we're ready for that roll call. Madam President, I Brooks Brown. I thought I heard Tin Can Each Layman by Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Sheppard. Hi. Yeah. Okay. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announced the. Results. 12 days. 12 eyes. The proclamation does pass. Now I'm going to. There's another person that wants to speak. I'm going to let you have the last word, Matt. So I'd like to call on Leslie Thomas up to the podium. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Leslie Thomas, and I'm the city engineer and deputy manager of Public Works. And I have had the privilege of knowing Matt since the very first day. He started in 1991 because I was busy, wrote a mailing STS and I wrote a meld of all of his traffic signal wires and he called me and he said, Hi, I'm Matt and you send me your plans, which I thought I did, but I didn't, and I did it again. And Matt called and said, Hi, I'm Matt, will you send me your plans? Which is what Matt does with every one of us who don't meet his standards. Anyway. He has made us all much better engineers and public works people just by being Matt. So for those of you who don't know, you all do though. He puts customer service as a priority for himself and his team and has done so many things for the city. He keeps Denver moving and as if you guys have all noted, you see him everywhere you turn, you see him at every stop sign, at every street corner. Our parking signs are legible now thanks to Mac. And he makes those lights turn red, yellow and green, all in the right order for all of us. So thanks so much for Matt and I really has been a privilege to work with him. Thank you very. Much, Leslie. Now, Matt, would you like to come to the podium? But good evening, Council. Matt Wager, Director of Traffic Engineering Services for another four days. And I just want to say that all of the accomplishments that that Councilwoman Sussman read and Leslie read were done by a team, our traffic engineering team and our public works team. And that's the only way that the city grows and accomplishes anything. And I really feel. City Council is a very important part of that team as well, and I couldn't have had any of those accomplishments without the support of all the council members and our city and our public works team. So I just want to say thank you. In the 22 years I've been here, there was no light rail when I started. There was a very small convention center with with Carrigan Hall sitting beside it. When you came into downtown, you came in over a viaduct. If you were coming from the northwest, there were no bike lanes in the downtown area at all in the central business district. And when I look back, it seemed like it was just a few minutes. But when I think about how things have changed in Denver and how much better our transportation system is today, I'm happy and proud to have had the opportunity to work with you on it, and I think you have a good team taking over for me and they'll continue all of the progress we've made. So thank you. Our deepest thanks. It is going to be hard missing all those folks that are retiring. I think it's time for the resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions from.

Proclamation Declaring July 15 through 19, 2019 as National Disability Voter Registration Week. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-6990

Okay. So, okay, we'll get to that in a minute. And those are agenda changes. Okay. Proclamations and special orders of the day. So we have two proclamations and they're both great. This first one, three A is recognizing National Disability Voter Registration Week. So and and by the way, who do we have? I have I think is it Susan Howser come on up to the OR and Karen better and yeah okay we've got all the the and Ken Werner okay we've got the League of Women Voters in the House. So come on up. Yes, you've got your name tags. All right. And Will Smith. Okay, so here is your proclamation. Whereas in July, people with disabilities and their supporters celebrate the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, which was signed into law on July 26, 1990. And. Whereas, over 50 million people of all ages live with disabilities in communities throughout the United States. And. Whereas, the disability community has a critical interest in policies enacted at the local, state and national levels that help integrate people with disabilities into our communities. And. WHEREAS, The disability community's participation in influencing public policy is essential for these policies to meet the real needs of people with disabilities. And. Whereas, voting is one way for the disability community to exert their influence in local, state and national elections. And. Whereas, Rev Up, which is an acronym for Register Educate Vote Use Your Power. I love it. America is a national effort to increase the political power of people with disabilities while engaging candidates and the media to recognize the disability community. And. Whereas, the Alameda League of Women Voters are partnering with the National Disability Rights Community in organizing National Disability Voter Registration Week from July 15 to 19 2019. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Maryland, as the Ashcraft mayor of the city of Alameda, proclaimed July 15 through 19 2019 as National Disability Voter Registration Week in the city of Alameda to support the growing involvement of the disability community in the political process. And with that, I congratulate the league for all your efforts. And would you like to someone say something briefly about these efforts, Mr. Turner. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I just want to thank you for the proclamation as well as. Even this week. This week, last week, we met with the City of Alameda Commission on Disabilities. We're partnering with them on this event, as well as Census 2020. The three organizations are going to be sharing a booth at the Park Street, art, wine and whatever else here beverages. My next. Plan for. Getting people registered. Number one. Number two. Making sure that people with any disability, whether it's visible or invisible, have access to voting. That's probably one of the biggest hurdles right now, is making sure that polling places and equipment and. Polling materials are available. And usable by people with disabilities. So we are very honored to work with the commission. And I don't know that you want to say something. You're just standing here. Okay. And. Yes, no. Okay. And thank you. I assume all of you are registered to vote. Should I assume that? Job requirements. Okay. You didn't nod your head. Yeah. I happened to have some affidavits. In my car. If you haven't registered yet. We'll get federal. Tax. Credit. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. You are. Helping. Thank you for all you do. Thank you. Mayor, as can I make one brief comment for the April 9th election, the registrar of voters happened to set up it's brand new equipment that is designated specifically to assist those type of voters at South Shore. And it was a success. Oh, good to know. Actually, I was thinking we have a very, very capable, proactive city clerk, Laura Weisinger, and I know you're a strong partner in this. So our next proclamation and last proclamation is the art and wine fair. This is the 35th anniversary of the Alameda Art and Wine Fair.

Recommendation to approve the Downtown Long Beach Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, automatically extending the Agreement for Funding with the Downtown Long Beach Alliance for one year; authorize payment of $531,523 in City property assessments from the Civic Center Fund (IS 380) in the Public Works Department (PW); and, $5,398 from Successor Agency Fund (SA) in the Development Services Department (DV); and Increase appropriations in the Civic Center Fund (IS 380) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $101,282, offset by a reduction in funds available. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_11072017_17-1009

Motion case. Thank you. Item 27. Next item. Report from Economic Development and Public Works. Recommendation to approve the downtown Long Beach Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report. Automatically extending the agreement for funding with the downtown Long Beach Alliance for one year districts one and two. Thank you. Report from staff. I think I have to excuse myself. My partner Adam works for the DLP, so I will excuse me. Okay. Okay. Madam Clerk, meet with the item or we'll just read the item. Staff can. Just now. I mean, just backwards. Sure. I mean, members of the city council. This item is the annual approval of the downtown Long Beach Property and Business Improvement District Annual Ongoing Assessment. The recommended action in this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment. However, the downtown Long Beach Alliance board voted on May 4th, 2017, to raise the assessment rates 3% per the allowed Consumer Price Index adjustment, which is reflected in the annual report. There are no significant changes in proposed activity. Staff requested the City Council approve the annual report and continue the assessment and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. That conclusion report. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I just want to thank the DOJ for their hard work. I want to thank Eric and the team for working with the Dolby. I know we roll these out a little differently than we did last year. And I also want to highlight that the deal is taking on a little bit more in supporting our arts park , bringing on insurance so we can have that open more often. So again, creating a safe downtown. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Hear, hear. Keep the public comment on this item. CNN. Please cast your votes.

On the message and order, referred on March 9, 2022, Docket #0351, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($36,250.00) in the form of a grant, for the Dialogue to Action, awarded by the Boston Redevelopment Authority to be administered by the Office of Resiliency & Racial Equity. The grant will fund programmatic activities to deepen participants’ understanding of racism, in historical and present day forms and foster a sense of agency to change the system through actions at individual, interpersonal or systemic levels, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed.

BostonCC_08102022_2022-0351

opposed, say nay talk in 0349 has passed counsel clarity six acceptance of the Committee report and passage of docket 0375 All those in favor say I. Our policy document 0375 has passed. Mr. Clerk, please read. Dawkins 0351 Duncan Hunter 0351. The Committee on Civil Rights and Immigration Immigrant Advancement, to which was referred on March 9th, 2020, to talk a number 0351 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $36,250 in the form of a grant for the dialog to action awarded by the Boston Redevelopment Authority to be administered by the Office of Resiliency and Racial Equity. The grant will fund four program from programmatic activities to deepen participants understanding of racism in historical and present day forms and foster a sense of agency to change the system through actions that individual, interpersonal or systemic levels. Submits a report recommending that the order ought to pass. Thank you. The Chair recognizes counsel and chair of the Committee on Civil Rights, Immigration Advancement Counselors and your support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This matter was sponsored by Mayor Michelle Wu and referred to the Committee on March nine, 2022. The committee held a hearing on July 21st, 2022, where public comment was taken and where President Flynn was present. This grant will allow the Office of Resiliency and Racial Equity to use these funds through the dialog to action for programs to provide education and understanding of racism in historical and present day forms. The grant will seek to develop ways to make changes through action. Lori Nelson, Chief Resilience Officer from the Mayor's Office of Resilience and Racial Equity, attended the hearing and has provided support of the grant. Ms. Nelson explained that the grant will be used for community impact projects, which will examine how the community looks at reality and race matters to collectively move forward. I inquired about the Dialog Action Initiative, which is a pilot program, and Nelson explained that Dialog Action provides education on race matters, has two staffers and also uses fellows, as Nelson reviewed some of the external partners, which include King Boston. Many of us are familiar. Ms.. Nelson described the takeaways from the initial pilot program, which included the following the importance of having historical place places of race in Boston and supporting cultural differences through an inclusionary approach. Unifying the community around difficult topics and creating safe spaces so that people have a place for their voices to be heard . And I asked her specific neighborhoods were targeted in these pilot programs. Ms.. Nelson explained that the goal in the initial framework was to target every neighborhood and that through coalition building, the objective is to target neighborhoods that may not have had these types of conversations. And I asked if any barriers existed to execution in the programing and the programs or discussions will be in person. And we had a robust and really interesting conversation about the work that trying to do around having those citywide conversations. The committee discussed the information and education are key components of dialog to action initiative and comment from the public to discuss civil rights matters in general. Passage of this order will allow the office to use these funds to support the continuing pilot for dialog action objectives. Having these funds will allow for expansion and continuation of programs and resources to help better understand racism historically in present day and to implement personal and systemic changes. The Chair of the Committee on Civil Rights and Immigrant Advancement, to which this following is referred, I submit a report recommending that this docket ought to pass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Consultation. Consultation seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of docket 0351. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say no. Docket 0351 is passed. Mr. Court, can you please read docket.

Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Housing 236)

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6299

So what is CDBG? There are federal funds, funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But the explicit purpose of assisting low and moderate income persons by developing decent housing, suitable living environment and or economic opportunity. The city is required to prepare a five year strategic plan, which outlines the housing and community development priority needs that will inform the CDBG funding decisions for the upcoming. Period. We are in the last year of the current five year strategic plan to receive CDBG funding, the city has to submit an actual plan to HUD. Which details the program's activities and resources that will address the housing and community development needs that are outlined in the five year consolidated plan. In addition, there is a priority among the needs for non housing. Community development. Public service needs. An Exhibit one, the Social Services and Human Relations Board has provided a refined priority statement that reflects the social service needs in the community. I'd like to take your attention to page one, paragraph three. Which identifies that the needs should focus on the following activities. Case Management. Domestic Violence. Victim Support. Housing, Wellness Services. Information and Resources. Legal Assistance. Outreach and Engagement. Senior Services including food security. The current five year strategic plan has emphasized preserving Alameda safety net, addressing the needs of those who are vulnerable, vulnerable and in crisis, and recommended that funding for public services focus on food, shelter, case management services , personal safety services and homeless prevention services. Tonight we commence the fiscal year 2019 2020 needs process. The first of those steps was on November 29th, when we when the Social Service Human Relations Board heard public comment and prepared the needs statement that I referred to earlier tonight, city council will hear public comment and adopt the need statement . And shortly thereafter we will release the RFP that is based on the priority needs. I know that we've got several of the social service providers here to speak, so I'm going to let them speak. All right. Thank you. Okay. And those are the speaker's lips I have. Are there. Were there any clarifying questions from council? Okay. So then I will go ahead and call. Just in the order I got the slips, the first speaker is Dan Ashbrook. Hello. Good evening and thank you so much for this opportunity to present. My name is Dan Ashbrook and I'm with Legal Assistance for Seniors. When a senior faces a problem with their housing, it is critical to their. Health and safety that they receive timely and accessible and affordable help. Seniors are often at risk of being. Harassed by landlords due to. Physical and mental health impairments. When a senior is handicapped. It is easier for. A landlord to intimidate them by pretending to have more power than the landlord actually has. In addition, a senior facing such intimidation may not seek help to avoid conflict among among family and friends, making it that much easier to be evicted and even abused. To address these problems among seniors, Legal Assistance for Seniors has launched its housing legal services for the prevention of evictions. We want to thank you because we did that partially with the City of Alamitos help because of the numerous challenges seniors face in meeting their basic needs on fixed incomes. Hiring a private attorney to protect their rights is not an option for most. And with the number of seniors doubling in Alameda County over the coming years, even more will be at risk of homelessness. Since launching our Housing Legal Services earlier in 2018, again with the help of the city of Alameda, we have received we received roughly . 50 calls a week with very limited outreach. And advertising. We're still very much in the development phase. Because of the complexities. Of dealing with cities throughout Alameda and all the various ordinances. But we are receiving roughly 50 calls a week. We currently have 30 to 40 cases being assessed for legal issues and we have four that we are attorneys is working with that have filed eviction actions. One of these cases is a city of Alameda resident fighting a retaliation for holding a landlord accountable to a lease. Finally, counseling and represent representation by attorneys is needed more than ever with the increase in our senior population, not just for housing, but for health care, public benefits, elder abuse and guardianship of minors. Without the ability to legally advocate for. Problems with accessing Medicare. Social Security. Supplemental Social Security income, or the legal authority to care for family members, a seniors welfare can be gravely at stake. Abuse continues. Health care stops, income stops. Families separate and evictions continue. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Liz Varella. Bear Council members and staff. I'm Liz Rowland, Executive Director of Building Futures. And we are a domestic violence homeless and housing agency serving Alameda. We run the Midway Shelter. The newly opened Alameda warming shelter and basic home court on the point. I think it's so important that we all do what we can for those that are most vulnerable in our community. We are building futures supports the needs statement safety net services that are like homeless services, domestic violence support, housing, legal outreach and senior services and food security are so important to help those neighbors in need. I want to thank you, the city and especially Shrub, for continually advocating and understanding what the community needs here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker is Stephanie Penrod. Hello. Good evening, everyone. I'm Stephanie Penrod, Im the managing attorney at the Family Violence Law Center. And I'm just here to again say thank you to the Council for your continued support of Family Violence Law Centers programs. I completed our quarterly report today, so I'd like to share with you a couple of numbers. We received 25 to 35 domestic violence referrals from the Alameda Police Department. Closer. Each day. Our items are each month. And in the last two quarters, we provided 80 Alameda residents with direct crisis. Support and advocacy services. And approximately a quarter of those requested and received legal services. I'm including restraining orders and family law and including orders that allow those clients to remain stable. House and City of Alameda. Without your support, these residents would have nowhere to turn. So again, I am just here to offer my thanks to the Council for your ongoing concern and efforts to assist survivors in the city of Alameda. Thank you. I just have a quick question. Thank you. Councilmember Jason. Did you say that that you average 25 to 35 domestic violence referrals each month in the past fiscal year? Yes. Yes, it is the last actually, it's the last four quarters. So last last four quarters. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sure on behalf of the council, I just want to thank all three of our speakers for the work that your your agencies and groups do. Thank you very much. Okay. So any council discussion or do we have a motion? Can I ask a quick question before. Of course. Sorry, Vice Mayor And that's wait. So I'm not sure who this question is for. I will preface it by saying I found trying to figure out what the exact need statement was a little. It might have been that I was jetlagged and a little addled, but a little difficult to find. And I wanted to suggest that when we actually approve it, that we we pull out the need statement. But the staff report mentions and one of the speakers mentioned that food security was a key item. And yet in the actual need statement, food security is not mentioned. So I wanted to see if that was intentional or if it was an unintentional unintentionally just not mentioned explicitly. The fact that it's in the staff report made me think that maybe it just wasn't written into the made statement. Too to be a staff member. You will to address that question. Thank you for your comments. We will make a more concerted effort next year to specifically identify the needs and more clearly. And regarding your question regarding food security. I think that was unintentional. I know it does cross the groups. Few food security affects all of the populations that are described in the Schwab newsletter. But I think it would be helpful to explicitly state that. Thank you. I know that we've been a long time provider of CBT, CB DB G grants to the food bank, and I would just want to make sure that when we send a needs statement out that they are aware that they can apply again. And they were our highest scoring nonprofit last year, so we would want them to look like we are. Unfortunately, we have a lot of great applicants. My other quick question, I guess this is just a question for consideration for my my council colleagues. We have the council last year funded tenant legal services and tenant legal services are also specifically called out on the CDBG needs assessment. And I wonder if we wanted to perhaps talk about that. There are some other. Now either, you know, whether we want also to be funding additional tenant legal services here or if we want to look at other. But with as anything, whether we should remove that, clarify what we mean so that we're not actually having two pots of money funding two different legal services efforts. So I don't I don't have a specific recommended. Point of I think we've probably exhausted our need for. Under the CDBG program, the only tenant legal services we fund are through the senior legal services. So those services are strictly for the seniors. And that was a service that that was a service that senior legal services recently expanded to. When they the first year they were funded, they did not provide legal services for housing related issues. And they because the need is so great and we hadn't yet the Council hadn't yet done its legal services funding contract that just went in place in November. They expanded and it's a conversation that we can have as part of the NOVA process to see if there if there's a need or a specific kind of niche for seniors that we would want to continue to have them provide. Or they could go back to the kind of legal services they've been providing, which tend to be about benefits and other kinds of services for for seniors. Councilmember Vela. I think just where we're at in terms of the cycle of funding, I would hate to see that change be something that we're discussing now. I do think that with the new legal services contract that we have and through the city, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens. As somebody who used to work in legal services, I found that a lot of times when clients come to you, they come to you with a number of different issues specific to certain groups, whether it's youth or seniors in particular. Typically, when they come, they come with a number of different issues. And so those specialized legal services really are helpful. And while we might have a vendor that does overall tenant protections, that might not be something we wouldn't want to necessarily have. The senior then transferred to another attorney, start a case file all over again, kind of relive whatever trauma they've been through yet again. So I, I hear the comment about, you know, is there is there a possibility of maybe consolidating these two things? But I'd be interested to see just how many of our seniors are using the legal services specific to seniors, what they're using it for, and then make a decision later on about if we want to open it up. And then relative to the need statement, the need statement is, is from the way we talk about the need statement from the president of the Social Services Human Relations Board. That's exhibit one. So we would be just amending that to include the food services. Okay. Thank you. I have a question regarding the the legal services for seniors. What is the venue of that if a senior wants to seek legal services? Mr. ASHBROOK, Perhaps you can if. We're going to have someone here who's the expert on that. Just I want to clarify. Something, and if you could, I just speaking to the microphone. So first off, I just want to say I'm not sure. If there are other legal service agencies being funded through this process. I believe legal assistance for seniors is the only agency that is providing legal assistance specifically for the needs of seniors. From what I. Know, I'm the development director, so I'm raising funds for the organization. But from what I know. They started developing this program, obviously, for the benefit of the seniors to prevent evictions. Now, if landlord assistance or landlord representation is also needed, then we are designing those services to also address that as well. So it could be that the legal representation to protect the senior could be legal, represent representation on behalf of the landlord or the tenant. But we're not doing two separate. It's one legal housing program that can address the needs of both the tenant or the landlord. Okay, so that's one issue. But you also talked earlier about seniors might contact you about health benefits, about elder abuse, financial issues. And my question is simply location. Where does a senior go to avail themselves of your services? The Mastic Senior Center. We have attorneys that hold regular hours there on a regular basis. And we also run a health insurance counseling and advocacy program where we do Medicare counseling also. So in addition to Mastic Senior Center, we also do those out of our office on at three, three, three, Helgenberger. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's very helpful. When you sit down, that was that was helpful. One of the concerns that I have expressed to staff and we're going to continue to look at this is the and we do have a contract for legal services through. Since they are allowed in but it's in Oakland in the Fruitvale District. And so it means that our tenants need to get themselves over to Fruitvale. So I think especially for seniors who may be limited in their their mobility, I think it's great to know that your services are provided at Mastic. I almost forgot. We also provide them in the home. I believe we we do. Go out and do home visits and take care of any need in the home. All right. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Garza, did you have a question for Mr. Ashbrook? No, I just want to comment comically. I do. As a council member, I do think it's imperative that we as a city have a special set aside with regard to tenant protections for our elderly, largely because when it comes to the elderly, how they respond to crises is very different from the working age population, for example. Oftentimes, they can't fall back on a job to deal with issues. Sometimes they're also frail. So I think it is imperative that that we acknowledge that that unique situation that elderly residents face. To be sure, many residents are potentially vulnerable when it comes to housing issues. But in unique ways, the elderly are especially vulnerable. So for that reason, I think it is important to have a set aside with regard to them via the CDBG program. Thank you. Councilman Brody, did you have a comment? Sure. I'll be quick. Just echo a lot of what my colleagues just said. I mean, we're just adapting the needs statement today so we're not deciding any funding or making any direction on funding. So I'm comfortable with the needs statement. And these are the problems that are the most pressing in our community. And, you know, we never seem to have enough for that release. But I just wanted to just point out, you know, the second priority there. The first one is affordable housing. And the second one is is preventing homelessness and other housing crisis is increasing housing opportunities for homeless and extremely low income households, deliver support services to promote stability and independence and measure these successes. So we should keep those in mind as we make other decisions. Thank you. And I would just like to echo all my colleagues, really, and to say that it is overwhelming every year to know that the need is so great and yet our resources are finite. But I do sincerely appreciate the work of all the agencies and committees and staff who go into helping bring to our attention the most pressing need so we can triage these items, if you will. And I congratulate you for that. And if we do, we have any further comments. And if we don't, I'm going to ask for that. We approve this Housing and Community Development Needs statement. Yes. With the amendments. As noted, that motion. Second. Oh, who's. Who's moving? Oh, I'll make the motion. All right, who's second? Sure, I'll second. All right. We have a motion in a second. All in favor. I. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. All right. Moving on to item six C. Recommendation to receive the report on the initiative measure to change the land use designation for an approximately 3.65 acre site on the avenue. By amending the general plan designation from office to open space and by amending the zoning ordinance from administrative professional district to open space district and consider the following options. Option one Adopt the ordinance or option to adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance to the voters. And I will give the brief presentation on this item on December 4th. A certificate of sufficiency was presented on the initiative and the Council ordered a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, and that report is required to come back 30

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to purchase, through Alliant Insurance Services, the following insurance policies: Excess Municipal Liability insurance, at a total premium amount not to exceed $3,000,000, with multiple carriers including, but not limited to, Gemini Insurance Company, Hallmark Specialty, Hiscox, Allied World and Navigators, for a 12-month period, from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021; Airport Liability insurance at a premium not to exceed $93,000 from National Union Insurance Company; Aircraft Liability and Hull insurance for police helicopters at a premium not to exceed $48,000 from National Union Insurance Company; Underground Storage Tank insurance at a premium not to exceed $30,000 from Liberty Surplus Lines; Drone Coverage at a premium not to exceed $5,000 from the National Aviation Liability Program; and, Marine insurance from International Marine Underwriters (IMU) at a premium not to exceed $281,000, for a total aggregate cost of the liability renewal premiums not to exceed $665,000, for the period of July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 for all lia

LongBeachCC_06232020_20-0596

Thank you. Next up is Adam 19. I'm sorry, Adam 20. Or from Human Resources recommendation to purchase access municipal liability insurance and airport liability insurance citywide. Get a motion in a second. Most of my friends and they ask me to add a second, please. I motioned Robert for. I don't have anything on this one. I have one on the last one. I said it's for the customer. Pierce is a second accept report, please. Jolene Richardson will give the staff sergeant a comment. No staff report, public comment. There is no public comment for item 20. We can't recall. Yeah. Maybe my text isn't coming through, but my text says I'd like a staff report on this item, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Because earlier early you had said you only wanted to start for corporate 18 of the three. So that's why I thought you meant. I sent a text and then. You changed it. Okay, that's fine. So let me go ahead and get a short staff report. Joleen Richardson. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and City Council. So the city annually purchases excess municipal liability, airport liability, aircraft liability and whole insurance, underground. Storage, tank liability, drone insurance. And marine insurance. To cover exposures arising from the city operations. Coverage is being obtained through the city's casualty broker record life insurance services. This year's policy for Excess Municipal Liability Insurance will provide. Coverage limits. Of 40 million excess of a 10 million self-insurance retention for all city departments, including the police department, due to historical claims. Frequency and severity. The 2019 excess liability liabilities were challenging with a hardening of the market, lack of carrier capacity and increases. The city purchased $30 million in limits versus the historical 45 million. City risk management staff is working with the city's broker, Alliant Insurance. Services, to secure options to get the city closer to the. 45 million limit that has historically been purchased. Coverage for eminent domain, medical malpractise and pollution contamination will continue to be excluded from this policy. However, the policy does include 30 million in coverage for unfair unemployment practices, employee benefits, liability and public officials. Errors and omissions. The city also purchases airport liability coverage. The city received a price indication from the insurance carrier National Union Fire Insurance offering limits of 3 million and a premium not to exceed 93,000, which is an increase of approximately 1.5% from the expiring policy. This policy does not have a deductible and the city does not self-insure any of the airport risks covered under. Policy. The policy includes extended coverage for international domestic. Terror acts under the Terrorism Risk. Insurance Act. The policy also covers personal injury malpractise auto and employee employers liability. The city maintains limits of 50 million and aircraft liability and health insurance, also through National Union Fire Insurance, subject to. A 31,400 deductible. When the helicopters in motion on the police department's €2. Copters. The Renault premium price indication will not exceed 48,000, approximately a 21% increase. The city is also recommending drone coverage through the National Aviation Liability Program, and it costs not to exceed 5000 to protect the city from liability related to drone operations. Lastly, the city operates vessels that service the coast, including the port, the recommended purchase which will provide liability coverage on the boats and includes Jones Act coverage which limits of $10 million subject to a 2500 deductible. In addition, actual physical damage to the coverage boats. Is provided subject to varying. Deductibles depending upon the value of each boat. Renault premium price indicated will not exceed 2280 $1,000. If there's any questions to answer. Captain Pierce, can we go to vote now? If you have questions. Thank you so much. The reason why I asked for a staff report was we had a lot of conversations about the impacts of some of our lawsuits that we've had. And I just wanted to be able to understand it from the staff's perspective. If lawsuits that we've had over the lifetime of of being the city of Long Beach have impacted our premiums. And if Tom can speak to that just briefly and then we can go to a vote. Yes. In the past, probably five, ten years, just about every local government has seen an increase in claims. And so that does put a strain on the insurance market. We're not alone in this, but our general liability has gone up in terms of the price that you pay and also the insurance that you're able to receive. So we were able to get insurance this year, which is a very good thing, and we strongly recommend this policy in front of you. Any other questions, Councilwoman? That's all. Thank you. Okay. Rock over. District one. I'm District two. District three. District three. District four. All right. District five, I. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to: (1) Based on the analysis provided, consider the request to (i) adopt resolution authorizing the City to support the California State Communities Development Authority Community Improvement Authority’s (CSCDA) issuance of bonds under its Middle-Income/Workforce Rental Housing Program to enact moderate-income deed restrictions on the existing Oceanaire apartment project, at 150 West Ocean Boulevard (Project), and (ii) authorize the execution of a Public Benefits Agreement (PBA) with CSCDA in connection therewith that includes a provision that shares any future sale profits with taxing bodies proportionate to the current tax allocation; (2) Request City Manager to develop a proposed policy for any future similar projects that participate in the Middle Income/Workforce Rental Housing Program; and (3) If action (1) is approved, designate the Project as a pilot, with no similar projects to be approved until the City Council has an opportunity to consider the City Manager’s proposed policy. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_02162021_21-0149

Thank you. Next up is I am 20. Item 20 Report from Development Services. Recommendation two DAB Resolution Authorizing the city to support the California State Communities Development Authority. Issuance of bonds under its Middle Income Workforce Rental Housing Program to enact moderate income deed restriction on the existing Ocean Air apartment project at 150 West Ocean Boulevard, District two. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mayor and Council. This is a relatively new program that was brought to the state of California to look at how to convert some existing housing to a moderate income housing, something that the council had asked us to look at back in November. And we are here to you tonight to recommend a pilot project. We've done a lot of negotiating on this. We want to make sure that you're aware of the various program features. There's some benefits. There's also some risk that we need you to be aware of. And with that, I'll turn it over to Oscar Orsi, our development services manager. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council. As the senator indicated in November, Council had directed staff to study the benefits and risk associated with participation of the Community Statewide Development Authority, also known as CDA, to develop and preserve middle income workforce housing staff contracted with HRA advisors to analyze the proposal between CDA and Waterford to acquire property and maintain it for middle income households. So that would be the ocean area. 150 West Ocean Staff Attorney CDA in Waterford have worked to address and identify concerns and address those through some project modifications. Can you please go back to the previous slide? Thank you. The as you can see from the slide, the there are many steps in this involved in this transaction. We've highlighted the area where. The. Council is asking for your direction on how to proceed with this transaction. Overall, Waterford proposes to purchase Ocean Air from the air for 122 million. Proposes to simultaneously purchase Ocean Air from Waterford, who will act as a project administrator and asset manager. What we are requesting that you consider tonight is the city's proposal to is is a request to enter into a public benefit agreement PPA with CDA to act as a host. Forgoing our ad valorem property taxes and reserving the right to force the sale after 15 to 30 years. Excellent. Thank you. CCD will finance the project through tax exempt bonds as well as housing revenue bonds. The financial structure also includes closing fees and annual ongoing fees for property maintenance and property administration and asset management. Next slide, please. As indicated in our staff letter, this transaction provides several benefits. It preserves 216 units for middle income households for again, for a period of 15 to 30 years or longer, if the council chooses to do so in the future. In response to his staff's comments, Waterford and KDA have modified their initial proposal to the following. They've modified the affordable housing mix to provide additional 80% Army units. They've also agreed to provide annual reports, as well as that allow staff the opportunity to investigate the condition of the building to make sure that the Oceanarium maintain is maintained at a class A condition. This slides indicates the May levels and the household size for the project. Typically, the city will use the state income limits. This transaction proposes to use the light tech, which is slightly higher in terms of income household requirements at 3530 5% versus 30%. Next slide of. Patrick yeah will complete continue this presentation and we do have the project proponents CDA in Waterford here also to provide a brief presentation once we conclude our presentation. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Oscar. And good evening. Mayor Garcia and City Council. I'm now going to cover the project's potential issues and risks. Before doing so. I must reiterate that this is a new program designed to assist moderate income households. There are no other programs or funding available to provide moderate income housing opportunities. So along with a few issues, there is a great benefit to providing moderate income housing units. The projects for affordable housing gains are modest compared to market. There are significant rent reductions only at the 80% AMI level, which comprise 87 of the 216 units. These units have a 28% reduction from market rents. We will not be able to get credit for these units because they're not new construction units and they do not have long term 55 year affordability covenants placed on them. And it is estimated to take about four years for all the units to convert to affordable units. A completed I'm sorry, a complicated financing structure and aggressive rent growth assumptions may result in high debt and limited sales proceeds to taxing entities upon the project sale at 15 or 30 years. There are no new housing units created. But again, this is currently only the only option for providing moderate income housing units. It will take a little time for the units to become affordable through attrition, but that's really unavoidable. Based on Rene's analysis, the initial loss property tax revenue would be about 1.5 million for all taxing entities in year one, which includes 264,000 for the city over 30 years. The lost revenue would have a present value of $43 million for all taxing entities and about $8 billion for the city. With the current structure, the city can request the sale of the project after 15 years. There are risks and trade offs associated with the exit scenarios. If the city chooses to sell earlier at 15 years, this minimizes the lost tax revenue and risk of deferred maintenance, but it also limits the affordability term and sales revenue. Conversely, if the city chooses to sell it later, there is a risk of deferred maintenance cost. Additionally, the option to maximize the value of the asset is to allow the project to return to market rate, which means that the city would lose the affordability benefits. Staff believes that this is an undesirable outcome for the city and therefore there's a risk that sales proceeds, which are needed to pay off bonds and repay taxing entities, will be limited. Only a few of these projects have been approved in cities throughout California, and there are no operating experience or models that we can show how the long term transaction may play out. Staff recommends that the City Council consider designating this particular transaction to be a pilot project and request staff to develop a draft policy for this type of project going forward. The city has an established track record of working with CDA on the development of affordable housing. Waterford is a well-known developer that owns major assets in the city, including City, Place and the World Trade Center. Staff is encouraged by the development team's positive track record in the city and as such is supportive of approval of the project as a pilot. Create Middle Income Housing Project. Here again are the recommendations before you for your consideration this evening, and that concludes our presentation. Thank you. Aaron Council that concludes staff presentation. Kay and Waterford are here and available to answer any questions if you have of them. I think we've done a lot of work on this project. We've done a ton of analysis. We're at the point where we do feel like this is something we can try as a pilot if the council wants to move forward and otherwise, we're ready to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you. County Councilwoman Allen. No. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Oscar and Patrick, for the presentation and staff for all of your hard work on this. I know we started talking about this a while ago, and and I know it's been an incredible amount of work for for the team. I moved this item and I again, I just think the staff are there hard work it's an. ETA. And new type of program. And I'm happy to consider this as a pilot project only so that we can first analyze the impacts prior to setting any precedent for for other developers. One of the things that I do like about this project is that Water Ford is a well known developer. And like we said and you said in the presentation, they have substantial investment in the city. I mean, city plays and the World Trade Center are are significant developments in the area. And given their success and history and Long Beach definitely makes it easier for me to support this item also. More unit more unit units at a lower income level of affordability are crucial, and I'm always open to new ideas to add workforce housing for the missing middle. So again, I commend our city manager and staff for their diligent efforts and for a thoroughly, thoroughly vetted proposal, and especially that it's something new and innovative. So a question that I do have is if you are someone that's answering questions can describe what the Anaheim Project program is under and what that looks like. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, please? Yes. What does the what does the project in Anaheim look like? Remember, this is a Christopher Cross. There's three different projects in the city of Anaheim, one which is further along than the two others. We spend a lot of time with the Anaheim projects and the unit mix that was described by Patrick and Oscar earlier tonight is a similar request that was made by the city of Anaheim. So this deal is structured very similar to the city of Anaheim. And if you're familiar with Anaheim, it's its three platinum triangle multifamily buildings that are involved in what's been under consideration in Anaheim. So that's the information we have. But Waterford is with us and they were also involved in those transactions and would be able to provide you some more information about the Anaheim deals that preceded this deal by about two months. Thank you, Christopher. Councilwoman Price. I just queued up to second the motion. Okay. Thank you. Motion asked. Can Council Councilmember Austin? Count some of your anger. Thank you. I also cued up the second, but now that you have me, I have one question about the. It's early on in the presentation, there was no directive on the restrictions. Can you explain what that is? Yes, Councilmember. What? The property will be restricted for the life of the bond sales 15 to 30 years. They will be limited to only. Being able to. Have residents that meet the middle income household requirements, EMI requirements so they the deed restrictions. Will not allow for the CDA to offer those at market rate prices. Well, I think it's is a great project, it's a great experiment, and I'm looking forward to it as it is about it. I understand that. But the way it's celebrated now, it's great. And again, the Waterford and CSA are great partners for the city and the support to work with the ministry. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to chime in and just acknowledge, you know, a couple of things. The dedication on the part of Waterford to figure out how to make this happen and city staff's cooperation and working together to address this idea as a number of innovative pilots that they do with respect to this program and others across the state. I've I've, you know, probably had relation with a seat with CSP, KBA for the last five, six years in terms of seeing them at local government commission, others. And sometimes, you know, things are brought to us that we may not be familiar with. And I think the approach here with the pilot makes sense, makes a lot of sense. So I think the city manager did a good job at sort of working with the developer, negotiate the income levels and ensure that, you know, the project got better as it moved along. So congratulations to everyone and I look forward to support this project. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to echo Councilman Allen's comments. It is hard to approve of projects like this that can bring so much but have so much risk. It's great that it a trusted partner of the city and I was one of the reasons why I'm able to support it today. But as we move forward, I would look for options that come to the city like this to be even better and better as the housing market has also become better and better on the developer side. So thank you to this partner. I'm excited to support it today, but I look forward to more support of our community through future projects. Thank you, Councilwoman. Sun has been coming here. I just want to say how excited I am about this project. I don't think that we have enough middle income housing, so I think that this is really good. Any housing that is developed is going to help our housing crisis, not only the one that we're in right now, but what we're facing . So I know that there's going to be so many families and just people in general that will be able to benefit from this middle income housing that is going to be available to them. And I'm so excited that we are working with Water Board. Thank you, Water Board for your commitment on this project and for, like Councilmember Mungo said and for the risk that you are taking and willing to take on for this project. So I look forward to seeing this project come to fruition. So congratulations, Councilmember Allen. Thank you, Councilwoman Sorrell. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. I know that there's a lot of layers to this. And I just have a you know, I you know, I'm still learning about this process. So I just have a few questions because I am you know, I know that there's benefits with risk. And I just want to make sure I understand, you know, the benefits are laid out in a way where we are moving forward with a pilot project so that we can learn from this. So maybe I can get some questions answered about, you know, because my concern is just the loss in potential property tax revenue with this pilot project. And I just want to make sure that we are being, you know, wise about our approach to taking risk that can also benefit keeping housing our our our our middle income, essential workers and teachers. And so if I could just kind of get it understanding and a little bit more explanation about how that works out so that we're moving forward in the best way possible. Yeah. Councilmember, this is one of the reasons why we are identifying this as a pilot program. We need we need to be able to study policy moving forward and bringing that to your attention for your review involving such things as property taxes and the benefit of of middle income as well as other income households, and solicit your direction on how to proceed moving forward with other similar projects, we are mindful of the property taxes and the loss or the foregone of those property taxes and would like to come back to you to discuss that that policy in greater detail. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think that concludes. Council comment for now. Let me go to you public comment. Mr. Clarke. We have an election. Thank you, Mayor. Members of City Council Alex Charron with Englander and Albion Allen representing Waterford, want to thank first and foremost city staff. I know this has been several months of discussion in a learning process and engagement, so thank you to Tom, Linda, Oscar, Christopher Patrick and Regina Anthony in the city attorney's office . There were hundreds and hundreds of exchanges and ideas and conversations, and tonight is really the culmination of that. I know it's a complex issue structurally, but I think it checks a number of housing boxes and policy boxes for the city, some of which were recently addressed in the city's housing studies last year. So I think this is incredibly consistent with where the city wants to have long term. And I'm glad that we can launch this as a pilot project to to see the benefits similar to what other cities have enacted, including Anaheim, San Jose, Oakland and others. There was a comment, I think, that Mr. Urie made about the arena numbers. We've been in discussions and I know others have too. There's a lot of momentum up in Sacramento to close that gap and to give cities that are enacting these programs arena credit. So just wanted to make the council aware of that. And lastly, just echoed the sentiments raised. Waterford is a good actor in the city and a good partner to launch this pilot program with. So thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Sun has. I. Councilwoman Ellen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman Sabina. Hi. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Councilwoman Sara. I. Councilmember Oranga. Hi. Councilman Austin. I Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. I think that concludes the regular agenda. Mr. Quirk if that's correct. And that. Is correct. With that, great. I'm going to go on to a new business and any closing item. So I'm going to I'm going to start from I I'm sure that we all learned earlier today that our former mayor, Eunice Sotto, passed away.

A resolution for approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and David Evans and Associates, Inc. for on-call professional engineering services. Approves an on-call contract with David Evans and Associates, Inc. for $4 million for three years to provide comprehensive engineering services to support various Public Works capital projects, and general engineering services in connection with the planning, design, and construction of various projects citywide (201631684). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-6-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-13-16.

DenverCityCouncil_02132017_16-1276

And when it whenever these on call contracts come up, I get questions from constituents about what's this about? Why don't we get to hear about this? And I don't believe there's anything crooked that goes on with these on call contracts. I understand that they're a part of our city process, but there is some concern about getting regular updates on how the money is spent, etc.. And the second factor on this particular group is that there is a group of folks very concerned about one of our large projects that's going to get underway soon, the plant, the Park Hill Drainage Project. And they wanted to know if this money is some sort of backdoor way, these contracts of spending on that. So I'd like to bring this up and just get the issues out and hear from our folks at Public Works. So I'd like to ask Angelica Sias if she could come up and answer a couple of questions. Yeah, and I think we got a team for this because there are many contracts with these on call. Absolutely. And then, Councilwoman Ortega, do you want to just wait until they respond and then you have some questions as well? Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Angela. I'd like I'd like to start just by asking you if you would explain what these on call contracts are all about. Okay. What I'm going to go ahead and do is I'm going to go ahead and defer to Michael Sheehan and Deb Turner. Deb Turner is actually the person who's overseeing these particular on call contracts. So I'll bring her up and have her explain these. In and that they're in line with the general process of on call contracting. Yep. And so one correction I do want to make to what you said earlier. This is not $56 million in on coal contracts. These are 4 million up. These are for capacity of up to $4 million each over the next three years. Right. But the capacity we'll. Be spending $56 million over. Usually we don't go to the maximum amount. This is just so we have some wiggle room and who we can ask to do different projects. Thank you for that. Could have been council members. And I'm a entering supervisor in public works capital project management, transportation, and these are on calls. We generally use these for contracts under $500,000. To procure engineering services for things like intersection designs. I know. Signal design, small roadway projects that we get throughout the year. General rehab projects like the Bill O'Reilly Rehab. Small roadway. Or an intersection of projects like 56th and Dunkirk. We do median design, small bridge designs, even structural rehab of drainage and bridge facilities with these. We also open this up to other people and public works. And I think the Parks Department, Arts and venues, a lot of people use these contracts. But anything over $100,000, we generally mini bid. So we have a minimum of three bids on those, usually, sometimes more. Most of our contracts are, I think, under $100,000. So this is how we generally use these. Do you have any questions on that? And when will council find out how these monies are spent? I know you want to. So so we have a long awaited report coming to you. And I know that we've we've done some vetting and we've vetted it through the mayor's office and through our department. And so you should be seeing a regular report starting the by the end of this week. And what we're going to do is we're going to send that report around, as is to all the on call contracts that we have currently, their capacity, how much has been used. And what we'd like to do is offer one on one briefings to the council members to explain the on call contracting process and how that all works and how you can read this report so you understand how what we're actually reporting on. So do I understand then that we will hear about on a regular basis every dollar that you spend on these on call contracts. Correct. Thank you, Michael. I think you're the one that will answer this. So as far as the whether or not these contracts are associated with with the plot to Park Hill project, can can you explain. The plat to Park Hills being publicly procured separately from these on calls that are too big for the on calls because they go well over the limits of the on calls. So for example, City Park Golf Course is an active design for build procurement at this time and we anticipate that will come through City Council in Q3 , 39th AV Greenway and Park Hill, that's also in an active design build procurement, which will come through City Council for approval in Q4 of this year. And then thirdly, we also have a program management selection to supplement our staff with resources required to implement those large projects that will come through City Council for review and approval in Q3. So if somewhere along the line you decide you need on call assistance with that, would that be new money or is is that. Now it's all part of the existing plan at the Park Hill budget. All these projects that come through the on calls are either a come through the budget book or they come through our various customers. As Angela referenced in Arts and Venues, Parks and Rec Art Museum, we do projects for we're doing projects for National Western Center and we work with our our team of city attorney's office and contracts folks to evaluate what can fit within the on call versus what needs to be publicly procured. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yep, no problem. Thank you, Councilman. You just used the question. So all the on call money that we're seeing here now is budgeted in the 2017 budget. Right. Or or will be in the subsequent budgets for three years. Keep in mind that 56 million in capacity will we'd have to really be pushed over utilize out of all the existing nine that expire this fall, only one is close on capacity. The remaining eight have significant capacity remaining. So it was all part of the budget discussion that we had for this year. Yes. All right. Thank you. Great County Councilwoman Sussman. Mr. President. No. No. Now is it? No, it's okay. I think part of the you know, we did get some requests about on calls. It was a confusion between NG calls and the project itself. And I think we had some questions about how the citizen might be able to find a description of the project on which an on call might be used. Because I know on call work is work you need at the time you need it, but it is about a project. And I know when in an RFP we will put a description of the project. And how does a how does an average citizen find out a description of the larger project for which an on call might be used? Hi, Angela can see us again. So we do have a website which lists all of the all of the projects that are in progress on dimmer. Gov. So if you go to Denver gov dot org forward slash DPW and there is a box that says I believe it's like construction, planning and construction if you go there that lists all of the projects that are in process now. So this isn't specific to on call projects, but it is all of the construction projects that are happening in this fiscal year. I think that's really important because I think I heard on those emails that that was what people wanted to know was what, what construction , what, where can I read about these construction projects? And I, I knew that they were on the website. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa. And I apologize. I was writing my questions as one of the answers was, you've already said this. I'm going to ask to repeat it. So how is overlap handled with the PDP? I mean, Platte, Park Hill contractors, are they preferred because of their familiarity should result in savings or is there no overlap? Actually, the answer to that question is they're typically precluded because they can't sit on both sides. In other words, they can't represent us, the owner, and then pursue the project. So we review them on a case by case basis. But generally, most of the folks who have supported the preliminary engineering for the plant, the particular precluded from pursuing the project, said are out advertising right now. Okay. You know, are there bright lines preventing work within the boundaries of the plants of Park Hill scope and area and the National Western Center? So that that money doesn't come in, that that money for those projects comes out of stormwater or they're dedicated revenue and not out of public works funds. I can tell you it's been vetted very closely as National Western defines their program and how they're going to move forward with it. That's we're waiting on that information, but others are looking at that very closely to make sure there's no conflict there. And we anticipate watching it very closely. I would just to maybe make our job a little bit easier when reviewing these sort of subsequent updates is identify those that are sort of within those boundaries so that we're not trying to, you know, identify intersections and things like that or roadways and trying to make that delineation ourselves. If there's something that is in that sort of work perimeter where the PDP, you know, plant to Park Hill or some of these other larger funded projects or so we can make that so we can if we have versions about that overlap. Understood in our program resource office where we track all these projects we're actually working right now, they'll be able to load them all into gear so we can identify the location of each project with the reports. Yeah, and I think you're getting you can get where my concern is is we've already dedicated a healthy amount of our budgets and fees to those projects. And if and we want our public works money sort of going elsewhere. Interested. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinoza. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, I routinely call out the call contracts because I don't think we get enough detailed information upfront. And I do appreciate the fact that Angela came over and met with me and provided some information in writing based on some questions that I submitted. But I think we need to make sure that we're getting more information so that when either we get them on a consent calendar or they come to committee, we know upfront and don't have to have you all come out in and be expected to answer the questions here. It should be part of that contract request form that gets filed with City Council on the front end. And Councilman Flynn and I have had some conversations about this to ensure that not just with on call contracts but with other bills that get filed, we're getting more information so that we're not scrambling, trying to get the information on on a monday when in some cases the bills only have the details that are attached on Thursday afternoon. So it doesn't give us a lot of time when the agencies have been working on some of these contracts or ordinances for months and months. And then we're expected to scramble. And, you know, I just have to say that I'm I'm not happy that we changed our process, taking away one week from our review of what used to be two reading ordinances, and now it's a one reading proclamation. And that was a resolution that was done to expedite the contracting process. But, you know, in. In that procedure, we get shortchanged. And I think we need to make sure we're getting a lot more information. One of the questions I have for you, Michael, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium. Is where would something like the Washington Street design fall? Would that be a separate project? Would that be something that would fall within this for the design work? This is the widening of Washington Street in the Globeville neighborhood. And for those of you who are not aware, we've got Xcel Energy that's going to be doing a pipeline, a gas pipeline down through the Globeville neighborhood. We. Councilman Brooks and I've been encouraging that this happen on Washington Street and not through the residential neighborhood. But, you know, having having that design work would be really important. And I don't know where something like that would fall, whether it's a non-call or whether it's going to be a separate bid project because of the cost. This is I may be able to take this because there's another one in my district just like it and it's bright and boulevard. And I believe it's a separate project, just like what we doing at Park Platte to Park Hill in City Park, because it's so large, it's a 60, $60 million project, correct? If it's an over $500,000, well, generally same as a heartbeat or an RFP out so that the general engineering community can bid on it. So yeah, that one is definitely large enough. It's its own separate project. Okay. I have no further questions or comments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Uh, Councilman Flynn? Yes. Okay. I just make sure that I'm clear on. Since Councilwoman Ortega brought up Angela, maybe you could address this. The administration under the charter, the way it is now, the list that you sent us this afternoon, nearly every one of these projects you could put out individually in a separate contract, because they're all well below the half million dollar threshold in the charter that has to come to us. Now, you did say I believe that or Michael, maybe you said it, that if a task order is more than $100,000, you'll seek many bids among the among the folks who are all who already have the on call. What do you do when the estimate is over half a million dollars. That would go out for a hard bid? That would go out for Harbert. But would it come back to us then? Yes, that's what I thought. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flint. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. One more sort of question related to the the the way council in Cashman sort of observed that this might. This seems like a $56 million request when the request for services went out, the RFP, RFQ, I don't know what it is. When that went out, was it done as 14 separate RFP or was there one call? There was one. So I think that's sort of important to sort of state. We knew we had $56 million worth of total capacity that we're going to allocate, mean that we're going to approve or disapprove tonight. Doesn't mean you're going to spend it. But we did treat it when we went out and asked for people to send their their qualifications in once. And under that big umbrella. And now we're talking about 14 different contracts. But it is one big ask. So when we do these on call contracts, this doing it this way saves us public works from anywhere from 60 to 120 days in actually getting the work done and out on the street. So this is this is an efficiency for us. And I agree. And I think that's important that we do that as a city to sort of, you know, recognize efficiencies when we can. But I do want to sort of when we go back and we're looking at and we're approving 14 bills that are all essentially the same language with different names, it still looks like $56 million. So that's again, we we rarely go up to that 56 million. And in the time that those contracts are open, it just allows for flexibility as the contractors are bidding for getting work. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So no one, this isn't you're not putting this on the floor, Councilman Cashman? Yes, I do want to put it on the. Floor for a vote. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, would you please move the resolution, resolutions 1276 through 1289 on the floor for adoption? You're not going to let me do a range. So are there. I move that resolutions 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 12, 80, 12, 81, 12, 82, 12, 83, 12, 84, 12, 85, 12, 86, 12, 87, 1288 and 1289 be adopted in a block. All right. It has been moved in second it any comments? Any more comments? Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I do not believe there is any monkey business or malfeasance going on with these contracts. However, I'm going to take the opportunity to vote no tonight to encourage the follow through on the reporting and detail that I hope will be coming across. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to add that I appreciate the fact that we are going to be getting a report, but that's different from getting detailed information with each bill that gets filed up front. So, you know, it'll be great that we look at things in the RIRs, but I'd like to see it up front before voting. So I know exactly what those details entail. So for that reason, I'm going to be voting down to nine as well. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, I just want to sort of preface my comment. I will be voting in in favor of the contracts tonight, but I just wanted my colleagues to know that I've already going to formulate a request for sort of more granularity of prior years on how this money was used, sort of to paint a picture and then appreciate the sort of efforts to sort of track this going forward as well. So thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Raquel Cashman. Can each Lopez. New Ortega? No. Sussman. Black eye. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I heard in. High. Mr. President, I. Politicals voting announce results. Sorry. I'm just looking to make sure everyone feels like a council member with. Tennis, tennis. Tennis Tuesdays Resolutions 1276 through 1289 have been adopted in a block. We've taken off Council Bill 49. This includes all the items that are called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block votes on resolutions on final consideration, except for council bills 56 and 58. The two are companion bills and bills to be scheduled for a required public hearing later this evening. Council. Council will vote to pass companion Bill 56 after the conclusion of the public hearing on Council Bill 55 approving the amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan Sloan's BLOCK three project to authorize the creation of two sales tax increment areas. And Council will vote to pass the companion bill 58 after the conclusion of the public hearing on Council Bill 57 approving an amendment to the St Anthony's Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan's BLOCK nine project to authorize the use of property tax increment financing. Councilmembers. Please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for on the floor for final passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 17 007400750034003500850108 12 0500 70 700 70 800 49 and zero zero 51. All series 70. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary Rocha. Black Eye Clark by Espinosa, i Flynn I Gilmore, i Herndon I Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega i Susman. Mr. President. I. 13 eyes. 13 Eyes. Resolutions have been adopted. The bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 55, which approves the amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan's Lake BLOCK three project to authorize the creation of two sales tax increment areas and a require

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease Agreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property and 3.4 acres of Submerged Lands located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 858)

AlamedaCC_03032015_2015-1338

Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Based Fees Department. Tonight, we're asking you to approve a six year lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority for its maintenance and operation center. If approved, this project will mark the first new construction to occur on Alameda Point. The proposed project would provide maintenance services such as fueling engine oil changes, concession supply and light repair work for the LEDA ferryboats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In addition to the proposal. In addition, the proposed project would be the location for operation activities of Weta, including day to day management and oversight of services, crew and facilities in the event of a regional disaster. The facility would also function as an emergency operations center, serving passengers and sustaining water transit services for emergency response and recovery. The site selected as an area transferred referred to as Term one, which is property always owned by the city but was formerly leased to the Navy. The Navy had tight control of the area until around 2001, when they extinguished the lease and removed improvements at the city's request. The area is also part of the state title and so it's restricted for maritime and water related uses. We two staff will walk you through the improvements they're proposing for the property on the land and water side. I will describe the details of the transaction. We will be paying a base rent of approximately of $5,125. The city's development impact fee for all Me two point is 9790 $956 per acre, and potential developers can opt to install their fair share of infrastructure improvements as outlined in the master infrastructure plan. In lieu of paying that fee, in other words, and acres worth of improvements for every acre of land, we will be installing infrastructure instead of paying that impact fee. Using the fee structure, we just landside obligation would be $714,640 because their landside improvements comprise 0.73 acres. Recognizing that there is some water side impact. Staff negotiated $2.5 million in infrastructure included in the master infrastructure plan because we too also will be leasing 3.4 acres of submerged parcels. The most significant improvement will be the installation of the $1 million water line running from the base to the water main on Pacific Avenue. This will be the first line on Alameda Point Water line on Alameda Point that will be in compliance with East Bay mud standards. Other master infrastructure plan improvements include a portion of the waterfront park contributing to the reconfiguration of Main Street and flood protection improvement. Approving the list tonight will only give way to the real estate right to develop the property. We also will need to go through the planning board for use, permit and project conditions. They currently are scheduled to go to the Planning Board on March 23rd. At that meeting, the planning board will determine use conditions. I think that's an important point to make, to remind the community that the planning board will be making decisions about this project and more specifically because of a phone call I receive later today regarding concern over the height of the proposed building. After conferring with the city planner, I was informed that the proposed building is 65 feet tall, and the height restriction in that district of the of the base is 100 feet. For further frame of reference, the USS Hornet is 190 feet to the top of its mass. So the scale of the building is not out of line with its surroundings. Also keep in mind that the long term lease with the Department of Transportation Maritime Administration anticipates that there'll be a new warehouse adjacent to the piers. If the existing warehouse is torn down for development. So there potentially would be another structure of similar size in the vicinity. The issue that is most discussed in the public arena is the removal of the seal haul out at the project in the project area. Over the years of negotiating this project. Harbor SEALs have established a hall out area on the old dilapidated pier, which is approximately 80 feet long. After all of your environmental consultations and conferring with the city's biologists, there doesn't seem to be an impact in removing the hall out entirely, especially given the ample hull out available on the nearby breakwater. However, there are community concerns for which we too has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to locate, design and construct an alternate hull out via a negotiated MRU with the city. The reason we're not bringing the menu to you tonight or an additional approval is because we need to determine the appropriate location for the facility and be mindful that we don't create another unwanted environmental impact on the waterfront affecting other species, creating obstacles to additional waterfront improvements such as a small marina or an additional ferry terminal. We just don't know yet. We don't want to put the hull out in a place that will tie our hands later. Finally, staff is able to recommend the approval of this project for several reasons. First, consistency with the general plan and zoning designations for the property. This is in the Alameda Point Enterprise Zoning District, which is to support maritime uses consistent with the Public Trust Exchange Agreement, provide land for employment and business uses and residential use of this land is not permitted. Because of disaster preparedness as an island community with limited access to the to the region, Alameda must do everything it can to prepare for a major disaster. It will be a major benefit to the residents of Alameda to be home of Guido's EOC and the region's ferry boats in December of last year. I attended a half day meeting with the fire chief, public works director and representatives from DC and regional FEMA offices to tour Alameda Point. The Wheeler facility played a significant role in the response and access planning for the city of Alameda. Alternate transportation services. This facility is an important step towards ensuring a strong partnership between the community and the regional ferry provider. Investment in Alameda Point. This project will take a small parcel of land and invest 45 to $50 million in construction of the facility and infrastructure. Public Park and Bay Trail Improvement Plan will align the Bay Trail to its long term placement, and the project will improve the adjacent adjacent public park area. I hope that you can support this recommendation tonight, and I'm going to turn the discussion over to Kevin Connolly, the manager of Planning and Development. Thank you, Nanette. It's been a pleasure working with Annette on this project. My name is Kevin Connolly. I'm the manager of planning and development for the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. With me tonight is Michael Garrity, who is the project manager for this project. And we're happy to answer any questions you may have, which is going to run through a quick overview of the project. As Ninette said, really, I'm not going to add more than what she's already discussed. This is a rendering of our building. And as you said, it's just below 70 feet tall. It's about three stories. If you include or do not include a mezzanine, the third story is the emergency operations center, which is a key part of this and function of this building today. Our emergency operations center that we use in the event of any natural disaster would be our San Francisco facility on Pier nine, which is woefully inadequate in terms of its size and scale and functionality. This would be our center centerpiece for emergency operations in the whole Bay Area when it is complete. Look at the next one. I got. It. Here's an overview of the facility. There would be berthing space for 12 vessels here. All the auto vessels are used in Alameda service. So these are Alameda Main Street Harbor Bay and South San Francisco service. South San Francisco is sometimes forgotten among alameda commuters, but we have a healthy proportion of of our commuters to south San Francisco are coming from Alameda origins. So those are the 1212 for the 12 berths for our vessels on the water side that's a little bit over three acres of of overwater lands. Their power supported floating docks. They do not represent actual actual construction on the water they're floating. And they can be and will be removed on an occasional basis for cleaning and and and maintenance. There's also a maintenance facility, the major facility proper, which is mainly a light industrial light maintenance facility. Oil changes fueling light maintenance are heavy mean. This really takes place that bay ship on the estuary as well as in seaport as in shipyards up and down the West Coast. Seattle and San Diego have typically done our major maintenance work. One area where our service is really at vulnerable is we only have one day's worth of fuel at any given time. This facility will allow us to have up to five days storage of fuel in the event of a natural disaster and the ferries will be relied upon to serve the Bay Area. We will need those five days of fuel. We cannot really survive with only one day's of fuel. As the net said, the key infrastructure improvements here. One is the Bay Trail that runs along east west along Hornet Avenue. The second is the park area, which is just immediately to the east of our site that we are improving. Third is the main is the water main that's coming from Pacific. And fourth, we didn't mention is we're actually providing $250,000 towards improvements for parking at the Main Street terminal. And if you're aware of the situation there, Main Street is incredibly impacted today. A close up view of the site. And you can see we have fuel storage tanks across the street. That was a way of of reducing the project costs, making it simpler and making it easier to build. And it's also been incredibly productive in terms of the safety of the facility. In addition, you see there the West Hornet Avenue Bikeway that's going to be put in by us. We're improving the street as well, as well as the park. All of our facility here is being raised to seven feet above sea level for sea level rise at the 50 year level. And then finally, the SEALs issue that Nanette mentioned, and this is just a little project history on it, we first became aware of it roughly about a year ago, and we consulted with biologist at NOA and it NIPS the National Marine Fisheries Association. There was public comment, there was onsite meeting with the city staff and local residents in December. NOA issued its findings last month. And, you know, our intent is to build something for the SEALs. And as Nanette said, from our perspective, we submitted a memorandum memorandum of understanding, a draft about a month ago to the city. But we understand the concern that we do not know enough about where this location is yet. But when we do, we are committed to funding and constructing that hall. So with that I can answer any questions or I can turn over next. Vice mayor of two questions. You were here before. Who's responsible for spills and containment as you're being changing oil and fueling? We are. And is that in the contract part of the lease? Or how does how does that how does that get assigned? That's part of our regulatory responsibility with the Coast Guard. Coast Guard provides us licensing. And. We're protective as a city. As far as liability from. Yes. Yes. We have provisions in the lease that that make any spills the responsibility of the tenant. And the second is, you're still, according to the staff report, and what you said is you're still committed to building the hall out prior to dismantling the current one. Right. We are going to work with the city staff to identify the best location and timing for doing that. Prior to removing the existing one. That's. That's still your position. That's that's that's our intent. Right. Thank you. Councilmember Ashcroft. And I just wanted to also clarify that in the lease, even before I knew that this the report of the the spill in the estuary was going to be on this agenda. I bookmark that there are pages in this in this lease agreement that we are approving tonight that have to do with. The installation use of fossil fuel storage facilities. They are required to be double walled Maersk and any fuel dock must contain adequate measures to prevent and detect any fuel spill spills or leaks. And it goes on, as I said, for pages. I thought it was very thorough. So I would just say that I want to be sure that no one who's listening gets confused with what's being presented here proposed tonight and the presentation we heard about the estuary spill, because after all, that's still a mystery. I mean, somebody we don't know where it came from, but it's clear that these sorts of procedures weren't in place. If you if you read this lease, as I said, riveting stuff. But it's it's very thorough. And see.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Westnet, Inc., of Huntington Beach, CA, for the purchase and installation of equipment to upgrade the fire station alerting system, without advertising for bids, in an amount not to exceed $215,326; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Fire Department (FD) by $215,326. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0412

Item 16. Report from Fire and Financial Management. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with Westnet for the purchase and installation of equipment to upgrade the fire station alerting system without advertising for bids in an amount not to exceed $215,326 and increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund in the fire department by $215,326 citywide. This item requires two votes. Mr. West. Yes? Administrative Bureau Chief for the fire department, David Honey will give a brief report. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Members of the city council, the first in a learning system, was installed in the fire communication center and all fire stations in 2003. The system is the interface between the fire communication center and the fire stations and gives first responders of the fire department information detailed information about emergency calls in each response. Most stations are still using the original technology from the 2003 installation date, and since then, WESTNET has made available to its clients significant upgrades. And much like using older computer equipment that advances quickly. We're now using 12 year old technology and have the opportunity to upgrade that. The purchase also includes a request to purchase turn out timers, which would give. First responders a visual readout of the time elapsed since the call came in. And what that does is allows the. Firefighters to to meet response time goals. And get out of the station. Quicker and responding to the incident. The cost is. $215,326, and the funding source is a fire facility's impact fee. And that concludes my report, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you, sir. Councilmember, your Urunga. Do we have? A secondary of the motion is up and there we go. Councilmember Granger. I'm glad to see that the fire department is on top of this. It's obviously a big issue for the community when you're talking about response times, and I hope that this new piece of equipment really works for them. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo. While I appreciate that it's time to upgrade. They haven't been upgraded since 2002 and ten years has gone by. I hope that when we're put into these situations with sole source agreements as councilmember prices motion brought before our Council several weeks ago stated, we really need to do. It would be helpful if there were additional options in terms of knowing had we been with a competitive company and what that upgrade cost would look like, because we obviously don't have any alternatives because we're in this position. But in spending almost a quarter of $1,000,000, it's important to know how far deep into this hole and how many how long it'll be until the next upgrade. So that if we do need to make $1,000,000, multimillion dollar transition out and we'll know what options we have, because I know all this is the premier system and I'm proud to have it here in Long Beach and L.A. County uses the same system. There are alternatives, and I want to make sure that our upgrade costs are not exceeding that of our neighbors. Councilman Andrews. Yes, I also would like to tackle that. But the biggest part about it, I think when we talk about this type of money and public safety, I don't think that there's anything we should ever want to turn around looking back on. We definitely want to upgrade anything we need. When we're talking about public service. And I totally will. Okay. This motion. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on item 16? We are only taking one motion on this item. Seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion passes nine zero.

AN ORDINANCE related to COVID-19; making a supplemental appropriation of $8,505,000 to several general fund agencies; making a supplemental appropriation of $23,498,000 to several non-general fund agencies; making a supplemental appropriation of $5,719,000 to capital improvement fund 3311; making a supplemental appropriation of $25,199,000 to capital improvement fund 3951; amending the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18835, Sections 7, 19, 20, 41, 44, 52, 72, 72, 73, 84, 85, 85, 95, 101, 116 and 126, as amended, and Attachment A, as amended, adding new sections to Ordinance 18835, as amended; and declaring an emergency.

KingCountyCC_05052020_2020-0177

And I understand you'll be staying with us for the next item as well. I will. Thank you. That takes us to six times in his agenda, that proposed ordinance 2020 177, which is a supplemental appropriations ordinance that releases the COVID 19 response on Auckland Council members and staff to distribute an ongoing amendment package today by email. 1216 It came from both the Senate and the media, and I would like to have that email and attachment of it for you. And we have council staff in the meeting present to brief us and answer your questions. Andrew Campbell Give us the staff report and brief the Senator and Mr. Williams. Well, the amendment amendments measure spending, gentlemen, but I need yours. I think he's a jerk. Can you hear me? Okay? Yes. So. And you're cute with general staff. I will begin with the staff report, which is on page 11 of that. I'll be kind of skipping around a little bit, so I'll make sure to write. Appropriate page. I'm on page 11. The proposed ordinance would make a total supplemental appropriation of about $1 million, of which one point and will be made to the general fund agencies 22 million to 9 general fund and 31 million to the capital improvement. If. Now on the next page, page 12. If you look at page. Table one. Page two. Summary of all that emerges the omnibus. Taking action on guarding the. COVID 19. Virus. As you recall, in the March omnibus, we appropriated a total of 27 million for this omnibus proposal, 54. And we have a kind of a running total of 81.8 million for the two omnibus legislation. And as she has repeatedly mentioned, there is going to be another one in May. Table to provide a summary of of. Along the appropriation included in the proposed ordinance. I'm going to spend most of my time on on that table. I'll just do a brief review of each item in that. And that's so in the proposed ordinance, the first item that would be included is a $1 million to the Office of Equity in Social Justice to expand funding for their COVID 19 Community Response Fund. This was the fund that was created from the last omnibus where the council appropriated. The second item is $95,000 to the Department of Assessments for laptops and related equipment to allow employees to work remotely. The third item is 410,000 for the adult juvenile detention for two full body security screening systems to minimize physical contact with the poor social distancing requirements. $2 million for a small business relief program administered by the Department of Local Services, including partnering with local chambers and providing translation services for small businesses. On page 13 on the top of the page. We have a population of 48,000 for public health to support and in a way that would provide a premium pay in addition and an additional $4 per hour for nights and weekends for public health nurses employed in the different isolation, quarantine and shelter densification sites. We also have 4.3 million to the Housing Community Development Fund, which increases the additional revenue that we release for the Community Development BLOCK Grant and the emergency services grant. I'm sorry. Here's the solution, Grant. We have a $2.2 million increase in the IDF in the operating to support the isolation, quarantine and shelter in Asian sites, particularly inbound new residents which. We have $5.7 million for leasing costs for the 7 to 7 sites. Around the county. $25.2 million here for additional cost for the placement and installation of modular units across the county. And $150,000 to install fencing around the mailing regional justice center. And as Councilmember Coleman discussed before, $12 million for an event on lodging, tax, future lodging tax revenues to support $8 million for a visit. Seattle on the South Side for tourism campaign, $2 million for culture to provide relief funds to arts, culture, heritage and preservation organizations. $1,000,000 to sound science organizations, 250,000 for arts education and 750,000 for live music venues. And lastly, $1,000,000 operation. This is also for future lighting, moving future lighting tax revenues to support homeless youth programs. The subsequent pages are just additional details of the summary that I provided. So I'm going to skip over those for the purpose of time, and I will direct you now. Page 21. On page 21. This speaks to the future lightning tax allocations that will be used to support the $2 million and $1 million for homeless expenses. So, as you know, that $4 million will be funded by an advance of utilizing tax revenues earmarked to support tourism. So the Council adopted Ordinance 1878, which was an ordinance that signed an agreement with the Washington with the Seattle Mariners. And it also provided some intent of the allocation of utilizing tax revenue. And in that ordinance, a total of 9 million was supposed to be allocated for tourism from 2021 to 2029. With this proposed ordinance, the executive is proposing that that allocation increase from 9 million to 21 million from 2021 to 2029. It should be noted that in order for that to happen, we would the Council will need to memorialize that. That changed by amending board in 2017. The executive hasn't transmitted that ordinance yet because due to our new restriction on what can be taken up during the virtual meeting, legal counsel opined that given that this is related to neutralizing tax revenues, that that would not qualify as something that can be taken up during this time. So exactly how we try to transmitting that at a later time. If I can direct you to page 23, the page 23 on it has a table six. And what table six includes is all the different allocations that would be used for each variety tax revenues as indicated by ordinance one eight, seven, eight, eight. And then there's three columns. So there's one that they were allocated by that ordinance. The March 31st important preliminary forecast includes some or some preliminary sales tax work tax revenue that was provided by a Oliva and this that assumes that forecast with the additional $12 million for tourism annually. And then the last column is actually what Dwight talked about was the latest April 30 preliminary forecast. So that assumes that forecast in addition to the $12 million, in addition to tourism. I just like to note that in the original ordinance, 18788. Reallocations were slated to the belief we forecast based on the August 2018 forecast and any any revenues in excess of that forecast. And that's why you have those two different sections for the line tax revenues. The subsequent pages also speak to the revenue sources and the revenue outlook of of how these appropriations would be paid. A lot of it is just a summary of what are doing that we mentioned in the proprietary things. So I will I will I won't go into that. But I would note that there are a couple of tables that might be helpful. Table seven on page 26 includes the sales tax interim forecast for April 30th, and it shows the different the decrease in revenues that White mentioned in his briefing. And then the next page, table eight includes the year to date actual county revenues that would have been collected as of April 2022. So you'll see that a lot of the property tax levies are okayed by. But but the sales tax revenues are significantly lower. That concludes my staff report before going to the striking of Mr. Chair, if there is any questions I can answer. Never so many questions on the underlying ordinance through what we briefly spoken about the. The question that member. And Council member Lambert. Posted to her team something about a 1 million public school site is deeply regrettable and that in one of the times you talked about acquiring 680 beds. And I think the number right now, because it varies every day, 50 and 70. So how are we going to face this on a day to have 608 bed allocated or purchased if we're going to need less than 100? So I'll I'll I'll try to answer the last question. And so that's what the executive has been proposing, that maybe that we need the county, maybe so because of like how how many beds are currently being used. And I recognize that the number of beds. Definitely lower than what happened in Ferguson. You know, very quickly, I'm speaking to why we need that many number of beds. And then I think your first question would be related to $1,000,000 for a science center. It was. Yes, it was. Thank you. So my understanding is, is that the $1 million would be part of that lodging tax future in tax revenues, and it would essentially just go to support science organizations. The proposed ordinance is as broad in general as that. That's a pretty big allocation. And we're talking about not having enough money to keep businesses going. And I'd be interested in knowing what we're targeting. Back to you. What what are some of the things you had in mind that would need. Call that set up one. Okay. It's a terrible regime. I think I have a problem with having. Nicholas Stern would like to provide some explanation to council member members. We have in this proposal come in second and we have $2 million fund for culture to provide for grants or be covered under in the charter for for culture . There's no provision to provide grants. Two sides organizations. So therefore the executive included language for. PRC to be able to determine grants. The phone lines. Education programs are examples of science programs that would be included. Could it be? Science teacher, Mercer Smith. Who created the aquarium. A crewed flight could could serve. There are a lot of. Things that could be. Any ideas to help with promoting Turks? Statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I just want to put down outstanding or bust as we go through this presentation for each of the different programs that we're talking about. I mean, I really want to understand where the money comes from and what our confidence level is, that it will be there and when we're assuming that there will be reimbursement from federal or other companies. I know that's not typically what we start with during appropriations, but it feels important given the reason we just had. Councilmember Bill Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On point. It doesn't amount to cheese inquiry and circling back it may have slipped by, but I thought maybe I could emphasize it or just seek validation or confirmation from Dwight. But I believe I heard Mr. Daly say that he has reviewed the package of amendments, including the Second Amendment, and that he believed that all of the appropriations that are contemplated herein were likely to be or would qualify for federal reimbursement out of the cares money that we have in on hand today. So if that might help us with governmental duties, I think very good question. Yes, sir. We refer you back to the staff report. Ages 12 and 13. That itemize is the individual things in the original proposed ordinance. So everything on page. Well, we are confident is eligible either for FEMA money and or for the CARES Act. But on page 13, the public health item at the top is explicitly allowed in the CARES Act money. The next item Housing Development and the Emergency Solution Grants. Those are separate appropriations in the CARES Act. And so this is just appropriating federal money that was sent to us for these purposes. And then the rest of the items on this page, other than the last two, are clearly eligible for FEMA money. And then we would presumably also get state money in CARES Act money to cover all those facility costs. It's possible that the wanting parents items would also be eligible for CARES Act. That's not the mechanism we're proposing at this point. We're proposing this advance on future revenues. But if we got to the end of the year and we still have earmarked, money was unspent, we can certainly check with our lawyers and see if any of that could also be reimbursed. I've also, as you said, Councilwoman Dombrowski, most of I think all or at least many of the amendments that are proposed, and they also seem to me to fit within the ability fund, either with FEMA money, state money or cares act money. Followed by favorite costumes. Oh, yeah. But did you? No. Councilmember malignancy, please. Thank you. I want to thank you for that answer. That was helpful. The. Items that you said would be reimbursable with FEMA or terrorism funding. So excluding the lodging tax items for a moment. If for some reason they don't get reimbursed. Where does that money come from and put the people in the general fund? Right. Yes. Now, remember that the federal money is working in two different ways. So the. FEMA money. You have to apply for and then they review your application. And if that qualifies, they awarded. Historically, that has been a slow process. They assure us that, no, no, no, this is different. They know they have to get across. So that's one process. The $262 million in CARES Act money we already have, it is in our treasury. So there is no reimbursement process involved. We will have to have documentation because obviously at some point we're going to get a lot of it, but we don't have to wait on that money. So the some of the items that we are less confident about, FEMA reimbursement, if we wanted to just immediately charge those the CARES Act money we got. And what's the. I'm just looking for that. I'm just looking for risk here. Okay. So what's the downside if we a set of we find cares act funding to a certain. Expenditure and quantifiable. Because the rules have jumped around a bit. Find a balance model. What's the worst case scenario? Well, I would say there are two worst case scenario. So the first worst case scenario is we have expenses like the facility expenses that we have been assured by the federal government and FEMA that, yes, those are going to qualify and yes, we will get reimbursed. And at some point a year from now or two years from now, they'll say, oh, we changed our mind. And so, no, we're not going to reimburse you for those expenses. And at that point, Cares Act money will have expired. So that will be suddenly stuck with a hole in our general fund that we could not have anticipated. That, I think in my mind, is the worst case. This. The other risk is that we spend some of our cares act money on something that at some point in the future the federal government determines oh you to read some part a vast one that 46. Never sat here. And, you know, that kind of small business assistance didn't qualify, but other kinds of small business assistance there. And then again, that would be back to the general fund. The reason I'm less concerned about the second one is the guidance, at least so far, is so bright. It's hard to see how an auditor could really make much of an argument and demand that we return money we had already spent. So frankly, I think the CMA risk is the higher risk just because it's not money we already got in our treasury. And just a close eye on this topic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say we, as some of us have come by this distrust of federal reimbursement. Honestly, you know, the Howard Hanson Dam situation and I think you remember that quite as well. As I do remember that. Gentlemen. Terminator will continue to be working on the spectrum of. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the summary of the striking amendment is on target on page 27 of your in the packet to the first page in the strike, the amendment would add an additional expenditure restriction to specify to make it explicit that the million dollars would be used to support the Community Response Fund. On page 28, there were two. We would currently the expenditure restriction related to the small business program, which deals in very broad. What we've done is we've added an expenditure restriction to break out the different allocations as the executive had intended. The $1.7 billion for grants to small businesses, $200,000 to partner with local chambers and community based organizations. 50,000 for translation services to small businesses. The striking amendment also includes some additional criteria, for example, considering historically disadvantaged communities for their or the allocation to be geographically balanced, etc.. The third change would be adding an additional $3 million to also implement a small business relief program countywide. Again, the deal at auction is for unincorporated King County only, and what we've done is been added to the PSC so that they can try to figure out which means they will be able to implement this program. It adds a $3 million and it provides the same, but would probably provide the breakdown of 2.5 million for grants to small businesses, 125,000 to partner with both local chambers, which associations and community based organizations, and 75,000 for translation services. Again, it also establishes some additional criteria for the grant, and it also requires that he has the community work group to think through an approach to implementing the program. Number four is the expenditure restriction related to the advance of lodging. Tax funds are fairly broad and what we've done is we've narrowed or we've written your language to be more specific. So for example, the $8 million for tourism organizations we've provided that 6 million would go to visit Seattle and 2 million will go to Seattle Southside. And we added some additional language to provide more requirements. For number five, we've done the same thing where we've allocated $1,000,000 to science organizations, $250,000 to arts and culture science organizations that provide education program $750,000 to live music venues. So that was what the executive intended and the expenditure restriction was recommended. Explicitly breaks that down. Now on page 29. Number six, with a lifetime of living in services again, it adds an expenditure restriction to call out that the million dollars would be used for homeless youth, for organization, providing programs and shelter to homeless youth throughout county . But it creates an additional requirement that it should be outside of the ME of Seattle. And I think that if you consider that the grants provided are geographically bound throughout the county and also these proven successful outcomes as a graduate number seven in the operating budget, we're adding an additional half million dollars to burn mitigation funds for cities to recover costs related to the these various coping sites around the county. Number eight, the striking amendment makes councilmen grant applications that's related to commit. And number nine, it has some additional language for the various grants that legal counsel has. The request that we add to abide by the EU opinion on providing grants and loans to various working organizations during this time in the last three years. There are some additional technical corrections and we also have a title limited to one and that could prove my we might consider. Thank your colleagues. Well, I will now take questions on the Second Amendment. And then once we concluded the questions on the Second Amendment, I will ask what the party's preference is as to whether or not they asked us to brief each amendment or whether we asked members if they wish to make an amendment to remove an amendment and then a separate debate. So we'll start with questions on the Second Amendment itself. Colleagues. I've been. Mr. Chairman, city. Council member, D.C., please. Thank you. So big question on the lodging tax. Talk a little bit about where this money comes from. And somebody explain to me. Whether or. How it affects the allocation that we worked so painfully on laboriously through earlier in the year to things like. Housing. Councilmember. So these this $12 million and the $1 million for all of these services would come in advance on beach related items. So, you know, since those revenues are available today, if if if the council approves these appropriations, then they will request the Executive Finance Committee to do a loan of the same amount to advance those funds. If I can direct you to back to my staff report to table. Number six on page 23. And what this shows is that the rationale on how the so the rationale is that because the assumption that he has be or the council used to do the allocation of all the future lies tax revenues having a debt service interest rate of about 5.5%. But given that with the new economic climate and the lowering of interest rate by the Fed's the PSP, it's assumed that the interest rate for those will be lower. So in essence, the debt service or the TLT bonds for the $87 billion, $100 billion would actually cost less than what we've out , what we've assumed in the original allocation. So if you look at the people say, if you look at the 21 and 22 line, the Warren is one 8780 column, you see that it needs 181 million and 212 million. That decreases to 134 million and 184 million. With this proposal. So in essence, what we're saying that we won't need to take away from what has been already committed to the different buckets, affordable housing policy, the arts and culture, etc., because of the lowered interest rate. But what it would not what this does is it does increase the tourism allocations. If you look at tourism where it has a parentheses of 25,000 you to save it on. It was originally allocated 9 billion, but now it's increasing to 21 million. The April 30th preliminary forecast is a lower sales tax forecast. So the backdrop, 20.5 million. So what the numbers that you that the council members should be looking at is the rightmost column. That's the latest forecast, which assumes that you are increasing the tourism budget by 12 million. How's that? Yeah. Actually, that makes it worse for me. I. It looks to me like if what you just said is correct, it looks to me like we took $30 million away from affordable housing to do this. BA So if you look at the $187 million in total bonds, you know, what council committed to was to spend $187 million fourth quarter because of the debt servicing and the interest rate. What we did back in when we adopted Order 2780, that would have cost us 154 million plus for 2012. But now with a lower interest rate, that $187 million of mine will now cost us less, would actually cost us $134 million of 181. So these calls are class. And so by going down. Is good. Does that mean that in terms of money going up is bad? It just means that the allocation for tourism is increasing. So if you look at affordable housing, a home with you, there's an allocated home. So what we've done is, you know, I know we've been an allocated column or in our prior in the ordinance, 2078 allocation was 280 million. But because revenue for sales tax is forecast to grow up, says you've adopted that one and it's not going to 8 to 9. So in summary, we're really not taking away any commitments or any money from an allocation. All we're really doing is adding an additional $12 million to the tourism bucket. But in that sense, because revenue forecast has increased since August 2018, everything for the most part, everything, all the allocation are increasing. So we tried this again. Let me check if looking at the whole before line forums that consist of the section on affordable housing and homeless youth. Did any of the numbers in there change because of what we're doing here? Well, our what was what we're doing here entirely contained in assumptions around the tourism. I would say that even if we didn't know and we know the time and. That was a yes or no question, can you repeat the question? Did anything change on the four lines of the affordable housing and homeless U.S. before rose here? The 1830 132 homeless youth unallocated because of the proposal to use lot of in fact the way we're proposing to use it said. Yes. I'm looking for. No. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. I think the question is so if it comes in and obviously if we assume, let's say, for example, we didn't add an additional $4 million for tourism. We would still see a lowering of the total hospital bonds. In these exact numbers. You know, one more time. When we see these exact numbers. Yes. Yes, exactly. Well, everything that we've done in order to increase the amount of money for tourism is to make assumptions about future interest rates. And is what we're doing now going to guarantee this money such that if those interest rates like if our assumptions fail, we're not going to go take money out of housing. I just want to talk about the. We find you all calm, everybody watching, as most of the people who testified will recall how hard that battle was. And I just don't want to reopen it. And I don't want to be somewhere further down the road here hearing what we committed to jurors. And so therefore, because our assumptions failed, we're now going to have to have less money for housing. That's important to me. And I just want to be reassured about that. And I'm not understanding the answer to plaintiff gets what was kind of your word for it? What is a bit of a scary place. For you to be? But that's where we're. I would. Just close by saying that the assumptions that he's using I've currently with the forecast from the leaders in charge working for people and the new assumptions for the interest rate is reflected on the. Table and that. Well, right. Course it is. This is their proposal. And they're making those assumptions. I don't know. Maybe I. Agree. I agree with you on that. But I have a real concern here that we are going to I don't see anything in this proposal for rental assistance. I don't see anything in this proposal to help people keep keep people keep a roof over their heads. And that's a huge concern of folks out. I don't see anything in this proposal that you like, and I'm hoping to see anything that won't harm our long term commitment to housing affordability, because that problem is going to be, like everything else, just exacerbated by COVID. And in terms of recovery, I think homebuilding is an excellent way to spend our money and grow jobs while at the same time addressing an ongoing and badly exacerbated housing bill. I just I'm having these concerns about phone supervision. And if I could understand what would happen if there was someone to show me, I would not worry here. Mr. Chair, can I try, please, Mr. Dudley? All right, so, Councilor WG, in addition to looking at Mr. Tim's Page 23, you might want to also look at page 22. So what Mr. Kim has summarized on page 22. Or your your dad controls policy decisions about how to allocate the money when you at the last minute. And there are state law requirements and then the council made further decisions about how to split up the money between arts, housing and tourism. Since you made those decisions, two significant things have happened. One is coalbed, which is lowering revenue in the near term. The other is a significant decrease in the interest rates so that the amount you committed to debt service on $187 million housing bonds is low. The combination of those things leaves you with a little less total money, but more in essence, on allocating money compared with what you cited in ordinance 18788. The executive and some of your colleagues are proposing to take some of that unallocated money, the 12 million, and add it to the tourism bucket and advance it so that it can be spent. Now to help organizations that are adversely affected and provide funding for a tourism campaign, help us rebuild our lodging tax revenue. That's a policy for then you could have decided and you may personally. Prefer. To say, I don't want to do that, and I would rather have more money in the arts bucket or more money in the housing market. That's also a policy choice. So. I think it's not correct to say that the 12 million has been taken away from housing because it's not, as Mr. Kim said, there's actually. More. An allocated money available in housing now than at the time past 18788. But it is a policy choice about how to spend some of that unallocated money. Which means we and this is like it's a totally rational thing to do. And there's been some some good, you know, presentation and discussion already about the rationale. You know, the source comes from hotels and I get that. I just want to understand exactly what it is we're proposing to do. And I do fear that we are. Kind of moving the lines on the buckets a little bit here. A little bit. My $12 million. So. The size of the buckets themselves as well is fluctuating in different ways. But we are saying. That is some amount of what we know or some portion of what we have identified as affordable housing and homeless youth. Bucket money will now be tourism marketing. That's that's what I'm hearing. And I'm not your frankly. I don't think that is correct. So you have a different amount of money available to you now than the last time. The decision about how much to in tourism the last time was based on needs. And the other two buckets that you wanted to satisfy you and your colleagues wanted to satisfy. There is now more money allocated, money available. Any proposal has been made. It's some of that, in essence, new money imported to tourism. And I was. Saying that is right. There's no such thing as back on allocated money in the way we're putting it in any form that summarizes what we were doing. No such thing as an allocated money. It was at least 37.5%. At least 37.5%. At most. 25%. So I guess maybe the way to ask it is if we were to do all this and everything happened the way we plan to do, and we asked ourselves forward into the future and look back, will these percentages hold? Yes. So that the tourism allocation that is proposed now is 174 out of. Well, 95 is 13%. That's way below the 25. That's a very good answer. And Dombroski. Councilmember Dombroski, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate Councilmember Belushi's question and Dwight's answer. I just want to make a couple of points. In developing the proposal around this. I think a foundational principle was no reduction in the number of units of Tier D housing that could be built because we knew that was not going to be a successful proposal. I think comes from to one another. Way to look at it is an additional way to look at it is within the housing bucket. There are really two submarkets and the submarkets are one. The direct subsidy we give to build the units. And the second measure some bucket is the big check. We write to the guys on Wall Street that hold the bonds. And what's occurred with the markets is we have to we get to pay those guys less because the rates are down. So I look at this as taking money that would have gone to Wall Street and bondholders and bringing it back to the county to invest in growing this business, to keep this fund healthy. And that's the secondary and maybe the primary goal. Singer And then a bit of a primary goal is keep the front housing so we can actually build all of the units of housing. We want to build support arts and culture and youth homelessness because if we don't have the dollars coming in to the fund at all, we don't get to do all that that we want to do. So I think that an additional layer of of the two by two submarkets within housing, but it's important to keep in mind and the one sub bucket of support to build the units remains there. The number of units remains unaltered, but the money going to Wall Street and the bond holders is lower. And that benefit by. The macro environmental conditions in the country, low interest rates, we are just taking advantage of that to do. But I think if the dollars were there before. I suspect you have broad consensus on keep the fund healthy, keep people coming, put assets. Yeah, I'm still struggling with it. And it's been pointed out to me that by the age 22 is actually the. But looks like what the RTW says. And what we did was something probably from I don't know. I am going to need to dig into this more before I'm going to be able to book this whole thing . And so we've got to leave. Thank you. About. Okay. What? I'm. Or asking for myself for a moment. That's what founded this club last summer. There is what I wanted to ask about, and part of you seems to get a structure for what the state and legislation allow at least 37.5 hours in college for these 37.5 for affordable housing, homeless services, and most 25% for tourism. But at the time the council's work was then done with public policy was that 50% of the funding allocated to affordable housing and homeless services and. So even in the finance costs of $187 million of affordable housing went down. We will send send those funds to Wall Street brokers to line their pockets with. We would have spent it another way on affordable housing and, you know, almost human services. That's that's the policy framework. I'm looking at this problem and asking myself questions very similar to what Councilmember Excuse just outlined. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, please. So I think that is what you guys are referring to, and I think this might help figure it out. So with regard to the piece point to your right and I don't want to disagree with Dwight, but that does outline what the RTW requires, not what was adopted by more than 27. So that's so I can clarify that. And then the. With this proposal. As I mentioned, the south of the border, the council would need to amend Ordinance 2788 to change the allocation. So because we're now increasing tourism and the ordinance needs back, what, about $9 billion? But that would have to increase to 21 million. And in essence, the the proportion of that percentage are for affordable housing and homeless youth. Well, I'm sorry, affordable housing would have to go down to accommodate that. So when I know that that kind of culture is counter to what we're saying, but I believe we need to amend the ordinance 4788 to make sure we increase the tourism budget. In order to do that. We have to change the percentage of allocation to housing that. And if we need to figure it out afterwards, then I would have to get Bert. To follow up. Oh, the growth. Were you able to to say Mr. Kim is right. And that's why the reference to needing to change the ordinance was has been clear from the beginning of this proposal. And we have the unfortunate complication that. Legally you can't. Do that right now because of the restrictions, the outline. So our original intent had been to transmit this appropriation and the ordinance changed at the same time. So that would have been clearer. And unfortunately, that is impossible. But yeah, Mr. Kim is right about that's why we have to come back and change that ordinance is to create a slight deviation from what he said before the two reasons that the debt service is different and that the revenue is now different. And I'm sorry. You can keep on request. I think I have Cornwell's and then Lambert and. Up the good. Oh yes. When you say apologies, Captain America, the. Captain America. Was. Broken. The structure, our right to just go back in time a little bit and think about when we first some of us first started working. On this proposal that was for us and when it came up. I have some. Concerns. Similar to what I'm hearing from council from the. And because my priority has been affordable housing. And I was very concerned about what would happen to the funds that we would be. And I became comfortable with this proposal. In large part because, number one, the desperate need, the overwhelming need to get more money into our launching tax from our ration taps, into our revenue. Stream so that we can use it for affordable housing down the road. The second thing that came up for me was that and which I looked into was that the affordable housing projects that we have addressed are not ready to go. They're not ready to be built. And what I came to the. Conclusion on was that it's really a false dichotomy to think that. This proposal is placing a priority on tourism. Over affordable housing. And I think that is something important that we have to keep. We need the revenue now. We have been desperate to get people back to work, to get our restaurants open, our hotels and motels, to bring in the lodging tax revenue, the barbershops, certain cinemas that were mentioned, all the things that are associated with tourism. Getting people to be able to go to the theater. One of the attractions that really helped bring about insurance. To our area. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. I'm also very interested in diving in a little bit more carefully to the buckets and and looking at the impact on affordable housing. A couple of quick things that I'd like to say. I would like more information, Mr. Ken, on some of the things that were listed as science or other things that were substantially funded in the parks levy. So I'd like to know what that overlap is so I can see what the need is. And secondly, I did have phone calls from a consortium of many chambers that were very surprised at how many going into the chamber. And yes, I see that they do need to work with the rest of the chambers. And I think we need to be very careful in the language and and maybe we need to look at some of the language to just say that they need to go out and talk to the chambers before they make up their plans . Because I will tell you that there was a large group of chambers yesterday that were complained that they had not been spoken to. And the testimony today from the written priority on the fencing, not in the fire code. It needs some language about that. And then lastly, in looking at the lodging pact for in Section four, you see no. Well, actually, I thought and the section where we are talking about going out and looking at all the different areas and allocating, I think we're going to need to be very careful in making sure that they just pull it up here and pull it up and where it is. That's actually for that. And I really appreciate the members working on the words in subsection any to consider different segments of the population. That's great. They seem to be able to consider it says consult and identify tourism designations located in historically disadvantaged communities. And the agency also do that. The idea of it being solely into that is very problematic because in talking to the chambers yesterday, they all know like they are disadvantaged right now and that everybody is in need of a pass. And so I concern that the language in the they just want those things out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. More questions on this fighting in Baghdad. Any more questions on this front? For sure. I'm sorry to have someone recall us. Thank you. This is not a question to Councilmember Blackburn. Please stand and correct me if I'm wrong here. But the parks levy included funding for some of the science programs. And others for capital. For operational. Enjoyment. Clinton, senator. That's true. Councilmember calls the parks levy would fund capital projects for the Seattle Aquarium and it would. DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY, thank you. And this is again, this is also an additional clarification to Councilmember Lambert's inquiry. And I understand the confusion. I haven't thought about it. But there is in this proposal and some amendments, some some proposals to support chambers of commerce with. That's not the lodging tax piece. The lodging tax piece. The 8 million is six to the. The name of the organization is the Seattle King County Convention Visitors Bureau. It's county wide and then. The South South Side, which is the organization focused on staffing, both of which aim to bring convention, business and tourism here and have those dollars spent around the county and fill hotel rooms around the county. And so with respect to the chambers, that's another set of work in this appropriation. I think it's pretty exciting that there's some some proposals scored every chamber, but that's a different piece of it. So I didn't I didn't want them to get conflated. Saying no further questions or on the Second Amendment. I will now ask colleagues, but in fact, would you go so far as to suggest that we take up the ordinance as frank amendment and amendments and brief amendments as we get to them, unless somebody has a strong objection in knots. So you have the benefit of having your video on, as I can see you not in the affirmative. So I encourage council members to leave the video on with that. So we have I would call on Council member Caldwell's to move adoption of the ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here's my question, since one of which I hear that the proposed ordinance 20 10177 Supplemental Appropriations Subcommittee. Launching tons of ordinance. Declaring an emergency. Councilmember KO. Well, can I ask how you've made. Out of it. May I ask how you've made that motion with recommendation. With recommendation that you pass recommendation before helping to pass recommendations for council. You don't keep them in one word. I think we've got about a month to go. Councilmember Caldwell's in crisis management adopted an ordinance. One. Order ordering from on people once 2020 177 and certain among the one or one that will take up amendments and perspective. This is where the involvement was sent in. 1216 this afternoon will be part of video and I understand it may still be offered as Amendment three councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And moving document the three. Members of the government deduction Amendment three. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to preface this by saying whether this amendment hangs or doesn't defame. I think that. There's an opportunity or I would recommend that we keep working on the language around this section of the chair and vice chair and put some time in. It's an issue I've had some interest in and no other interest. I know that my amendment is perfect and I think there's elements of both. I just want to preface it by that. But I think there's in the next week there's an opportunity to settle in. Here's what my interest is with this amendment. We don't have enough money to help every small business. That's clear. And so one of the strategies I've been interested in is this idea of help, the helpers. And there are chambers and merchant associations and community development associations and other small organizations focused on helping small businesses that are doing a lot of great work right now to help not only connect small businesses with state and federal benefits, but also to support localized marketing efforts to encourage people to get takeout from local restaurants. Those organizations have been. Hammered. Too, because all of their members are not working like a lot of other organizations. And I think it's a shame to see them struggling so much when they're providing such a needed benefit also. And. I have been interested in the idea of sort of. Significant or meaningful size grants that could allow, for example, a small to medium sized chamber do not have to lay off an employee. I also heard him talking with the vice chair in. Interest in. Making sure that everyone gets a little something for some of these really small organizations, a small grant, and give them a little breathing room in their fundraising. And let. Them focus on service delivery. So I just kind of. Took that. Concept and and put it into an amendment compared to the underlying section in the strike amendment, there's a fixed dollar amount, I think it's 425,000. This is the outside the local government part. And the approach I took is they're putting a fixed dollar amount was to put a fixed dollar amount for competitive grants. You know what I recommended 250,000 of that 3 million go out to ten competitive grants, the $25,000 that would be competitive. And then any eligible. Organization in the county would get just automatically 20 $500 grant to provide some definition of who's eligible with the short timeline. I don't know how many there are. There are 40, 56. So your guess is somewhere in that range. So we're talking about the same dollar amount that would be, oh, 300, $400,000. So I think there's broad agreement on kind of a rough dollar amount or some conceptual agreement. I may have lost the translation portion in my amendment. I'm not sure. So. I don't have strong feelings of the if the chairman whether I withdraw it and we work on it or if we want to bring this up down for a vote, a vote. Now, I think either way, it needs more work. So I think I encourage support, but I'm also open to withdrawing it if that's the cleaner process for the chair. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the work, the group, for digging into that section. I think like Councilmember Lambert indicated earlier, everyone's hurting. It's a catastrophe. I think that the notion here of making sure everyone gets along well and helping the helper is a really strong one, but also realizing that there are disproportionate impact on some communities. And I think that's the magic of the $50,000 section here. The bigger grants where folks are chamber or business support organization wants to come forward with a specific plan. We can send more help to those that need more help and that are ready to go. So I will say I'm becoming increasingly a little more uncomfortable with the direct grants to businesses having work. And some of this has been a rolling lesson money. But we've seen the challenges of PPE, City of Seattle, 10,000 applicants, and we're able to get 250 businesses to strike the $10 grants. And when I just when government starts picking winners like that or it's by, you know, by chance or whatever, there's some firms in that base by by sending these dollars to organizations that are doing more broad help in the business sector, which I think is the focus of these. I think I'm a lot more comfortable with that, and I like the basic structure of this, and I think it's a good step forward and I appreciate government about the growth working on it. And maybe then maybe the buckets need to be even a little bigger. But I appreciate his willingness to keep working on it as we refine it. But that's kind of where I am. On the notion of the business support and where we might send our economic help at this stage. And this is just one piece in the realm of work to do, but I want to get my support for the direction here. And remember, I think that last two speakers, I think this was a great idea and in the language needs to be cleaned up. The this will be in there and we welcome it. And so I think it's good for us, too, if it passes to have that language in there. And I think people have really come together in good groups and communities saying, hey, we're helping each other. And I'm really impressed with the people who are being overly and helping each other and trying to get through everybody's hurting. So I think if this is really it and make it by working on it. Discussing. This is often associated with biology memorability of. That's why it is getting more off the ground with Republican. Oh well you the know up the software council member. Looking at the the language that talks about community based organizations. Whose primary mission is to provide marketing and technical assistance to small businesses. Are there? Were you thinking about some chambers? How about primary mission other chambers? Well, I'm just. I'm trying to figure out. I'm just not to put too fine a point on it. Is there, like, a small chamber in my district that might qualify would but wouldn't be on city council. But the with no chamber of commerce. I live in Marshall Island in the Commons. Not that I, you know. Anyway, that's my question. Right. Pleased to become a member of the group. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, quite the opposite comes in here. Due about my intent with the language was to include all chambers and any other organizations whose primary mission is to support it. It was the original language I thought was a little open, it said, or other organizations serving business, and I was concerned if we had an automatic grant going out that there should be some definition. Otherwise any nonprofit could say, You know what, I can serve small business in need. And so instead of having people chasing the money, it would be money for organizations who that's their mission. So I think the comma, the way it was drafted is. Every chamber plus every organization who was. In. Whether it got that definition right, I don't know. I wanted to be flexible enough to include legitimate business serving organizations. It had parameters around it. So that was the intent. Thank you. That's well, that's an excellent. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment and I didn't speak a word about it. It's a couple of days ago. And the concept of it now, what would be really I mean, it seems that there'd be more it would be more streamlined, easier to administer. What you would need would be to have a list of exhaustive list of all chamber to serve those organizations or some solutions that do the same work on something called this chamber, maybe out in the years, the unincorporated rural areas and farmer associations. But whatever it is that serves that purpose, just want to make sure we get the entire list to. Coming from rough to go in really in the language. And listening to your question, I hear your discussion being recognizing that not every community is served by a chamber. And some organizations that are doing real work or to support business communities are members of commerce, and you want to be supportive of that. I might read the language too particularly, but I'd be concerned if, for instance, the White Center Chamber of Commerce is not currently a functioning organization and may still exist on paper, but it is not functioning and is not meeting and serving a purpose and the White Center community in the 1787. And as is providing that role, I would advocate and suggest that $0.01 or CBA might not. Meet. The definition, in your words. But doesn't the conversation we're having if this happens, I would hope that we can make sure that in the intervening week we address that issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. I don't know that I got there. Right. The concept is for organizations like CPAs, merchant associations that are a little more informal. It was just some. Constraint other than saying. And other organizations. So yeah, I'd love to have our staff settle, make sure we capture it captured broadly, but certainly an intense saw. Hello. That's numbers all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember up the grove. I think this question might have been asked before, but just a little bit more clarity when we say to every Kent County local chamber, can you clarify one more time? Is that is there an accounting of every local chamber that exists? And do we have enough money to fund every single one? Is that what it's the same. Mr. Chair. Okay. If the in the short amount of time we couldn't get the exhaustive list with the kind of estimates or others 40. 50, 60. And with this dollar amount, we're talking about a difference of 100,000 versus 200,000. Kind of it's going to be in that range. And I by. Next week, we can do the best. Some of it depends on the definition. That's in the final language. Right now is limited to small and medium chambers. So we're not finding Amazon in the Seattle chamber in this one. This also says in addition to Chambers, other organizations whose primary mission is helping business is with marketing technical assistance around the world. And the chair suggested we kind of fiddle with that language so we don't have. I was unable to generate an exhaustive list prior to today's meeting, but had a rough estimate. And with the small dollar amount we're talking about, even that goes up and down by ten, 20, 30. We're still talking about. That would be. We'd still, I think, be well within the dollar amount that's appropriated in the strikers. So I'm sorry. That's a little vague, but that's my best answer. I've got. Prior questions. Yeah. Close, Mr. Chair. That's my book to go to close. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a comment. I know that Oldsmobile ad that says this is not your your parent's Oldsmobile. Are you feeling that way about the chambers? In my district? This is not your. Your grandparents chamber. We've seen some of the chambers physically in South King County, really adaptable to the changing demographics and the changing economic situation. It was noted earlier, I mean, I attended a conference put together by some. Downtown. County chambers looking at issues of economic mobility and. Economic inequality. And it was a diverse room and engaged with small cultural organizations. And I think these organizations all have work together to build those relationships. As it was noted, the Southwest King County Chamber allows free membership for micro-businesses, and they're trying to be a constructive part of the solution to help displaced immigrant refugee businesses. But they're all really hurting. As I mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce, for example, we heard from Zenobia Harris, is a very progressive African American leader. The chamber represents a diverse community. I believe she has laid off all of her staff. It's not just her working right now at a time when these businesses need a lot of help. So sometimes we hear the word chamber of commerce and we get a stereotype of our. Grandparents Chamber of. Commerce. And at least in the South End, I can say these are organizations that are working and some with more success than others. But to try to be inclusive, trying to reflect the community and try to make a difference. And this is a pretty small amount of money. This amendment actually, I don't think increases the money. It just kind of clarifies a methodology for sending it out. I appreciate the chair and the executive for including the concept to look forward to working with everyone between now and full council to clean it up to finalize it. All those in favor of the saying I oppose their. Yeah. They seem to have it. Yeah. Amendment three isn't up to amendment for council members. Would you put the document under four for me? So, Mr. Chair, thank you. Amendment four has been imminent and to speak to it. I ask for this amendment to be all he has to grant funds that are in the ordinance before us that restricts recipients to organizations that have not already that have not already received funds from the previous slab. That's one round already in our previous ordinance. And that's simply that's the word directly on. There is a in at least one case, there's a coalition that received funds. And I would like the individual organizations to still be eligible to apply in this round. And sorry, I've heard already that these are only be restricted to organizing and organizations who are not directly received funds already might still be eligible to apply. Questions. Colleagues. That's number one. Thank you. I just. This is the person putting on the money. I have to say, there's a couple of ads in this Stryker because I hate that ad million dollars than $3 million. And that's a four or 5 million that we just added today. And I do worry and I know we've had great reassurance that we're going to be reimbursed for a lot of this money, but we've just kind of a catastrophic hole in our general, almost undoubtedly growing as we speak. So I appreciate it. The need is so huge, right? And so the need is absolutely there. And I just I just wanted to say for the record that I have concerns about the amount of money that we're putting into some of this stuff. I would. Have to rely on the budget. Process to ensure that we these are eligible. For reimbursement. But that's going to be important. Get some real detail, have a harder time, you just or make a similar comment on the next amendment. And this amendment changes to eligibility. It doesn't increase the amount available. DEMBOSKY Now speaking to number five, I take it back. All right, I'll be prepared. COUNCILMEMBER Then I'll say that you should just have a little more understanding on the on the kind of motivation for this. One of the problem we're trying to solve, does this relate to some of the concerns we heard from community about the first million and a prominent foundation that maybe received a fair bit of. We're hoping for a little more diversity in terms of the allocations. Tangentially? Yes, not directly. The foundation made its own awards. Previously, though, we've had one transfer of funds into our own office and actually a social justice fund. And those awards have been made this second round. On the second one, as it comes before us right now, they're restricted to people who did not receive funding in the first round and as a as a reference to be a little too vaguely busy, particularly those those of people of color and minority organizations that as a coalition we see there's over 20 members of that AusAID. And I would want individual or coalition members to not be ineligible because the overall Coalition received funds in the last round. I think it sounds a little bit on a technical clean up, but the general thrust is to make additional organizations eligible, if not prioritize them, if they in fact in fact purchase them. If they didn't receive funds from round one, I would say it doesn't prioritize but does certainly make them and removes it ineligible. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Further questions. This debate comes from Brazil. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to speak in favor of Councilman MC Councilmember McDermott's amendment. Again, there is a coalition that has been closest to some of the impacts of COVID 19. They represent several vulnerable communities and as a coalition, they received an amount of money in order to, you know, increase the likelihood of getting funding . But since they applied as a coalition, they only got, you know, each organization only got a couple thousand dollars. And so you wouldn't want to ban them from applying again in their individual capacity. Seeing no further discussion. All this amendment for senator signify by saying i. I. Last night, the historic amendment was adopted. The amendment Fire Council members are like, Would you do the honors again? So moved, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Amendment five is before us to speak to it and anticipated councilmember buildings that the. Ordinance is transmitted to the council. 1 to $2 million in business support. The seven member three councilmember grants First Amendment offer today touched on and the Second Amendment puts before us today has continued that fine and it has a new section of $3 million allocated to PSB in order to provide county wide support. Our first $2 million income is directed to unincorporated county is the second at noon today before on $3 million is available countywide in the we are the local government and the only governments or other already King County. I believe it's important we do the investments in dollars and cents and workers in small businesses are disproportionately hit on hard. And some of our unincorporated areas are more than a five that covers the entire county. So I'm asking for some work done to increase of D+ appropriation by 2. To 4 million. Simon Cowell's record. Must ensure journey around favorites and multidimensional roles from ten to bring the worlds of more and more urban depression. Dwight's. Here for us. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I would like to get your comments on this or the end of John Taylor. It seems to me that. Here's a look at the whole count. One of the reasons that I am Councilmember Dombroski of the party of additional Mount County was. It would also include the corporate world. Do you? What are your thoughts about RB the likely to be able to be the first. By the federal government on this. We've talked about this already, but I understand my concern. About. This point was it was. Well. So, Councilmember, this is not one where we would seek reimbursement. One that we would think through the money we have already received, the CARES Act, money we spend for an annual for getting FEMA reimbursement. But I think more likely, this is one that we would expect to come out of the CARES Act money and we are very confident, at least until the court cartons, that it is eligible for that. I culpably misspoke and how I said that it would be coming out of kinsman for a request with regard to all the demands of all the needs that we are. Just everywhere. Can you give us props representing. Circular just for the board about increasing this amount? I think concerns. Weren't. But looking at what? All the other side. I'd like to get your feedback. So let me give you two answers and maybe an idea. So one answer is. We are the only government. We're the unincorporated area. And as I think Councilmember Lambert has pointed out, when the state allocated some of its Cares Act money to cities, they didn't allocate anything that that incorporated area of the counties that got recognized. So we are the only source of that. So, yes, if you acknowledge that there's nobody else, including the state, who is going to give us cares act money for the corporation area. There's a pretty strong policy rationale for doing that. Secondly, I think we all know that even $4 million is not going to go very far and are certainly going to be plenty of need for it in the area. I think your earlier point about talking to John Taylor would be a good idea. I just want to make sure they have as they handle more money. And then the idea that I could give you, if you want to consider and this is a very good one, McDermott's proposal, you always can come back in one of these subsequent monthly ones and add money to a program. So one option you might want to consider would be to do that. You know, here at the last one, it's a process. Assess that, you know, hey, we got 8 million of of good qualifying businesses that applied and then make a decision to add money to subsequent time. I'm not saying that's the way the idea, but it is another option that we have to set and test the waters, test the market. And then once you have that information, make a decision about adding money in a subsequent supplement. I was just this is this is John Taylor for the record, director of the Department of Local Services. I just want to think Dwight's idea is a very good one. We're very excited about this program. We think it can be impactful. But I would just say we are literally building this airplane as we are flying. And might be good to do a bit of a dry run with $2 million to figure out what worked, what didn't work, how much demand there was, and think about how to augment that. Here comes a member of. Our Mr. Chair. And so and I think that what was decided is very interesting and important, and the need is so great that, as Mr. Bailey said, there will be needs going forward. And we had no idea how many months to the end of this year or even beyond. So getting as much money as quickly as possible. And in my district, I know that the chambers have really worked hard together to be able to say this is where we need are. So I think we have partners out there who are maybe doing this work. So I don't think it would be hard to be able to disburse this amount of money. And as I've said before, it's not going to solve the problem. So we will need to come back. But I think this amendment that we. I'm different about our diversity. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this proposed increase? I want to make sure I understand, because I know Chambers have been referencing. But would this be for the direct grants pursuant to the same rules of. I think it's 15 boys or fewer and 1.5 million in revenue. That. We need to augment the increase. Um, to double is one of the line items within the deal along the 1.70 5,200,000 and the 50,000. All right. So it doesn't go to the other translation services and what? Yeah. I suspect that there's more a need than. I know there's one need that we'll be able to supply, but I guess I'm interested in getting it started and seeing how it goes. And I again, I'm having concerns about how do we treat folks fairly, given the lessons learned with the City of Seattle program and the federal program . And making sure that folks don't feel like they were too late or not connected enough. And I would like to. Then you learn a little bit and we come from a whole wealth as our budget year I think is setting up a more methodical process to work in partnership with the executive branch and the council to make sure we spend 20, 62 million wisely. So I guess at this time I would be inclined to make the old one on that. Not not trying not not saying no in the future. Discussing this chair comes together. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Talk about $262 million. And of course, the governor's appropriation didn't include the other corporate attorneys in the county. It is expected. I think both both at the state and federal level that pass through dollars are going to go from the county to the other unincorporated areas. And you're talking about a quarter of a million people. And I just heard 2 million. That's it. No, this is just if we really, truly care about equity and social justice and it's not just a pretext. Well, remember that the rural and unincorporated residents and the farmers are also people who are historically underrepresented and don't have an imaginary voice, certainly on the King County Council. So I would I would I think that the the chair of this committee's motion is appropriate and certainly would support it for me as a staff. Member comes from the library. Thank you. I appreciate. And today, give me the allocation formula or how the governor passed through the dollars to give to the city. And in the chart that we were sent on Friday, it showed the population of each city and the amount of money given and you get the items to that eight $30 per person so that everybody has a few million people, not 2 million, because Seattle had their own allocation. So the 1.5 million people participate and got $30 per citizen in their area. And so to me, in fairness, that we should complete the those 250,000 people in the county with the same funding formula that everybody else got . If you do that. Then that comes out to 7.4 million, and that would just bring it to equity early with everybody else. And so I want to point out that this is not the end for sure, because this is no way bringing us to parity with everybody else, is that. Mostly. Sorry. All right. Number two, dusty baking the math. The arithmetic is compelling to me. I think that we've got to treat our unincorporated areas equally. I think my concern is this is the funding that individual businesses and maybe there's some more work that can be done between now and final on that. If the amendment hangs because a lot of people are going to fly and most aren't going to get it. And I just wonder if that's the best use of those dollars like this one, a flag that in effect, this one proceeds. But I, I appreciate the math and I do it along with you, Councilmember Lambert. And this would even still come up short of 30 bucks a person times a quarter. I've got to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh. This is one I go back and forth on struggling. I have no significant unincorporated areas in my community. And we heard, I think in a staff meeting that local services doesn't necessarily have the capacity right now. So it's. Why it is attractive to me to ramp up this need in capacity is there? On the other. Hand. I'm more familiar with the urban unincorporated areas and Skyway and White Center and see the economic devastation and it's these are families already on the margin. I worry a little about the balance. I'm wondering. Yeah, I guess maybe it's more of a comment. I'd be interested. You know, if we're going to do 4 million focused in unincorporated and then 3 million for. Everything and then unincorporated some portion of that. I'm worried about a pretty small. Amount available. Goodwill out of the chambers. I'm also interested in concerned about the sort of help the helpers model that the amount available to drive out to organizations outside of the unincorporated areas becomes fairly limited relative to what's in the unincorporated areas. So between now and for council, should this pass, you know, one idea might be to focus. Some of those chamber. Grants coming out of PSB, but have the local service money fund the chamber, work chamber and small business work within unincorporated areas and have the PSB allocation fund the chamber grants outside the incorporated areas to ensure that there is some some balance there. So just an idea to kick around between now for council to make sure we don't. So I think on balance. Further today's. Singing None too close as we as we have said in debate in this debate the. Balance to support unincorporated King County is, I think, really a settlement here, referring in testimony beginning at today's meeting hours ago now about the real name. And I'm going to do this particular one because of the increase in the Second Amendment, the $3.3 million program, the money to have an appropriate balance and ask members to support with that. All those in favor of Amendment five please signify by saying I. I was opposed. No, I died. Let's try that again. All those in favor. First of all, if members want to unmute themselves now and in favor, signify by saying hi. I. Others of us may. I believe the ayes have it. And the eyes and the eyes have. The Founders adopted. I believe the next amendment to be offered with the amendment is council member duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment eight becomes member. No duty is lifted up from Amendment eight plus member belt and seat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eight would just call out farms and associated farm related businesses as as all businesses that are eligible, along with all other small businesses, to seek relief from the Department of Local Services small business relief program that we just increased. And the thinking behind this is that while we do have quite a number of farms out in unincorporated King County and many of them are small farms. Following is the definition of small business owner under the program. And we're hearing that although they on K through the early part of the growing season, there's a lot of concern about whether some small farms will be able to continue planting growing into the summer because they're concerned about whether they'll be able to sell their products with restaurants closed and their Sears closed down, which are of primary source of revenue for many of those businesses. And so it seems important that we support the farms and the associated farming businesses because, you know, they are a potential percentage portion of our our food supply. We see many people going to food banks as a great program that will be involved in the executive branch to connect all of our farms, including some of the smaller ones with food banks, to be able to provide those in need. And it seems like it all fits together with the idea behind this program. And I would urge your support. Pottery Barn. Oh, well, Councilmember Bernard Bauer, with Councilman Belushi's permission, I'd like to be a co-sponsor. She and I discussed this yesterday at length that I think is outstanding idea that benefits the entire region. You are welcome to join as a co-sponsor. I'd like to stop you. Come to my. Beloved. I don't think you do. I think you've got to do the. And colleagues. Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had been very interested in this as well. Councilmember Lambert and I have an idea for a meeting that's over in folks from. How to manage the funds programs. And I think what Councilmember Dow didn't you just mentioned is an ideal example. Of something that we could improve and set priorities for our next come. In common through omnibus and comes to my mind more than I won't talk about that I have acquired and have been informed that funds actually are considered small business. Those who meet the criteria. I don't think this is enough said. I don't think it hurts. I can reinforce that our values are based on our family and community. But I don't think that's. Some funds are. Predatory small businesses there are strong. Want to discuss it. Remember Benghazi the clothes and burned all the Russians. I think Councilmember Coble raises a very good point and she may very well be correct. The ladybugs and suspenders, I think if nothing else, it's just a signal to the farming community that they are knowledgeable. They may not may or may not think of themselves as all of our regular small business loans. And I do believe it wouldn't hurt and it could help. So and if it's not too disruptive, I would ask for all your support. All those in favor of amendment number eight. Please stick at the same time. I. I was made. The ayes have it. Amendment eight is adopted. Amendment number nine, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I to move amendment number nine. Councilmember Landers moved to document amendment number nine. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. And underneath it includes a work group for small businesses and their grant program that will be administered by KIT with an amendment. This amendment would do would be just added to the similar work with or the grant program idea and the work group with media and DC as and SBA, which are the same people that we're putting our in our elderly. But it would also add the director of our county director of yesterday and the chair of local services so that we have a bit broader section and that would be the group that we parallel, group that we have and the underlying or the other grant for small. Councilmember Carlos. Community Council member Coles. So far. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I suppose this amendment in discussing this with some people in circumvention appears that this would really slow down the process. And the whole effort that we're going through here to fast get out to the small business. And we're really happy. It appears to me another level of bureaucracy to both the crunch response to our to provide the. I don't know. Maybe John Terry. John Taylor Yeah, I, I will say that a little more diplomatically. We are absolutely open to having input from members of the council and community members. We will be seeking that. But Councilor Caldwell is right. Our goal is to have checks in the hands of business owners by June. We have businesses out there right now based on the work the university has been doing, both in urban and rural unincorporated King County, who are really right on their margins. So $5,000 can make the difference between keeping the lights on until they get. The stay at home order lifted and some business flowing back in. And our goal is to move as fast as we can. We will absolutely do that in consultation with the Council and with our partners across the Executive Branch. But we we are moving really, really fast on this. So I would. I would like to maintain maximum flexibility. DOMBROWSKI Excuse me, Mr. Governor, way to work. Thank you for bringing this forward to look at the process. John, maybe on this process topic, could you tell us a little bit about what you are envisioning as the grant administrator to ensure. That there isn't. Something that you disagree? But let's assume that there is a lot more demand for this came down to money to private businesses than there is money available. And if we look at Seattle, 10,000 applications, 250 awards, how do we ensure how do you anticipate or expect to ensure fairness and distribution of the dollars to. Urban and rural parts of the county, northeast and southeast. LaShawn. And what is the answer to in one building where you have said to applicants. A barbershop and a coffee shop, both facing devastation. One gets the award and the other doesn't. How do we how do we have no doubt that the dollars are needed? But how is how what's the answer in terms of equity and fairness? And these dollars are why this is a loss or a misfortune that you get it or don't get it. What processes are you looking at that help me understand this process, this customer Lambert's notion of moving quickly but having some oversight and ensuring fairness by having dialog is appealing to me a little bit for those reasons. And I completely agree with that. I think we need to be transparent about how we build this. Our current thinking right now is we are going to be using income and businesses that are in census tracts that are historically low income as one of the major factors in this. And then we will probably be looking at where businesses are located county wide to way, where some of the dollars cuts are both getting a geographic distribution, but the dollars are going to some of the most historically underserved communities. And I think it's really important to remember the translation services and the outreach dollars that are part of this. It is one of the things that we've seen in doing the outreach that we did to sort of frame this program out. And some of the partners we brought in is that it's those historically underserved communities, kids of color, businesses that are owned by people who speak English as a second language, who missed out on a lot of the traditional funding sources. They may not have relationships with banks. So a lot of the outreach effort and this is going to be targeting those businesses and organizations that partner with those pieces of know those businesses. That's why the outreach dollars and the support to chambers and other community development associations and key financial institutions is so important. And just to be clear, when you look at census tracts, there are census tracts with less than 200% of poverty across the county. They are not concentrated just in Western King County. They are everywhere. They're national. They're in far Eastern in King County. So that is at this point, Councilmember, a broad thinking on how we would approach this. One of the things that I want to make clear is we're going to be bringing in some kind of an outside partner to help us deal with the magnitude of applications broadly. A community development financial institution has done this before and had some preliminary conversations about that. We are looking for ways to move quickly on this once the dollars become available, but we will absolutely do that in close consultation with all of you who have a strong interest in this. Yes, that's helpful. Jon, it sounds like maybe there are some preliminary outlines of a program. You mentioned the 200% of federal poverty level census tracts you mentioned historically this last year. Is there a draft written kind of guidelines document either formally or informally that can be shared between now and final adoption? Yeah, there is. We've worked internally, our staff. I just want to give kudos to Hugo Garcia and we're going to have some and a lot of the people within the DHS director's office between our CFO have spent a lot of time framing this program out, so we're not starting from scratch. We'd be happy to share those work products with you and with your staff so that they can react to. Now, we've had input from the Office of Equity and Social Justice, and we've had a lot of input from the Small Business Task Force and Executive Staff to put together part of that COVID 19 response. That would help me know, know what we're buying here with a little more granular granularity, because right now it's just an appropriation, but very broad guidelines. And so it feels like it could use a little more definition of a language amendment would help get there. I agree with Governor Raquel Welch that that's that maybe the exact approach could slow it down. But if we could see what the concept is, that may be the most expeditious way to get comfortable. How do you do that? And I just and I think Councilman Roman has worked with the Department of Local Services enough to know we don't shy away from engaging the community or having the community involved or council involved in developing programs. It's just this program. We're trying to move with alacrity and we want to move with the pressure. And the only other comment that I'll stop talking on this is the economic development issue. Sort of my memory serves me correctly in the jurisdiction of the committee and the whole stuff. With respect to the particular proposal here, that seemed to be something that it were this to be perceived that that seemed to be the chair by chair committee. The whole or at least the chair should probably. Participate in the. Lambert. LAMBERT Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been very interesting. ABEL Yeah, well, it is that because the need is great and getting out as quickly as possible. When I was reading the underlying bill and I came to line 165 where the exact situation is what's being done in aid. That's where I got the idea from. I'm replicating why in 167. Sorry, what? 65. So it's the easy way this speed it up, it appears be it slow it down and deal. So I modeled it after what I said. Speed it up. And now I listen to all of that. And well, he had beaten up. On the other hand, you close it down. So that is confusing to me. So I, I liked the idea and I am very familiar with what would be allowed and their ability to reach out to people and to the council members . But I was not briefed that they were already doing that. And I have still no idea exactly who will be overseeing. So. And they were based in the setting surrounding 165 as to who would be the people, you know, giving the final line. And so I thought, wow, that is a really good idea. So I had borrowed it. And so when it's a good idea to and it's not just an easy I borrowed the idea to say, okay, this is going to be for the local government, the chair and vice chair of the local government to also be included as is parallel to July one, 65. So my goal was to speed it up. My goal is to model exactly what's happening on line 165 and I think the team in line 165 will do an excellent job. And so I was hoping that we could model the good work that they intended to see out of 165 to also be here. So the idea came from the underlying bill and replicating it. And so I'm a little surprised by what I'm hearing. And right now, I do believe that work by 155 should work here also. So I would still ask that we ask this and allow there to be partners who also believe that there is a need for expeditious behaviors here to be included. And in parallel politics, if I ask for deep, deep pass recommendation. Paul Well. I. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate very much what Council. Member members brought out, which is absolutely right about the language floor. I started on 1165. The differences were as we were looking at the language and working with the executive staff as well. I would expect here that to provide financial assistance for small business. How to live a price that. With responsibility of the PSP to administer that. They do not have the capacity and the expertize that the department. Of local. This does. Unincorporated areas. Mr. Taylor brought out that he had good relationship with small business, sir. Yes. And that's not the same for people, see, that's not what their function has been talked about. PSB select a third party to administer these grants and finally came up with the way to try to get a console from. Or be able to come up with a logical, rational format and process. To balance out the rest of this paragraph. A lot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all. So to Councilmember Lambert. I appreciate the name of this amendment. I wanted to ask, does it document somewhere what the process would be for setting up a workgroup? So just to build off of the questions that I'm hearing regarding the speed of the process. It feels like there would be a process for the process, right, for establishing the workgroup in the first place. Now. That was my main concern with it. Otherwise, I appreciate the aim. I just try to understand how we would establish the work group and what that process would look like. Mr. Chair, as the member was making its two chair response to that question, do you have in the language that the office performance strategy imagine being a work group and what the conference will be? And this again was suggested to me to include parts of the law and I don't take any. The lack of expertize. Capacity. PSP is not traditionally. Been engaged in this process. Portland, Ore. And all the rest of. How to administer grants to small. So the process is specified. In the language under my. That's like a good segue. Remember. And so clarification so from the testimony we just heard in the course, very difficult that we're doing all that. You know, the information is going as quickly as it has on world together. And so from what John Taylor just said, and maybe you can tell me so all I was trying to get at what I thought the good work had been done. I wanted to keep it as a great idea. We're a group that got expertize and I wanted to make sure at other people because anyone 65 I remember correctly and chair and I share a budget with beyond that so that right diet with that right. And I don't have it in front of me. Now, one of your colleagues who has an open can tell you that. Okay. So. So what I was trying to model was that the chair and vice chair role for government would be on this one, but it would be the same type of thing as what you were doing so that we would have an a bit of a deal as well as a chair and vice chair at the local services and potential. So are you saying then that not only with the PCG, the IRC here in Houston with VLS, but Navy and Incorporated. No, you're shaking your head. So please know. So the executive's. Proposal. Was to do the unincorporated area business grants through the allows, as Director Taylor has been discussing the council. STRANDBERG This is not for me exactly. And the proposal to do $3 million elsewhere in the county, including potentially the Inc. area, and assigned it to my office, which has no staff or expertize in awarding grants. And I would say, frankly, I might have a conversation with the council. If you received the 3 million, then we would actually work through the cities and hammer out those grants. Many of the suburban cities approached me with requests along that line. They know their businesses. My office does not. And so in the little workgroup that is described in the strength of the proposal I was going to make was rather than try to create our own county bureaucracy to do this, let's just work with the cities to get the money out. I think that would be the most effective, obviously, since that group hasn't met. We haven't had that conversation yet. To share. I remember, though, in a meeting that I had earlier this morning, SBA did say that they were interested in doing that. And I agree that they would do a better job of getting it to the cities. But that then again, without the unincorporated areas. And they said they would assist with that. But I think for the unincorporated area to be going to the cities for those type of things and they should have their own government feel as doing that. So how if you did turn that over, how would you then allocate deals to be able to have enough money to do the allocations being incorporated? So my personal proposal would be that if the council appropriated money for other than the unincorporated area. So for businesses in cities, very often we go to businesses in cities and we work through the cities to administer those grants and at the council separately decides how much we want to allocate the deals for the unincorporated area. Because I agree with you, Councilmember, I'm going to ask our cities to also administer programs outside of their jurisdiction. Seems impractical. Not appreciated either by the UN. Appropriate? Probably not if you. Think it's. Part of discussion on Amendment nine. Yeah. I think that we've had some discussion and I would like to continue the discussion and bring this up and play it only to find out the number 1009. Number ten times the number that. Paul thank you for is having the same conversation with a participant in our little home school. And it's gonna turn out. Okay amendment number ten. I am not gonna offer this amendment, but I want to speak to it, and I would like to try to work on this in between now and final passage. By means you can. That has to be a promise for goodness, not promise. At the moment, the amendment would have removed the 500,000 obligation that was added if. The striker was not in the underlying proposal. To support a mitigation bond for citizens for documents and calls related to the county's isolation and quarantine and recovery, the size and scope of the investigation. The point is that the reason is that. Just after this strike was put together, the state's allocations to the Cities for Cares Act funding was announced, and each city had a fairly significant allocation a minimum of 25,000 from small jurisdictions and up to several million through some of the larger jurisdictions based on population. It is unclear as yet. I understand that the executive branch has been serving the for their actual. Costs. Related to COVID 19 response activities. I don't want them to see the volatility or you know, as you know right now, I hadn't seen it yet. So it seemed to me that this is premature to be thinking about taking on a portion of our year out of funding just because I the source for this and presumably I should probably ask that as a question because the general fund would be a different problem. And I think through how we want to allocate that fund in a more general way rather than setting early presidents. This way. I'm mindful of Councilmember Wells isn't. Communicating very openly and frequently, frequently with us about her approach as budget chair. And one of the things that she's been talking about is forming principles for how we want to work with the executive to help buy the distribution of about 200 of the needs of that $235 million. And this seemed like it was kind of jumping ahead and maybe setting a precedent that wouldn't even really be necessary or make a difference, because all cities will have some amount of money to address and offset their COVID related costs now. And we could still come back later and supplement that. But it seemed that discussion would be better upfront. And I'm offering it today because we've all heard very clearly from City of London and others. They don't want to send the message that we're not supportive, but really do ask that we work to find a way to not presuppose a small distribution of this money and instead work towards a bigger, more comprehensive policy approach to how we will support our jurisdictions more globally. And then adhere hear what the city is saying. I would actually love to hear from the executive at some point. Today was a great moment. What work they are doing with the budget because I know they are and in other cities and how they might hopefully, you know, bring more detailed information about that situation. We heard some of the public comment to on performance as we were having this week's meeting. Well, I'm not an optimist today, but those are my folks and I and I think that we should be. For the passage of the growth. You're out of work. That's former deputy council member, after all. Thank you. Before she withdraws it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Comes from due to your humble ideas I want to bring forward this week, one would be to refer to local governments instead of cities because we have some fire districts, for example, that maybe didn't get a fair. And secondly, to clarify that this would be for costs specific to the county deploying signs during the emergency that were not covered by their state share. So that this would be sort of like the emergency reserve value of. I think if I were looking at just philosophically, I would be in agreement about mapping the whole thing out in advance. Makes sense. We're Spending Cares Act money in other sections today we're starting to kind of spend it without a map. So I think it's a precedent there. I also think it's a very modest amount, and I think that the positive message it sends to those jurisdictions helps us manage those relationships as we work through this over the next few months. And those are some of the reasons I'm interested in fixing it rather than in end over the next week. Thanks. And Kevin, member of the gang, wanted to turn your back on and an doctrine of Amendment 11, if you're so inclined. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of Adoption. Amendment 11, Council Member of the adoption of Amendment 11. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The as we heard from public testimony on the impact of the densification signs, particularly the one in Renton with over 200 folks, is significant on a city. And as a result, the city of Renton has sought to enter into a about year with the county to memorialize in writing the expectations and common understanding that relates to security, operational protocols and most importantly. How and when a decision will be. Made to end the use. Those discussions are continue. I am supportive of the same Renton's position in those discussions and hope that something gets worked out and because those discussions are continuing. I wanted to raise the issue and would withdraw the amendment. It was time to go to the movie in Independent 12. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Adoption Amendment 12 cut my reference number down. And Amendment 12 was the first one six council member. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment and ask your support of this amendment would require that the executive transmit a report. And although it's not noted that we approve that report, we vote to accept it before 1.2 million. Basically, it is a proviso restricting 1.2 million. Upon approval of the report. But on the rationale for continuing the use of the report in Red Lion cite as a de intensification side following the conclusion of the current 90 day list of which were three or four weeks into. My interest is in involving the Council in this decision. To be clear, I am a strong supporter of our county's de intensification efforts. I think it is the necessary and thoughtful thing to do to provide health and safety protection to protect the lives of people who are particularly vulnerable. I also believe that we should not philosophically object to, just as a matter of philosophy, to citing people who don't have homes in shelters in our different communities. It's not an ideological concern I have. I'm one of those who sometimes chance in my back yard meeting, I believe we need to deploy services for people who are vulnerable throughout King County. But I also believe that the impacts are very real. You heard a flavor of it today, and that was just the flavor. Very specific cost impacts to local businesses that are hiring security, that are spending money on graffiti removal and cleaning. To give you a sense of the impact, these are 200 plus folks from the Downtown Emergency Services Center, a well-respected and well-regarded organization doing a good job. But if you look out the window of our courthouse down on Third Avenue, that's the population we're talking about. And to take 200 of those individuals and move them from Pioneer Square into downtown Renton there in their retail core has very. Significant real. Impacts. And the city, to their credit, this is not easy. We're not getting. Flooded with emails. The city council members and the mayor have been flooded with e-mails, concern from neighborhood associations and businesses and the city by large part. Has been sticking. Up for us in the sense of saying we're all in this together. Sure we don't like it, but we have a shared responsibility in an emergency. And I think the key word is a shared responsibility. And this, I would say, would give us as a council, the opportunity to end that lease after 90 days and share that responsibility with a different community in particular. I believe there. Is tremendous open hotel space in Seattle and perhaps some even within. Walking distance of the current shelter. And so we have policies in other parts of government. A lot of cities do. The State Department of even we had King County allow, for example, tent encampments to be temporary. And they're temporary for a reason because it doesn't burden that community for a period of time. And I think we ought to at least allow. Ourselves the ability. To have that discussion in a couple of months as to whether or not it makes sense to look at other options and ask the executive branch to make the case to us, as the Council is not inconsistent with providing that necessary social distancing, that distributed transportation. We can protect public health, we can support our most vulnerable citizens. We can build regional partners, and we can still allow ourselves one more opportunity to look at whether or not there's other options. That's all this amendment would do, would give us the opportunity to approve a plan to continue and give us the opportunity to be in discuss that in a couple of months. And I strongly encourage you support. Colors are going to be. Obviously Church Council members are low income city council member. Don, thanks. Mr. Chair, I want to echo and agree with what Councilor Brooks drove the point he just made in his amendment broadly. You know, the city of Renton and the surrounding businesses are paying a significant price in costs associated with the county's location of this facility. And they really did it more or less without warning, not nearly as smoothly as it could have been done. Does it mean it was the wrong decision? I think long term, ultimately citing folks who did intensification sites is going to be a good, broad policy choice that will slow the pandemic. But we shouldn't punish Renton for them doing the right thing. I mean, they made the right choice to take this on. They've been a willing player. They were negotiating with the executive at another location in advance of this. And so I do think there is a limit to the patience and flexibility of the cities. We have to recognize the very real political toll. This is taking locally on the mayor and the city council. And so I think we should, as we start setting policy, moving forward on this site and others, have a chance to take a quick look at it. You know, every 90 days or so, just like our homeless encampment or tent city encampments and make the policy choice and have a little more control of it at the council. As a member of the public. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am following the issue. I know the site well from the childhood on. I think I saw my first ever movie at the old Britain. They had a theater there and I believe it comes from Berkeley. Longmire runs a grocery store in the shopping complex. Is that correct? Correct. One of my concerns about this situation is that we may have an attempt to intensify the Morrisson over intensified not part of one city in the county, just the magnitude of 200 folks coming in suddenly without a community infrastructure prepared to handle that is is a real concern. And we're moving quickly and expeditiously and it's an emergency and we've got to step up beyond our comfort level. And perfection is not the test here, but the time proposed by this to come back and take a look at what it should be if it goes forward and what terms this is seems reasonable to me and I wonder if Tesla were up the ground, if things like total, if it were to continue beyond 90 days with respect to county funding for the state, things like total allowable occupancy and support services, things like that. Could that also be considered in a report that would be presented and approved by the Council? I think anything could be included in the report. Absolutely. I'm inclined to be supportive of. Emotion here. And I think this is that respect a little different than a lot of the other sites that the cities around the county have stood up in partnership with us. And the intensity here is is far above beyond any of the other side. So I think your proposal is reasonable that. Only when things settle down a little bit and more function a little more normal. We can take a look at this for next steps. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I. Nobody heard from the executive what their perspective is on the discussions that have happened with the city of Renton and where there are negotiations. Because it seems to me by adopting this for essentially saying give them what they want or else we're going to shut you down. That's what this says. Unless Renton agrees, because it says we won't give you money to support the operation unless there is an agreement from the city to do so in front of me. And I'm sorry. It got withdrawn. What? I think you're speaking to the amendment I went through. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm trying to follow you all. So you're talking about provides the 1.2 million you would require, of course, on the rationale number 12, is that correct? Perhaps horrible that. Never mind. But I would like at some point to hear from the executive on this. And I don't know today is the point, but I don't. Because you hear sort of. You know, honestly, if I had it to do over again in a meeting I had with Brendan, I would have invited the executive to participate so we could have all. Talk to each other. But I'd only and I have a great deal of sympathy for them hearing from the city. They are trying to be your partners. They say that over and over again. They're really committed to that position. And I appreciate that. It's not been shown every place, by the way, every jurisdiction that is controlled with concerns about the site has had some type of concern that was totally and utterly unique to their access to their city. And so I think if we get into the business of micromanaging these things, we're going to have we're going to evolve. We're always going to be the executive building has been experiencing. And I know that that's not what this does. I appreciate that. But I do I do want to at some point hear from the executive about what the discussions have been and where the hang ups are and hope we can do that. You know, if they're not objecting to our report, then that's fine. But I don't know. It was all problems. Exactly. So I'm happy to vote yes to a report. And I was concerned that we were very sorry. Thank you. Hello. Let's start with you. Carter responded. You want to defer until sometime during the week or consultation? I think you. Need to speak with Mr. Ford. Mr. Right. And my knowledge of the negotiations with Brendan is that they are underway and I know nothing else. So unfortunately I can't give you much value today. But I know. That the numbers are a lot. Will eventually. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the intensification side. I think we need to be providing a way, way more permanent housing options, co-located with wraparound services for the people and the demographic that we're talking about. And I largely agree with the people we heard from in Renton. My only pushback is something that I heard from somebody who commented, saying that we need to send people back to where they came from. I'm against that mentality if we're going to have a regional approach to homelessness. We need to keep treating county like a region and all be together in terms of addressing this issue and building housing for people. That being said at all, we should use in making all of our decisions, including where we place the intensification sites, has to be that equity impact review tool. And so I support Councilmember Up to grow amendment because I would like to see the rationale for keeping it in that specific location. We heard the demographics in Renton, low income populations, people of color. All those things do exist largely in Renton. And so I would like the executive to take a broader view and let us know why this places specifically. Is there going to be a concentration of locations in South King County? All those questions I would like to see answered in a report. So I'm speaking in favor of councilmember up the growth amendment while acknowledging that we need the intensification sites up in Foley fully support those. Teacher Observer. Como Thank you, Mr. Chair. I found this very interesting issue on discussion, and we're having an impact in my district district for having already two other incumbent sons. You just now being. Informed that we both have two sons. Both. So we're going ahead with that. My concern now. This amendment is the potential impact on our public health workers going on. And I think Kelly Rider was going to be with us if she. Here. Maybe she could provide some comment. Be okay, Mr. Chair. Writer. Hi, Councilmember. Chairman Bernanke, do you hear me? Yes. I tried to start my video, but I can't actually see myself, so I will just go on. Thank Councilmember. Now that I have done all of that work, I don't know that I am the best person to speak to our public health response at this point in time. I know that we will absolutely want to be able to follow up with you all. There's a specific question. I can certainly try to answer it. But in terms. Of our broader response, I. Have not heard that said advice. I am speaking from an issue that has come up. Okay. I was just an appointment with Mr. Taylor representing the executive along with Jonathan, and maybe Dwight comes forward. But this is a concern that I have, is whether this would provide an impediment. To implementing public health strategies so that. So again, I would second what writer said that I think we really need to hear from Mr. Ford. I would just know that. These these efforts are extremely difficult. And. It's always going to be a very difficult challenge to site a facility of this type for any period of time. And so. And if you pass this amendment, I would just encourage you to think about how the council will actually write this report and so that it gets, you know, expeditious attention. And we don't end up in a situation where the report is ending, the lease expires, and we have no place for these individuals to go, which creates the public health problem that as well as you're referring to. So I would just encourage you to have a conversation in the next week with Mr. Floor and others to talk about how we can best meet the needs you're all expressing and understandably expressing without creating a situation that could have some very serious unintended consequences. Thank you. I also but many, many phone calls from people in Suffolk County. And the one thing that came very clear to me is that they're perfectly happy to have and and they have been and tend to be very good hosts. And this is an important with the mayor was speaking. And but each of them said to me we do not like certain behaviors that we believe are uncivil. And if those things were not happened, it would be easier. And I think at the end of the day, conversation that we need to have. But if we're going to do when there are behaviors that now especially are not safe from a public health standpoint, that in the past have been ignored. And both the prosecutor, Seattle, has said he refuses to. Civility, love. And apparently there was a meeting recently with South Daily News, as well as they hoped, on talking about the idea that we as a society have got to have civility, love, and if people would admit them so that people are not uncomfortable or walking through things on the street that shouldn't be on the street, it would be much easier. So if we do did this report, I think one of the issues that we should be discussing is why are the civility laws not being enforced and how is that impacting socially but also in public health at this point? I think it's. Further discussion. Is here. Just briefly to Councilmember Lambert's point. Are we talking about a behavior in the city of Renton and wouldn't they be subject to his laws? And is one of the issues here that Renton is having to respond frequently and clean up graffiti and you've also got to behave yourself. I don't think that that's I just don't think that's something that we should ask for a report about because we don't control movement. And in fact, I think we understand what's happening is that that's causing some impact. I just want a bit more to the point, I'm probably going to vote no on this because I think it's too much money to the point about having the the timeline laid out on us without a plan B. I'm worried about that. I'm worried about running off the clock and having suddenly an emergency where we have to remove a bunch of people. I want to try to find a solution that works for everyone for the prime site Renton for whatever happens at the end. They have respectfully and correctly asked for a plan for how this ends. What's the end game? I don't think we have that yet. I think we should push for that. And they have made a case for needing some reimbursement. And I think that that is fair as well. And there is the CARES Act money that can be a part of that. But I'm really concerned about setting up a situation where we're going to be in an emergency and have to quickly make a big move. And I just don't want to set that up. I think there's other ways to get it where we're trying to go. It's not that I don't support the idea of working with the city because I think this. Approach might put us in a bind. A few weeks down the road. And I'm thinking. They? Of course, the roll call vote for clarification since it sounds like it's divided up. Voters requested cast number. Do you care to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the diverse views on this, and my hope to pass. Would be to. Participate constructively to ensure that our processes don't get in the way of it. I appreciate there is a quote. You know, Councilman Lambert had comments about sort of a broader regional response. And I don't want those to complicate this particular amendment. This simply has us approving a report and it gives us an opportunity to participate in that discussion and debate as to the future of the site. And if a majority of this council is comfortable with the current approach, then the current approach will continue. So but it does give us. The time between now and. That means expires to make a case and explore options and look at what those best option might be in to better inform that decision with additional information and analysis. And so I appreciate your consideration. Carter, could you please call the roll. On a name? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member about reaching. So Councilmember, how do you both know. I. Councilmember Dombrowski both I'm Councilmember Dunn. By. Councilmember Dunn are Councilmember Colwell? No Councilmember Caldwell Sports no councilmember member. Council member Mathieu High Council member Lambert Fox. I was a member of the girl. I grew up the Girl Scouts. I was a member of my bar. I council member of all my colleagues. I month members are all. Council members, all allies. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, now. Mr. Chair, the vote is 653 nos. A number 12 is adopted. That takes us to amended 13.1. Council members are hereby. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move Amendment 13.1. Thank you. Council members. Most adults never mentioned 13.1 to speak to this amendment and throughout the attempt to be to have an effect on the entire supplemental. However, the only place in the new language were adopted today where the phrase geographically balanced is found is in the tourism sector. And that's why you see it. Well, there's only about four reasons. And I think our intent in seeking a geographically balanced is to make sure that we don't concentrate all of the funds in one place , that it is not isolated to one community or one place in the county. And there is some in more than one place, multiple places, where I want to make sure that what we're not doing is on peanut butter and putting it across the country evenly. And therefore this amendment would add where we were saying geographically balanced on. And so what needs to be balanced based on me? Because truly, as we address economically the most content content during the pandemic, we're doing this all with an eye toward me. Front of discussion. Transformative policy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I like the I think the notion behind it, if I'm understanding it and I was talking with Governor Caldwell's and I wonder here's my philosophy. I think that we are in these circumstances in a time where there's devastation throughout the county and there is need everywhere. And so I think we should be responsive countywide in our response. At the same time, I, I agree with the philosophy that those who need more help and who have traditionally not had as much help from structural racism, reasons of power, lack thereof. We should account for that, and they should have more help and they should be prioritized. Even the language that you're suggesting geographic balance based. On need. Would seem to be exclusive to based on need. I wonder if geographically balanced account, while accounting for me, would more finally reflect that. We want to have some geographical balance here, but we also want to account for need. The based on need seems to maybe exclude the geographic balance, if you will. And I wonder if you are open to further discussions or some sort of change in that direction. I am. You have have geographically be balanced while accounting for name. Then Kilgore called my editor. I wonder if she might if that captures the discussion we're having better. Let's do chair assignments, because frankly, we really struggle with the language here. And as you all know, they're very hard to get to the initial conceptual striking then that we sent you last Thursday. And then the final one there went out in front of the number. Confirmed to most of them up until midnight of that. And so I think there really are still some areas and a certain moments that need some words. I think this is one of the. I like the suggestion made by Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I'm not sure that it's exactly right. We need to vote for this amendment with the understanding that we will do some more work. Other quotes. As well. Opposed to the idea of more wordsmithing, but I would actually accept a friendly and very friendly and uncertain stance. Grand, mutually acceptable friendly manner. The language of 13.1. So it means you have to be balanced or accounting for me. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I think given our circumstances, it is anything we can do to narrow the narrow the path toward them, toward the finish line is good. You and I agree that doesn't cause it probably needs another country coming over time to work on language, but I think that advances it closer to the finish line . I appreciate your dialog and working with. You're welcome. And I'd like a nod from someone in talking to the committee that they've gotten and recorded the amendments as we've discussed it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have it recorded as geographically balanced while accommodating for me. While accounting for me. I'd say while accounting for me. That is what I had written, but not what I read. After about four and a half hours. Neither did Paul. Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. I remember as amended, stating that all those in favor please signify by saying I thought I was never going to have a third one as a doctor. I will go slow for a moment before I get to 15 to see if anything happens. Pausing briefly before the end of the season. Anything happens. I see nothing happening here. Amendment 15 Councilmember Bill Gibson. You are a murderer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not going to offer. Oh, I learned my lesson. I'm going to offer Amendment 15 and then speak to. 13 Cardinals member DC has moved to remember the 15 cast member double duty to revive. The air, so to speak, to a mental drive. The lead and concept of including a funding source for youth homelessness organizations was mine. So I appreciate the charity, including IT and the executive including it. All the support I have been advocating for and the dollar amount they believe was well targeted to fund the small number of organizations that are actually licensed youth shelter providers. And not just anybody can call themselves the youth shelter provider. It's a highly regulated activity and there is a large organization on the east side of funds. And yes, I believe it's the why in the South End. And then there's the backing of NGOs. That is the name was given. And so these these are really the big players in this in this area. And they are all struggling and struggling to meet the needs of young people among those who don't have homes, who are at risk of infection, who are at risk of bringing infections into the shelters and aid programs, and therefore, they need to be ready to move spread out. They need to be ready to be intensify their shelters and then all takes resources and resources for more space and resources for more staffing. And it's just very challenging time for these service providers. And so Seattle has done quite a bit to take care of the services within the city of Seattle. But outside the city of Seattle, the four organizations are not around about seeing the same level of support and they really need our help. So I appreciate the million dollars being included. I wanted just for for reassurance, to know that my intent, as I just described it, was the actual way it was going to get implemented. We've spoken a number of ways today and on other days about putting in money into an appropriation, not being 100% clear about how we intended to be spent and then finding ourselves surprised and sometimes disappointed without actually gets so kind of different in a couple of different ways to get out. What I would like to see half of this money go to friends and use and the other half to go to the library or whatever that is. I think that I just don't know enough for this number to be the right number and expenditure restriction is a very blunt instrument and says you shall spend this amount on this thing and I'm not sure that that works in this situation. So that's why I'm from 2008. I do want to continue to work with the chair and the executive branch just to make sure that the intent is clear of this. This particular part of the lodging tax money which is eligible is now being used for modern task homelessness. The is to support the major providers of homeless services outside of Seattle thinking that it was right and I to get. Thank you. We have an ordinance, Mr. Chair. Asking. I'm sorry. Sure. I just. I want to take the opportunity on this to just make sure the records are clear. I was very proud to offer the Youth Homelessness Amendment in the lodging tax allocation measure. That was a couple of years ago. It was unanimously adopted by the council, and this money would bring it forward. And that's a good thing. I, I, I do think I'm a little troubled with the exclusion of Seattle and certain young people in Seattle with the but the legislation that's of course, in between now and full council . I want to understand why we are excluding a whole population of young homelessness and surge fighters that are like youth care from eligibility. Because I do think there are needs countywide friends of youth amazing organizations and their fundraiser a number of times their leadership and I think they absolutely should be supported with these dollars. So I too am interested in making sure that we're funding the organizations who can best serve this population regardless of where the kids are throughout the county. Thank you. We have before us for 2020 177 amendments as amended. So when we have the starting amendment as amended before us and all those in favor of the Second Amendment as amended by saying I, I, I oppose nine and the ayes have it. The amendment is, is that we have ordinance 2021, 77 as adopted as amended before is. Mr. Chair. Would you like. Somebody to move that type of amendment? I was under the impression we were all entitled to a full council because we to have the rights and amendments protected or which amendments got accepted, that's currently here. Okay. So so as I suspected, four members information never there among any other work we do between now and next week, there will be a title amendment. We are moving it out of committee without a proper format by title at this time and are aware of the fact that discussing our final passage. Still to come below. Well, to say a few words. And we really spent a great number of hours to so I don't want to go into any detail here, but I, I just want to reiterate that we all know that we're in the midst of an enormous crisis with catastrophic realities for our constituents, for our residents in the commons, health, well , and well-being, as well as our economic well-being. It's not different from what's happening all around the country. I just checked the latest figures for today. We now have an additional seven positive test cases. That brings us to 6653. In our county. Now we have an additional four fatalities, bringing us to a very tragic 467 deaths. We know those numbers are growing strongly. Those numbers are not reflective of the reality. We have a lot more positive cases and a lot more deaths than actuality. So we're seeing some slowing down, but we need to get our economy started. But we also need to ensure the health and well-being of all of our residents. I really appreciate the executive's transmittal of this very well thought out plan to help out in our recovery response and recovery efforts, including releasing the isolation sites and providing alternatives to shelters that not be used to promote social distancing requirements for those ceremonies. And as we discussed, that at the heart of our small businesses, really. And how would you assistance to get gone? We're very worried that. Many of our businesses are threatened. Clubs, learn stories about those all the time that are incorporated areas as well as in similar cities. So I saw one of them, Councilor DEMBOSKY, come up with the idea of looking at our lodging tax. We know that it is being depleted because our hotels are mostly closed to restaurants are operating in many of them just with takeout and delivery services are. And our arts, culture, science, heritage organizations that typically draw tourists and visitors to us during the month it's such a robust was economically but also to attract businesses to attract visitors . It's a wonderful, wonderful relationship. And we want to get back to where we can have all the crucial. I commend this to you. I don't want to go on more second one more consultant. That's a great deal. That's very positive. But it will. And the bottom line is, it will jobs that will help the economy and also help in terms of public sector. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to say that I appreciate a lot of good work and and people without eating really hard in the last week with that. And as we go forward and I really appreciate the wording and it's just an honor and the last 2 minutes, I thank you for accepting that and friendly amendment . It's always interesting to me that geographic equity is the only one that had some kind of 400 foot around it. And I'm just saying. And it continually happens. So I just want to point that out that I don't see that happening with any other premier. And also, you know, making sure that we are defining need because as Councilmember Caldwell just said, everybody has needs right now. And in the study that's going to be done and disability issue has been brought up by many, many mayors and several chambers. And while Renton does have the ability to to police it, to arrested, and they don't have the ability to prosecute it, and that is concern. And I will have to add the amendments that I just want to put on the record that as the blueprint is that we will as councilmember said, we will we have an update for how this is going on and for our budget. And and then it will be that as we get the update, they tell us whether it's in the previous month and then to make it down by district. So we'll have an idea of how well we are doing and making sure that our needs across the county are be addressed. And then lastly, and that as we work on the amendment that I would do today on making sure that when we're talking about the local government and the local government committee is very much involved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the discussion. Councilmember Belmonte Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask if it's possible to move this out today without recommendation. I understand it has to be ruled in a new item passage by next Tuesday's council meeting. But there are some very big financial questions in my mind that resurfaced early on in this very long discussion. If you remember back a couple hours, it came out in this in this discussion that although we have been acting on, the assumption was the word I'll use that I think it's been 700 times. But we were not going to redistribute the types of funding the lodging tax ordinance that we passed. In fact, we are going to come back with what am I supposed to change that ordinance to conform to this appropriation? Despite all the discussion, I'm still not really clear how millions of dollars in tourism money is going to be funded. I like to make sure it's being funded in a way that makes sense. I mean, I don't think anybody's talking about a big tourism campaign this summer because nobody's traveling this summer. We're still in Corona virus lockdown. So I just want to make sure that it's being spent sensibly and that there's going to be accountability for how it gets done. And yeah, and so the big concern I started with, I continue to have and so on. There's a lot of important things in this ordinance that. I do support. There's significant chunk about that. I saw big questions about in order to vote yes on it today, I would like to pass it out without a recommendation that is acceptable to the nature of the motion. Councilmember Karl Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I should have talked a little bit longer, but I would prefer to pass that on this recommendation that the bottom line of £7,000 with the recommendation, of course, we go along with that. But I would like to say that two things. One, we are really facing. Situation here. Just getting money out to our small businesses, getting money to our children's, getting money out to our tourism abroad so that we can be competitive. We've both been ahead of the curve comparisons to many other local jurisdictions and other states. But we know that there's going to be a huge amount of competition to attract tourists to places all over this country. Now, I think it's important to really go ahead with this. I'd like to have this really be out there indicating that we support this is always supported strongly. But the second thing I would say is that we will have a process in place here regardless where we will come up with the new striking. For counsel consideration for months to. And what I am looking at is working with staff to develop that striking amendment that would like to get your concepts to be included in it. Robinson heard a lot right now. But I'd like to ask. What would be a reasonable. The timeline for when those. Concepts for language, for the strength in the moment and then when we can read some of them again, but striking them around to some point in preparing to submit to not directly answer some. Questions that I'd like people themselves the classes. If I may, Mr. Chair, please. Just so you know, the timeline is going to be pretty tight, Mark. Our committee is that we need time to bring both the amendments adopted today to the underlying ordinance. I know that there's a lot of conversations going on, so I feel like there's going to be needing more time to finalize the Second Amendment. They can almost, almost envision the striking amendment being finalized towards the end of the weekend. And so given that, that doesn't leave much time for my amendment to the striker. So so I guess what I'm saying is, is that if we can take more time working on the striking amendment, that would be less time for line amendments. But if the members would like to shorten the time frame to finalize this amendment, then we can take the weekend to draft line amendments. I think that those are kind of the options. Pros and cons. I think the staff's preference is to work as diligently as possible to or as comprehensively to finalize the striking amendment throughout the weekend. And then perhaps on Sunday night, we can send out a draft of the striker. And then on Monday morning, council members can request line amendments and staff can use the rest of the Monday to draft and have legal review with action on Tuesday. That's just kind of the initial thoughts that I'm having. I'm not sure. I mean, come on, what would be really helpful to me as budget chair and working with the staff on the system work? But you also heard a lot now that if you have other concepts or maybe refinement of language that you suggest and get them to staff, then please indicated for the SARA to share those with me because that would expedite the whole process. It's better to get a striking amendment that would really be built on trying to ensure census among all of us. To take into consideration those suggestions. That you all. Have. You know, your description of the. We talk about one of mine county, but we're also talking about knowing that the vast differences. Among all the work. Just some. Satisfy everybody to the extent possible. So, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure where to go with the answer to some of the boundaries question. I don't know that it matters that much when you go for this to approve this with recommendation. It is. I hear you're not accepting the request council member boundaries here. Is it in a sense? I agree. It doesn't make that much difference. I suspect there are the votes to members now. If it's with recommendation, I will vote no because I don't have enough understanding of the use of housing funds of what had been allocated by ordinance vote. This body is part of monitoring systemic fix of affordable housing to tourism promotion in an emergency. And I just have to say, we're using the words emergency and crisis and we need to really rebound. And all of those words are absolutely justified in this in this period of time. Absolutely. However, there is a timing and a sequencing issue here. Emergency is May one just past and I can't pay my rent or I can't put food on my table, or I might have COVID 19, which is a lethal disease. That's the emergency. That's the right now crisis. Small businesses losing their their they're they're not being able to pay their rent and therefore not being paid. Are people shutting down, putting more people at risk? That's also a crisis for that institution and for the people who rely on them for money. A tourism promotion package is not an emergency in May of 2020. It's just not. We want to plan for the future and we want to plan for the near-term future. And so it is a an important and possibly very time sensitive thing, but to call it an emergency is to denigrate the real emergencies that people are going . Through every day. You and I am just not super clear what this money is going to be used for and when and whether we are doing the right things that we need to be doing with the resources that we have. So I would want to support the package as a whole, but I have some very big questions that just remain unanswered. And I've been asking them, I mean, it's not like this is a surprise to anybody. And I just want to make sure that we get to the bottom of hope. We learned some things in this meeting today that were different from what we had the morning before. And so I just can't vote for this with that level of uncertainty still hanging out there. But there's a lot of great things in here that I do absolutely support. I do absolutely support the small business support, absolutely support putting money into arts and culture and ultimately into tourism in a way that makes sense. But I really want to I just this councilmember needs a little bit more understanding and certainty about what's happening. And so that's just where I'm at today. And that's, you know, that's what all of us like when we all have our different our in different places, all different things, we represent different interests. So thank you, Mr. Chair. On this motion, I'll be a no vote, but with a commitment to work towards getting to yes. Mr. Chair, further discussion. Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Want to belabor, but I do want to bring out a couple of options of mine mind. We heard from Tim Anderson from Construction Trades Council. We heard from people in businesses and chambers that some. Residents feel that there are thousands of people now out of work not being able to pay their rent, not being able to have the means to do other things because their businesses have closed. And we're talking a lot about the tourism bureaus, the arts and culture and science and heritage, the museums, the theaters just across the board . People are not working in many of these. And nonprofits are closing completely. So this is a crisis. This is very urgent. And what we're doing with this legislation, and I thought it was very articulate about this, is we wanted to be to have our tourism promotion and marketing going on. So we will get people to stay in our hotels and even the restaurants and visit our retail stores and so forth. And without their promotion, it's going to be much more difficult to do. So I think this is very well timed so that we can get funding back into our our hotels and motels to support getting the revenue needed for affordable housing. So with that, I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, of what the best thing to do is. Here is the motion, because if that were to fail, what could we revisit the councilmember down, the promotion ban or what? Plus the number of calls. If the motion reforms were to fail, the legislation would remain in the committee of the hall. And could be removed at council. It's a big problem in Sudan, and one yes, it could. We have a motion before us. We're going to do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 177 as amended. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by saying that I'm very proud of this Council for taking on the executive or taking initiative to be responsive to our earning community. We are all out in our district working on the ground with partner organizations and individuals who are responding to this crisis and seeing firsthand the severe devastation across our economy that's following the necessary public health orders. And that devastation falls. A lot of people have become sick and many who have died, including from our own family. In the county courthouse, we lost just this last weekend and we are talking a lot today about dollars and budgets. But what we're really talking about is compassion and responding to lift up and support a community that's hurting. And I'm very proud of our government for taking this initiative and looking at these items and trying to the very best we can under circumstances to spend these dollars as smartly as we can. I think of my dad would permit me. He came here in about 1965. His first job was in a warehouse in their national district when we started The Little Idiots. That store was like the dollar stores of today selling all kinds of dry goods and down on Meeker Street in Kent and councilmember up the Grubbs district. And he ran that business, had employees. It was a retail business in the heart of Kent at the time. You know, I worked there as a kid, and we counted on community celebrations and visitors called Cornucopia Days, Maker, Days in parade, people coming together, come downtown, spend money. And he ran that business until about 82 through the bowing bus to the big interest rates of the late seventies through the oil crisis. And I saw the struggles firsthand. There were times, frankly, when our mortgage was paid and when we have small business leaders and employees all over this country suffering today. And what we're trying to do here with this package is be as responsive as we can with the resources we have on the timeframe we have. To turn this around when we can on the tourism piece, which is a piece I've kind of been focused on Kels rebounding. She indicated that it was not an emergency, and I really ask all the refugees to meet with the destination marketing organizations. They are funded in large part by the lodging tax and they are looking at laying off employees. And when we got that infrastructure, they are not being able to go out on a timeframe which frankly is 2 to 3 years to bring the conventions here. You go to the doctors and the anesthesiologists and the gaming conventions and those kinds of things. There's a long time frame to get those conventions that bring thousands of people to the area filling hotel rooms. And so you are absolutely right. We are not going to see those in the next couple of months, probably because of the distancing things. But they do need the resources to be to plan with the conventions of the next two years, look like in this health crisis, to go get that business, to develop the plan, to keep their infrastructure in place and not let people go because membership organizations and things like that are often the first to get cut in terms of their revenue when the number of business. Revenue dries up. So I think that's an investment in patching a broken roof right now to protect the house that's under it. And that house that under thunder is a very, very precious revenue stream that pays for me, for my house and the arts and cultural programs that we're talking about and that we all support. It's an investment in making sure that that stream is healthy, and it's a relatively modest one. I'm still hopeful I might get more clarity from Dwight that that will be reimbursable as a response to this measure and won't have to actually be used for the lodging tax to do it. But at the end of the day, though, the lodging tax at its course is the purpose is to bring people here and put it out of rooms. And that's what that piece of this proposal is. And it supports hotel workers, room cleaners, custodians, h-back, maintenance people, you know, building and construction trades folks, restaurant workers, tour guides. Talk to anybody in the Pike Place Market about what they what they count on with the cruise ships that come. And we want to make sure to bring those back here. It's. Children of the Grove once told me the number of jobs that come from Sea-Tac Airport. So that means it's a medium sized city out there. And I just think that's a very modest investment in restoring that piece of the economy. Not next month, but in the next year and a two year and beyond. And so I really encourage members to. To learn as much as you can about it. There is a proposal released from the Cherokee County Convention Visitors Bureau on how those dollars would be spent. And if you don't have that, I can help get that to you, because I think you're right to want to have the additional detail . But it is fair and I really respect your hard questions on it. We should be that and they're not unreasonable one. So I hope we can advance this today and work out the final details. But by next Tuesday I think we'll be able to do it. But I'm really proud of us, Mr. Chair, and I'm proud of this government. I think we're doing a pretty, pretty good job helping our communities out. And there won't be enough help. But I think we're meeting with our values and the good values and we're doing the best we can. Thank you. Thank you for our discussion about the growth of the government. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as concerned about you talked about the council being responsive. I also want to acknowledge the budget chair being responsive. These are weird times when we're getting frequent budgets or frequently we're not physically together to have the ability of face to face conversations and communication is tough. I mean, to be candid, we're also. A little bit busier than normal. And so even with communication taking place via staff late at night and kind of muddling through things, I think this I'm very supportive of the final product. I think it strikes a balance. I think we do a good job of balancing our equity and social justice interests throughout how we drive money out. I think we also do a good job of addressing geographic balance. And. Of being genuinely responsive to the ideas and issues and concerns that colleagues brought forward. And it's not easy and it's not going to get easier as the as we get this budget. The budget challenges in the year ahead. But I think this does a lot of good for a lot of people. There's things that I wouldn't do. You know, I think all nine of us would have a different looking budget. But I feel that it is a fair representation of the balance of the interests of the executive and the council members. And for that reason and for the good it's going to do in our community, I want to commend the Chair and express my support. Thank you for the discussion earlier today. Madam Court, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Councilmember these two votes now. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Council member dumbass people fine council member done. By. Council member Dan Brown's local member Coles or Council Member Coles. But I was a member member council member. Lambert votes on Article II, Council member of the Grampians. I remember going that far. Councilmember Formica. Awesome. Council members. All are council members all able to. Mr. Chair. No. The chair votes no. Mr. Chair, the vote has six eyes, two nose and Councilmember one right there. Yes. But you know, we were given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2021, 77 that will be extended to fall. Council appeared on the full council agenda one week from today. With that, you'll be happy to know that the Metro Transit briefing has been postponed or it's a town meeting. However, that is not true of the what I believe will be brief briefing of under enormous planning in connection incident. I'm sorry the north much like an interceptor and condemnation. And given that we do expect this condemnation to come before a full council next week.

Recommendation to approve the designation of one-time infrastructure funds for City Council District infrastructure projects and existing programs; and Approve related budget appropriation adjustments in accordance with existing City Council policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0879

Vice Mayor Richardson Motion Carries Item eight. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to approve the designation of one time infrastructure funds for City Council, district infrastructure projects and existing programs and approved related budget and appropriation adjustments citywide. There's a motion and a second. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say that we'll be removing the funds from Cherry on Broadway and hopefully reallocating that to another corridor for improvements. Possibly Corridor seven. But those funds are already. That street is already covered by measure. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And Lee, if you can help us with exactly which item for the record needs to be adjusted. To the chair. So this item does approve the designation of one time infrastructure funds and approves related budget appropriation adjustments in the category of the designation of one time infrastructure funds for public works projects. We'll be removing $34,001 for the Broadway between Cherry Avenue and Temple AV project, and that will then have a revised total of $170,955 of designated projects. Great. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Any public comment? Please come forward. Good evening, Counsel and Staff Susan Miller. I've lived on East Ocean Boulevard since 1993. I want to respectfully request the Council to remove on item eight all three items related to Ocean Boulevard in District three, totaling $121,000. I have no issues with any of the other projects, and item eight $121,000 is 75% of this item. That is too large of financing. City management agenda at size the item as a financial management matter. It makes no mention of the road diet and diagonal parking in this narrative text simply listing the road diet in I have an attachment. There are currently no public published, publicly accessible graphics or description text on the city's website or on any of its social network pages, or on Councilwoman Price's website or on her social network pages on this. Simply put, there is zero online trans transparency. The proposal is camouflaged within consent calendar and buried among a list of non-controversial items bundled for so-called council district discretionary fillings, which are actually paid by taxpayers citywide. So with no information available anywhere for the average residents to gain information, the three Ocean Boulevard items need to be removed from item eight. This action is not in accordance to support for transparency and desire for public participation. Ocean Boulevard is a major artery for traffic infrastructure in this city currently and for the future. The proposed $100 million plus Belmont Pool is on Ocean Boulevard in city planning. I cannot fathom a major swim sporting event looking at a venue that only has a one lane road being the only access. Please remove the three Ocean Boulevard items from the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Ann Cantrell. And I'd also like to speak on this road diet. I appreciate that. Jack Cunningham from Councilwoman Prices Off Office sent me an email with some of the explanation of why this is being done. It stated that a study had found the volume of traffic that Daily Travels Ocean Boulevard is less than half as much as the road was designed to transport. I have questions about this study. What time of day was it done? What days of the week? What time of year? There are many days in summer, especially on weekends and during special events when the traffic is heavy on ocean and two lanes are needed. Perhaps cutting down to one lane will slow down traffic, but it will also have the effect of bringing it to a standstill when traffic is heavy. And where is the room for cars to pull over to allow fire trucks, ambulances and police cars to access the area? This road diet is supposed to provide 150 new non metered diagonal parking spaces along the south side of ocean. I'm wondering. This sounds wonderful. Why would anyone pay to park in the Granada lot if there's non metered parking on the street? Perhaps a better solution would be to take the meters out of the beach slot. This supposedly this road space will be available. That it creates enough space for a buffer zone between the diagonally parked cars and the bike lane. And I ask you to look at this picture, which I got from L.B. report dot com showing what we were told is perhaps the plan for this. Here's the diagonal parking. Here's the bike lane and here's the one lane. Cars backing out are going to be backing out right over this park bike lane into oncoming traffic. Perhaps the people that are using this bike lane could use the beach park bike bike lane, which is already there just a few feet over on the beach. I think this is a very dangerous proposal. It is suggested that stop signs are illegal to slow down traffic. This makes no sense to me. Thank you, Miss Cantrell. If it's legal to make narrow lanes, then it should be legal to make put in a stop sign. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Mayor Council, L.A., Neil. I live in Belmont Heights. First time I'm up here, I'm a little nervous. Agenda item number eight, item number 16, dash 0879. I'm here to urge the Council to not approve $85,000 funding for the ridiculous Ocean Boulevard rodeo between Livingstone Drive and 54th place in Belmont Shore. That's the portion of the $121,000. There are no drawings. There are no diagrams that you are voting on. You don't even probably know what is involved in that. The proposed road diet lane reduction design is severely flawed and will cause an increase in traffic congestion. And unsafe, perhaps hazardous conditions that degrades the quality of life for Belmont Shore and the Peninsula homeowners and residents. It also negatively affects thousands of tourists, visitors and special events on the beachfront. Well, I appreciate the city traffic engineer, Eric Webster, and for trying to come up with parking spaces for Belmont Shore. He does publicly state that he wants to cause congestion because that's what gets people to slow down. Well, as I understand it, the original problem identified by Belmont Shore residents regarding Ocean Boulevard was crossing the street to the beach at a few intersections. As I understand it, residents identified intersections that they wanted marked pedestrian crosswalks or stop signs to help alert drivers to their presence. As they cross. Somehow this request turned into a reason for the most. Undoubtedly lamest road rage inducing emergency vehicle restricting air quality, destroying traffic, congesting bicycle li bicyclist endangering pedestrian ignoring street improvement design. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Jennifer Cameron. I live on 65, 63rd place on the peninsula, and I've been a resident of Long Beach community for 36 years. I have driven Ocean. Boulevard ever since I've lived there. I've never seen. Speeding is they're talking about, but my concerns are traffic. I'm not sure where this. Idea came from. It was first presented. At the Alameda Space Preservation Committee meeting, came out of the blue. No one at the meeting was expecting this. And when the majority discussed this. Afterwards and they had a vote. No one was interested. In pursuing this for the peninsula. Well, that. Goes as well for the rest of the Belmont Shore area. We at least have a group that met and discussed it for the Belmont. Sure. I don't think people know about this. I don't think there's a group that's discussed it. It just came in. And suddenly here we are with a vote on it. I think the traffic engineer, I don't know when he put out his tabs. And and did the traffic analysis, but he certainly didn't do it during the summer. Because we have so many events. We have the pirate event, of course. We have the pool. We have the volleyball event as well. We've had. The sand the sand event. And that day I was driving, it took me 20 minutes to get from the beginning of Bayshore through Granada, and they brought in police officers to help direct traffic. And that was with two lanes. And now they're talking about one. As you realize, there's only so many quarters. We have Anaheim. We have Seventh Street, and then we have Ocean. People have to get. Through not only locals, but people that come in and work. In Long Beach and leave. And I don't understand. I think if you. Put down one lane. The traffic is going to go somewhere. And where else will it go on crowded days? It's going to go right through that community and people will not like it. As well. There's discussion about safety. If you have, as we know now, lots of SUV and lots of big trucks and they're diagonally parking. Do you know how dangerous it is to back up and try and get out? I have a smaller car. I can't see past those cars. I think they're backing up. You'd be going right into the back lane. You wouldn't see those bikers. Right now, there's parallel parking. You can turn. You can look. You have a rearview mirror. And it's safer. So I think there's a safety issue. I think for traffic reasons, for safety and for alerting the community of this upcoming diet, I think this should be voted against. And taken off. Agenda eight. Thank you. Thank you. It looks like our final speaker. Okay. Anna Kristensen again, this time just representing myself and my street of Termino Avenue. I was driving down Broadway after this issue of the road diet came came up and with the paint and the new lines and the thing and I noticed we now suddenly have a left turn lane painted in on my street, which doesn't even have a stop sign at Broadway. So I'm wondering, is there an excess of paint in the city? I mean, we have like a lot of leftover paint that we have to get rid of because, you know, you know, a good idea is one thing. But taken too far, you know, it gets a little bit crazy. And I think both with this parking thing, it seems like the second and third are kind of mixed up. Maybe the diagonal parking should go along First Street where our congressman lives. That seems to be a kind of off limits area first between Redondo and the park there. There's plenty of that's a very wide street. They need some parking there. I don't think those residents would be very happy about it. But all I can say is, as someone who spends a lot of time going up and down Ocean Boulevard, you know, I just I just don't see anybody speeding. I walk a baby across there in a stroller. And I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist without going to the source of, you know, the people who would be most affected, the community. And I really wish you'd erase that left turn. LANE Everybody's going to start thinking we are a major thoroughfare on terminal, and it's been pretty quiet lately and we like it that way. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So a few things. Just to be clear, the item tonight is to set aside money for this project out of our infrastructure funds. So we're setting aside money for the project. We're not approving a project tonight. Having said that, this is a project that is a recommendation by the city's traffic engineer in regards to ways to reduce speed. It's not it's it's it's kind of like when we put additional stop signs in or we put additional lights on or we reconfigure roads, those aren't projects that necessarily come through the council. So I understand the concerns that everyone has, but we just added some lighting, some traffic lights on seventh and Santiago. We just did a Broadway road diet. Those items don't come before council. They come as a result of traffic engineering. So having said that, I know our traffic engineers are here. I'm just going to go through a couple of points and then I'm going to ask if if Eric, if you wouldn't mind, Eric, what's coming up? Just so we can go through a couple of points and then for anyone who's here who feels that they don't have the information or anything like that, please let me know. But I do. I do note that Susan was talking about a lack of transparency. I'll note that on we've been in communication, Susan and I have specifically on this topic. And with this there was a presentation made to the Belmont Shore Residents Association, and then there was a meeting at the field office. And no, the PowerPoint was not functioning. Mr. Van Dike's PowerPoint was not functioning. So Susan did receive, as I said, everybody else who was there, including the neighborhood association, presidents, copies of the PowerPoint. And in fact, in the email that Susan sent on August 12th, she actually attaches a number of slides from the presentation. And I know that she had sent that email, you know, late in the afternoon or like almost 6:00 and and responded within a few minutes saying that she had concerns with the project but hadn't had a chance to see anything so or ask any questions. So, you know, there was obviously some some concerns about it and I get that. But in regards to transparency, at least for the speakers this evening, at least two of those speakers had a copy of the full PowerPoint and the traffic study. The way this came to be is that a traffic study was requested through the Belmont Shore residents. We have repeatedly we get calls every day from residents and businesses on Ocean Boulevard saying that people are taking Ocean Boulevard in in order to avoid other streets. And that's causing a lot of safety issues because pedestrians are almost getting hit crossing the street and that people are driving above the speed limit. So there was a request by the community for traffic engineering to do a study. They did a study. It's actually a very thorough study. I think that's a great suggestion. Susan, we will put this on our website so that everyone has a copy of the study, but they did a study. It's an 11 page study and it goes through many aspects of Ocean Boulevard. So Ocean Boulevard was designed and built for 25,000 vehicles a day of traffic. It currently gets in the peak months, 7000 cars traveling through it a day. So it was built for 25,000. It gets 7000. A lot of the residents suggested that we put in traffic I'm sorry, stop signs as a way to slow traffic down. And this is an area where really we have to defer to our traffic engineers to some extent because this is an actual science. They've they've done a lot of research and study on this. But stop signs aren't designed to slow traffic. They're designed to indicate right of way. It is an in applicable use of stop signs to put them there to try to control traffic speeds. Traffic calming can only be achieved through engineering and design. And so the recommendation based on the size of this road and the number of vehicles that it receives is to do what's called a road diet. Some people have, you know, kind of made fun of the name. That's not really our name. That's a name that's in the traffic industry. I know that Eric came from Seattle. They did a lot of traffic road diets there. He's done one. He's done it in other cities. And again, the the road diet that was done on on Broadway has been extremely successful. We get thank you emails all the time from residents. So that's how the study was conducted and recommendations were made. And it is those recommendations that were acting upon were acting upon Traffic Engineering's recommendation. So I would like Eric to just briefly speak on this, but I do want the public to know, and especially the folks who are here, we are going to have another meeting where we're going to talk about this a little bit more in detail and then also. The timing and the impacts that this is going to have on the community as we implement it. In regards to the peninsula that the woman that was here from the peninsula. I appreciate you coming. Just so you know, the peninsula has the pic and within the pic they have a traffic committee. And the traffic committee originally had wanted to slow traffic by instituting these things called traffic humps, but they only wanted them on one side, one lane. So they wanted a hump on one lane, but no hump on the other lane. Traffic engineering felt like that was not a good solution because cars would be driving around the lanes and also because nowhere else in the country had anyone implemented these traffic humps on only one lane of a two lane road. So what I said to the traffic committee and they were not very happy with me because my predecessor had agreed to implement these traffic humps. But what I said was that I did not feel comfortable implementing the traffic humps because they were not with the standard of traffic design, but that we would do a traffic study for the peninsula. So they said, great. We did a traffic study at their request and all we did was present the findings and the recommendations of the traffic study. And there's going to be a presentation to the Peninsula Group. We haven't had that presentation yet, and I think that's going to happen in October. The money is being set aside, but that project is not going to get implemented for a while. And also the south and north side of ocean are not going to get implemented at the same time because we want to have an opportunity to see how this is working. Because if it's not working or if it's what people think it is, then we we can fix it. But our traffic engineers believe very strongly that this is going to have a positive impact. And I've heard a lot of comments about diagonal parking. You know, this is an unusual diagonal parking scenario because the buffers and I think Erik can speak to it more, are a lot bigger than they would be in any other place. There's there's a whole bike lane and there's a buffer before the bike lane. So it provides ample opportunity for for drivers. The people can say a lot of times that they think that diagonal parking is dangerous. There's really no data to back that up. In fact, parallel parking has proved to be incredibly dangerous because we've had we've seen numerous instances where people are injured as a result of a driver opening their door and a bicyclist driving into the door. There's actually a lot of published data on that. In regards to diagonal parking, there's really very little published data that talks about the dangers of diagonal parking. Finally, you know, this traffic study was done for the purposes of traffic, not for parking. The parking is just an added benefit of this design. It's going to allow for 156 additional parking spots for residents to park overnight free of charge in a parking impacted neighborhood. So that's just an additional added benefit. And although a lot of people don't like the change or the idea, you know, we don't want Ocean Boulevard to be a thoroughfare. We want it to be a safe place where residents and beachgoers can cross the street and not be concerned about travel vehicles traveling at a fast pace, which the data reveals that everybody speeds on Ocean Boulevard. So if you have an experience that I challenge you to stand over by the digital counter and just watch because my staff does it every day, we have one of our staff members who lives right there, and we've been tasked every staff member to drive through there every day at different times in advance of this road diet. So we have staff members driving there in the morning, in the afternoon and at night almost on a daily basis, because we want to make sure that we support a project that we think is going to work. And finally, when we talk about special events, traffic engineering has a whole plan in place for what we do for for special events. So for special events will be working with the Special Events Department in advance of the event to coordinate the traffic plan. And that means that some of these diagonal parking lanes will be opened up for thorough for for through bound traffic so that we do have two lanes on days where we have special events. But as Erik often says, we don't design roadways for special events. We design them for the other 345 days of the year. So I'm going to allow, Erik, if there's anything that you want to add to what I said, just to kind of clarify anything that might be inaccurate. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Price. I think you've done a great job of getting into the details. So Eric Wood, Strand City Traffic Engineer, we've completed two road diets in Long Beach this past year. Both are working very well. Broadway and Alamitos. The reason for doing the road date on Ocean is to improve safety for pedestrians. Crossing ocean is riding along ocean and drivers traveling along it. As Councilor Price mentioned, this road has an excessive capacity. We feel that the analysis done shows it will still function just fine with one lane each direction we take into consideration emergency vehicle access. We take into consideration the development coming in the corridor with the pool. And with the special events taking place during the summer, the road diet is not designed to increase congestion, but it is designed to get motorists to drive closer to the speed limit that if that results in people going a little slower , that's okay. The slower people go, the safer it is for pedestrians. Reducing the street to one lane in each direction also means that pedestrians only have to cross one lane of traffic each direction, which is inherently safer. You do not have a multiple vehicle threat condition when that happens. As Councilor Price mentioned, we've had several outreach meetings along the corridor. There'll be more outreach that takes place. The diagonal parking will provide a buffer between the parking lane and the bicycle lane, and then the travel in. This setup is also designed to allow emergency vehicle access along the corridor. Traffic data that was collected for the study was taken during the summer months, both on Thursday and Sunday of the summer months and also during the spring. As was mentioned previously, while I was at the city of Seattle, I conducted ten road diets that were successfully implemented. Most of them were controversial, but the results are in going in and working well. I also was a coauthor of the Road Diet Information Guide, published by the Federal Highway Administration. That concludes my comments. Thank you. When I call you Mr. Road Diet. From now on. I'm getting maybe a bad joke right now, so thank you. We've done public comment. We've done the motion in a second on the floor. Seeing no other comments, please cast your votes. Councilmember most motion carries.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Agreement with SLR International Corporation to Provide Site Investigation and Environmental Report Services for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, Including Contingency, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $363,610 and to Amend Project Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $170,610. (Recreation and Parks 91309)

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2563

Calendar, there are three items regarding the Gene Sweeney open space park. Two financial items five F and five G represent. Along with the cross Alameda bike trail. The actual start of park construction. These items authorize funds necessary to start soil remediation and construction design for the entire park. Jane started her work on the park in 1998. Now, 18 years. Later, the construction work is. Actually going to start. 2016 is the year. Alameda can say Jane's dream will finally start to become a reality. Item five A. Third item supports the Alameda Food. Banks request to enlarge its space on. Land at the Jane Sweeny Park. Jim and Jane always supported the Alameda Food Bank. And Jane promised she would support support it. Space in the park. The increased. Size of the food bank will compliment the space. Where the new community garden. Will be located in the park. A large. Food bank. And community garden will both honor Jane and. The people of Alameda who. Rely on their services on behalf of Jane. They opened. The Jane Sweeny Open. Space Park Fund, which is board members Jim Sweeney, Dr. Hahn and myself. We would like to thank. All of Alameda for their. Support for the park throughout this long process. We would like to thank. The many city councils along. The way. Including our current council, for their support for the park. And a very special thank you. To. Air PD. Director Amy Aldridge for. Your dedication to this very large. Project. Thank you. Mr. Sweeney. Evening. Council members. Staff. I'm Jim Sweeney. I'm very happy to be with you tonight. As you address staff, we request to execute agreements for site investigation, environmental reports, services, design services and authorization for the Interim City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Almeida Food Bank, all in regard to the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park . Has taken 18 years of effort, perseverance and patience to get where we are today. I believe it has proceeded as expeditiously as possible, given the circumstances which confronted us over those years. With outstanding guidance from Parks Director Amy Wooldridge. The strong supportive counsel and inspiring public support. The fact that we are closing in on the final design and construction is a momentous achievement. It is very exciting for we who are members of the of the steering committee for the park to be able to pass pass on the elements of the final design and help make Jean and the public's dream come true. I commend the staff reports to you and I urge you to approve the recommendations. Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Do we have emotion? I knew I would be pleased to move approval. Can I do all three items at once? Approval of items five F, five G and five H whose titles have already been read. Second, it was G.H. and I believe. I'm sorry. I circled them right back. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now we move to our regular agenda. Item 6 a.m.. Adoption of resolution approving a 15 year concession agreement with a ten year renewal option with. Oh, I'm sorry. How do I say this, Amy? Don't let me be known as James on the course. The provision of food and beverage services at the Chuck Creek Golf Complex. Laura. Oh, I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor and Council Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager and I. I'm here tonight also in part in my role as a recreation and parks director. So to give you some background, we the city has an existing agreement with gyms on the course that's been in place since 2006.

Application of Kevin Cleary to rezone land at 10711 8th Ave NE a 95,027 square feet of portion of land from Neighborhood Commercial 3-40 (NC3-40) to NC3-65 (Project No. 3018442, Type IV).

SeattleCityCouncil_05092016_CF 314287

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six four File 314 287 Application of Kenny Cleary to Rezone Land at ten 711 eighth Avenue Northeast in 95,027 square feet of portion of land from neighborhood commercial three dash 40 to NC three Dash 65. The committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. Council President What we have in front of us are two items clerk file as the clerk referred to it 314287 And then following that council bill 118676. These are references to two properties just east of the North K Mall. The properties are within the neighborhood commercial district and the North Gate Urban Center, which has been designated for significant employment and have asked for rezone from a high limit of 40 feet to a high limit of 65 feet. The recommendation was consistent with the hearings, examiner's findings and decision, and was supported by all three members of the Planning Lands and Zoning Committee unanimously. The committee did oppose an additional condition on this rezone. The application of the Military Housing Affordability Commercial Program would apply to any new potential development when it is built on these parcels and would require fees towards affordable housing when the development. Is actually constructed. So we have asked each of the individual property owners to enter into a property use development agreement indicating their compliance with the program, and if they chose not to comply, then the reason would not go into effect. So therefore, before us we have the clerk file, which actually, if approved, would grant the application for the reason. And if that goes according to plan, then we'll have the council bill in front of us next. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, are there any further comments? I move to grant the application as conditions. Second. Those in favor of granting the application is conditioned. Vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. You should read the next corresponding bill into the record.

Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $256,292 to Cultivate Studio and Urban Planning Partners (UPP), Inc. to Prepare the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for Alameda Point (AP). (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_03032015_2015-1386

So that's our plan for addressing some of the feedback we received around height. Finally, we have a really competitive cost here, so it's about $435 per meter head and about $121 per meter per year. So it's about $10 a month per meter per year. The these rates are based on a Sacramento contract with much higher volumes. Essentially, we had Sacramento purchasing about 6000 of these meter heads. We're only purchasing 822. We were able to get those same Sacramento prices, but in Alameda with a lower volume, we probably saved in the range of $50 per meter. And with that, you've got our recommendation to both purchase and install 822 smart parking meters. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Does anyone have any clarifying questions? Remember, they. Suck. Now, I believe, like in Walnut Creek when I use that, I think. I don't think it takes Discover Card. Are we just limited to MasterCard and Visa? Liz, the court is going to correct me in a moment, but I believe right now it's MasterCard and Visa and we can elect to bring in American Express. And I'm not sure about Discover Card. Yes, we can bring in discover. Cards that we can elect. We would elect to do that. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Do we have we don't have any speakers, I believe, on this item. Oh, we have one. I do. Thank you. But you're still going. All right, Rob Rado. I'm glad I asked for speakers. I. Rob Reiner, executive director of the Pass Through Business Association. And I'm sure this is going to come as a big surprise to you that I am here this evening to emphatically endorse the 822 smart parking meters, not only for Park Street, but for the entire city of Alameda. Leon was a little dainty in his explanation of. What happened when the previous council raised the parking rate we got in the first week. We got lots. And lots of complaints about the rate. From then on to today, we get complaints about, oh my God, we got to bring £3 of quarters with us to get 2 hours of parking. So that was that's been a huge problem. We've had these in for a number of months. And I'll tell you, the folks I've talked to who are members, every last one I've talked to wants this. And how I know that the members that I haven't talked to want this because they haven't emailed me, called me, or come to a mixer and complained about the smart meters. And most of you know my membership, and if they have not complained, then they don't have a complaint. I believe there were a number of years ago when we did streetscape phase two, Pittsburgh backed. The chaos at the time. And I will tell you why. Because at the time, that was the best. Technology available. These were not available then. Unfortunately, the kiosks have proved to be problematic. They have some maintenance issues, not a lot. But when a kiosk goes down, unlike when a meter goes down and you can just screw another head on it, a kiosk goes down and you're walking, you know, halfway down the block you're walking across to get the little you know, the little slip. And frankly, it proved that a lot of folks don't like the little slips. Sorry, we tried, but this technology is absolutely what we believe is going to work, not only for Park Street, but for Alameda . So, of course, we are urging you to vote and let's get this stuff done as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have another speaker first, Linda Fortuna. I just wanted to comment that when I was traveling in Riga, Latvia, about three, maybe four years ago, they have a really good, smart meter. They have it so that you can take your cell phone, pay your parking bill on your cell phone. And it's it's all it's easy. And you can download an app. Or is that? Thank you. Thank you. This. Go ahead. Remember, Audie. So as excited as you can be about something at 1120, this is I remember they excited about this and this is little anecdotal, but I had a meeting with with Doug Biggs the other day and we had to end early because I ran out of of and it never changed to to have a long enough meeting. And you know, West Cafe's a really good place. I'd like to sit there a little longer sometimes. And then this afternoon I was in Oakland, but my 45 minutes in and didn't have to worry. And actually, you know, the city got extra money out of me because I was done in 15 minutes. But to the to the public comment that park mobile I'd like to see us consider that park mobile it's it's really convenient they have it in Oakland you punch in your zone know you can renew it. I don't know if we want to do that, but you can renew it. You know, if you only put a half hour in and you end up staying an hour, you can renew it on your phone to 30% charge extra and truly convenient. And, you know, I'm excited to see this technology come to Alameda. Absolutely. So in the survey of the public, it was very clear that using the credit card that was folks is number one priority and then it's down the list from there. But paying by phone would be another. We're hopeful that in June or July, when we come back to report on the results of the parking meter study , that one of the recommendations we're going to make at that point is an option for paying by cell phone. And is this are we doing this all at the same time, or is Webster Street going to get some smart meters before the rest of Park Street or what's the rollout schedule look? Well, the pilot is on both. So the pilot is on. It's already one block of Webster, one block of Park. The big task in front of us is to figure out this meter height challenge. We're going to do that within the pilot areas and then we'll try to roll them out across the city. After tackling that challenge within, you know, it'll probably take four weeks to do the whole city, I'd imagine. The other member member ASHCROFT. Thank you. So if I understand correctly, the option of paying by cell phone could be considered, could be added, because I will also throw in I haven't been to Latvia, but in British Columbia, Canada, and probably ten years ago I was visiting and I thought it was really cool that the relatives I was with, we were at a restaurant and could go, Oh, we got to add money to the meter and I was ready to run out and it just whipped out the cell phone. Would it cost more to add that feature? It depends. So the short answer is most cities choose to put the what they call convenience fee on the user. So I believe in San Francisco it's around $0.45 or the city can elect to essentially absorb that. I wasn't saying I wasn't offering that. You know what I mean is would the meters themselves, themselves cost more if they also had the smartphone capability? Probably not. Probably not. So I just think more options are better than less. And especially I mean, it's one thing if you're just one person going back and forth, sometimes you're a parent with little kids or, you know, someone who's elderly who might not want to have to hassle back because they realize they didn't put enough time in. So I would strongly, even if the survey doesn't show that, I think some people might just might not have experienced that feature. But I have to think you'd love it once you try it. Let's keep that in mind, please. Of course. So I have a question in regards to that. If it's a two hour parking space, can you add time via your phone to go beyond 2 hours? No. You can build in restrictions so that it maxes out of that 2 hours. You cannot add beyond that. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Well, I met a mayor. I'd like to move stats recommendation and include the comments regarding use of cell phone and discover card. So second. Oh, American Express as well, if you can take a look at that. We had a second. All those. Any comments? All those in favor, I suppose. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next item six D. The recommendation to adopt plans and specification and authorize call for bids for fire station number three. Evening, Madam Mayor. Member of the City Council. Bob Hahn, Public Works Director. The item before you tonight is a recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bid for fire station number three located on Wayne, a vista adjacent to Herbert Street. This is really a 15 year project. If you remember in the year 2000 is when the existing fire station number three was declared uninhabitable and seismically unsafe. And since that time, the firefighters on station three have been renting a house next door and living in that house. The city's female hazard mitigation plan has identified the replacement of fire station number three and the EOC as a critical item. This process started in 2012 with in the fall of 2012, with three meetings, community meetings around the site, and followed by another meeting in July of 13. There was an outreach to all the community around the station and quite a discussion. And these meetings were well-attended. On October 15th, we executed the contract for the EOC. The EOC was bid a short time later in the fall, and we had a bid protest. One of the reasons we were bidding in the fall was to kind of get ahead. It was the September bid. We could get a foundation in the ground, start the EOC. The EOC was fully funded as opposed to the fire station at that time. And so the decision was move was made to move ahead with the EOC. Even the bid protest was was basically an issue regarding subcontractor licenses being listed on one of the forms. One of the contractors threw up a protest on that. By the time we resolved that protest and would have gone back out to bid, we would have been right back in the middle of the winter again here and precluding us from getting a foundation in the ground. So at that point in time, the decision was made to combine the two projects. The reason for combining the projects were is that cost savings and some of the cost savings would be we would only have to do one mobilization. Contractors typically charge anywhere from 50 to $100000 for what they call mobilization. Bringing a trailer out there, phone lines in battle lines, erecting the temporary fence and things like this. By combining the two projects, we eliminated that need for to pay for two fencing, two trailers and stuff like that. Because there was always a possibility we would end up with two separate contractors with each one of the structures. We only have one contractor now for the entire site. We don't have any finger pointing back and forth between contractors, the contractor contractors, not blaming it on the fire station contractor. And so we have a much cleaner project in that respect, too. We're gaining an economy of scale where you have a larger project, more materials, and therefore there should be a significant cost savings on that regard to. It's a coordinated project. We have one contractor now, so everything is coordinated between the two structures. There is interaction between the two structures in the event of an emergency that they actually act in concert. The fire station is kind of the public face of the of the complex where the piano would be located, the volunteers would be dealt with at the fire station site, and the EOC site would be separate. And lastly, we would have more competition with a higher number. Generally a contractor like Arma Rosso that are that are built our library across the street, they usually have a de minimis amount of $10,000. They did give us a bid on the EOC kind of as a favor to me, but this certainly made it more attractive. All of the three contractors were pre qualified. These are essential structures. These structures are designed not to fall down in a 7.0 on the Hayward fault. There's a lot of rules and regulations and criterias and certifications involved in the construction of these contract, these structures. And all three of these contractors have put up a number of these structures. So we're very confident in this particular group. If you look in your staff report regarding the the closeness of the bid on the EOC, that really shows it speaks well of the architect. The numbers were relatively close for this type of work. And so the architect of that just indicates the architectural plans were very tight and everybody came up with the same number, more or less. So I am recommending that we move forward on the plans and specs and build the fire station and the EOC together here. And just as an aside, we are working with the city of Napa in the construction of their new wells EOC, because both the city's EOC up at Napa and the county EOC up at Napa both failed in the event of that recent earthquake. And they were both in in interested in constructing a separate EOC at this time. I'm available for questions. Do you have any clarifying questions at this time? And we do have three speakers. One when madumere one clarifying question I have is the estimated debt service is not to exceed $300,000 annually. So that's principal and interest. That's the debt service, $300,000 annually. But in total, over a 20 year period in total, the debt service, principal and interest when we repay all back will equal $6.9 million over 20 years. But when I when I add $300,000 a year over 20 years, I get $6 million, not 6.9 million. I'm going to turn this over to our interim finance director. Forward. Everyone. Good evening. I'm Julian Boyer and I have served as the interim finance director and I have come back to answer questions on this financing since I've been working on it. You're probably correct that the total debt service, which includes principal and interest, is the greater amount. Yeah, you know what actually it means? Julian Boyer, the city mayor, just actually did the math for me when I was looking at $300,000. I was looking at it. Not take into account their $50,000 annual savings. That because when you add up the $350,000 over 20 years, that comes out to be $7 million, which is roughly 6.9 . Okay, I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate. It. It was a great job. Happy? I could answer your question. Thank you. Remember, Audie. This may be the last time we hear from you for a while. So I do want to thank you again for your your service. Absolutely. Clarifying questions. Member Ashcraft. I am. This is something that I actually raised in an email and thank you for answering me during the afternoon. But and I thought member de SAC was going to touch on it. But when somewhere in here there is a table that says the total amount. It's probably the other staff report says that the total cost of the the fire station it is it's exhibit three the staff report from July of 2014. And it and it talks about the different funds that are being put into the construction of the the fire station three, which I support. But it says total cost of fire station three is $5 million. But then as we go down into the financial impact paragraph, it's well laid out, but what all the financing costs were. So that was my email. The question was. So what is the total cost of fire station three, really? And I likened it to if you buy a car on and you take an auto loan out, you would have on because it's required by state law the amount of principal you're paying and the amount of interest and what the total amount of your purchase is. And the same if you have a mortgage on your home. Only it's even more startling. So just for the sake of, you know, the public information and the councils is well, if there is a way that we could call the total amount, the total amount, because after all, it is what the city is going to be paying over time. But I do also want to echo Councilmember Odie and thank you for your service and patiently explaining all these things to us at these really ridiculous hours. And we do appreciate it. All right. I watched and I took a nap. So you're right in that the principal amount is $5 million. That's what it cost to construct the building. However, what does it cost to finance that $5 million over approximately 20 years? So we have a lot of internal funds and we had proposed a 3% interest rate on those internal funds. Some of it is cash from the sale of the existing fire station. When everyone's moved out and it's abandoned, then the sale of that was included in that list of funds. It's included with the equipment replacement equipment replacement fund and sale of the property. At 1703, Grande Street is estimated at about $425,000. So that's a part of it. So that doesn't have any interest attached to it, but it comes at the very end of the project. What what I have been able to determine is that the. 2013. Excuse me. Let me back up a minute. Those funding sources for the fire station are mostly internal, so the interest rate is about 3%, which is about 50 to $82000 a year in debt service, 1.6 million. The eye bank loan of 3 million is yet to be determined, but we believe that we have a locked interest rate of about 2.95%, much lower than had been predicted in July. Right. Yeah. And numbers went down. Yeah. So the question at this point is, has to do with the term how well along that loan would be. And it probably will be about 18 or 19 years rather than 20. But the debt service on that is about $217,000 a year. So we're looking at that in the neighborhood of 3 to 400000, 33, 50 a year in debt service. We'll have it pinned down as we get to negotiating with the bank and get the details really finalized on that. And we we have a cap of $3 million that the council previously approved for the financing. So we're working within that. We've also identified some unspent bond funds from the redevelopment agency that we are looking at the possibility of using. If we do that, that will relieve some of those internal loans and we won't have to pay interest on the internal loan funds, but we will be looking at the repayment of the unspent bond funds. So that sounds better still. And can you clarify when you said a cap that's on the principle of the loan? Pardon me? The cap of 3 million? Yes. On the principle of the loan? That's correct. The total cost. The total back. The loan. Thank you. And the total cost that you're estimating is 6.9 million over 20 years of what the city will be responsible for. That's correct. Okay. And this doesn't say in here, but would this money be coming from where the general. Fund. That this would be encroaching upon the general fund? Yes. So out of. Do you know where it would be coming from? More specifically, what we would be taking it away from? Well, taking it away from. I'm not sure that that's how I would phrase it, but it is an additional expense added to the existing $75 million or whatever the budget number is in that particular year. So are you suggesting we have extra money annually in our general fund that would go towards us, that we it would not impact any other appropriations that are currently made? I don't know the answer to that question yet. The budget has to be developed and this would be accommodated within the budget. I'm sorry. Could you repeat your answer? There was. There's chatter. I couldn't hear you. So the the debt service would be a part of the budgeting process and would be accommodated within the within the budget. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. The first one, Neill Flicker, and then Gerry. And you holler. And then Gretchen LeBeau. It's late. My name is Neal Pflueger. A 25 year resident of of Alameda. I am a CERT member. But my my. Main interest. In being here tonight comes from from my 20 years experience with Alameda County Office of Emergency Services as a volunteer. And I'm glad we've gotten. To this point. It's. In my humble opinion, overdue. Thank you. Let's let's move forward. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jerry Jala. I'm a member of the Alameda Executive Committee for those new on the council, surf stands for Community Emergency Response Team or Volunteer Group under the Alameda Fire Department's Disaster Preparedness Office. Over the last 15 years, we've had over 1200 people trained by the fire department in personnel and disaster response. One of the functions of the executive committee is to provide ongoing training and exercises to keep everybody skills up to date and sharp. And the new EOC will help accommodate that going into the future. Thank you for your support of this event. I do have one question. Have you taken into account the cost savings of not having to rent the building next to Fire Station three in the future? Okay. Thank you. The bill. I think she may have left. It's a 20 to 12. So no other speakers. My understanding. Remember? Comments, questions. And America. Yes. I mean. I think the existing fire station is inadequate. And we've been renting a house in before that, a trailer. So this part of the of the proposal, I think, makes sense, especially with the comments made by our public works director. I don't see how we can't delay this. And the opportunity is now as we put more jobs and put a new facility out at and made a point of we're going to need the coverage. So I'm supportive. Any other questions? Comments. Number Day. Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, I've supported this proposal when it was a stand alone AOC and I continue to support this when it's combined with a fire station. I think it's important that we move forward, especially with the new EOC. And clearly, the fire station on Grand Street, we all know it's inadequate. You know, it's going to cost money. You know, money doesn't grow on trees. We all know that. And it's going to come from the general fund to repay the amount. And, you know, but these are tough decisions that we have to make. And I and I know one thing, not having an up to date emergency operating center and not having the best modern fire station that we can have centrally located in town, I mean, there's certainly a ticking time bomb cost there. So we have to factor that in. So I'm going to move I'm going to certainly support this action night. And Ashcroft and I would echo the two prior my two prior colleagues on that. This is a it's a as was noted, a very centrally located on the island fire station. And it's a quaint little house, but it certainly doesn't even accommodate the size equipment that we have now. And yet this is a very important station that will will serve all over the island. And while I had my differences over the design of the EOC, I know it's now going to serve even more public functions. And the training of the search teams are very important. So I think you're right. Councilmember Desai This is coming out of our general fund, the debt service. But I think one of the high priorities of our residents is public safety and they want to know that when there's an emergency that our our public safety first responders get to them. And so part of that is having the appropriate facilities to house both our public safety first responders and their equipment that help keep us safe. So I'm supporting this as well. I'm ready. I'll be brief and echo the comments of my three colleagues. And then also, you know, this is way overdue and I appreciate the work of Mr. Horn to figure out a way that we can do these two important projects together and actually do it more cost effective. And thank you very much for your hard work on this. I also appreciate combining the bid process to save money. However, I'm not satisfied with the answer from our finance person that the general fund in regards to the General Fund 6.9 million over 20 years will just come from the general fund. Unfortunately, that it doesn't just come from the general fund. We do have if you look at the city's multiyear budget, we are running deficits in the future. We also have the highest unfunded OPEB liabilities in the county as a percentage of our annual general fund, as in its 140% greater than our annual general fund revenue. It is a serious problem. I think it's incumbent upon staff and the council to designate where the money will be coming from. And I would prefer waiting until we go through the budget process and answer that question. Thank you. I'm going to I like to move recommendation to staff report to adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for fire station number three. Number PTW 1214. Dash 18. If you have a second. Look at. All those in favor. I oppose the vote passes 4 to 1. Six e recommendation to award contract in the amount of 256,292 to cultivate studio and urban planning partners to prepare the Main Street Neighborhood Specific plan for Alameda Point. Good evening. Mayor Spencer, council members. I want to introduce myself. I'm Liv Kushner. I've been working for the city since September, so. Not so long. So I haven't had an opportunity to meet some of you, but very excited to be here. I'll be talking about the main street specific plan just to give you guys a little bit of background on the a little bit of background since it's late on what's come up before this. In 2000, eight city staff applied to MTC to have Alameda Point named a priority development area PDA. This is basically some there's a bunch of PDAs around the Bay Area basically allows us to receive grants for planning documents and for transportation. This is the same kind of grant that staff applied for and want to fund the town center plan, which was approved in 2014. And we've then applied for and received been awarded this grant in late 2014 to pay for the Main Street neighborhood specific plan. These kinds of specific plans, they all are required by the Alameda Point Zoning, which was passed by City Council in 2014. So it may seem that there are. Quite a few documents about how made a point in having worked here for a few months and read some of them. There definitely are. But these specific plans go into more detail than the master infrastructure plan. Zoning. They go into a finer grain of detail about these subdistricts, and we'll talk about what specific plans do and what specific plans don't do. They do serve as a platform for extensive community outreach. They create essentially a framework for the built environment. The community gets to dove in and talk about, you know, what these neighborhoods could look like. The they inform a street typology. So, you know, will the streets be wide? Will they be narrow? What will the streets and what with the open spaces as well look like? I also. Should say. That the specific plan specifically for Main Street will allow the Alameda Point Collaborative APEC to move forward with their development plans. So as you can see, they have quite a bit of property in the Main Street neighborhood and they are looking to consolidate and build new buildings for the supportive housing that they offer for the community. And because the zoning requires the specific plan to be completed and approved before any development happens, they are waiting for this document to be written and approved. But I do want to clarify that specific plans do not commit the city to any sort of development timeline, and they do not address disposition issues. They are strictly a planning document to talk about a framework for future development. If a council decides they want it to go forward at some time in the future does not supersede Council's ultimate authority to deal with disposition issues. And finally, the specific plan does not allocate housing units between different neighborhoods. So speaking more directly about the process for this particular specific plan, staff issued an RFP in September 2014 to over 160 firms architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, urban design firms. We received five proposals and these proposals were reviewed by a selection committee that comprised staff representatives from Alameda Point Collaborative, the planning board, as well as someone from the Alameda Association of Realtors. Of the five firms that submitted bids, the selection committee reviewed three selected. Three of the different submissions to review tend to interview. And of those three, it was unanimous among the selection committee that Urban Planning Partners was head and shoulders above the competition. Specifically, some of their strengths are community outreach. When we called all of their references, they all said that they had a real ability to speak both the language of municipal government and of communities and to bridge the gap that sometimes exists between the two. They have excellent design skills and placemaking. One of the things that staff agreed was that their the proposal was very not only very well thought out, but very appealing esthetically. And that kind of attention to esthetic detail can really speak to what kinds of designs are put into the illustrative, not illustrative plans, excuse me, are put into planning documents and thought about what the neighborhood may look like in the future. They also have a supporting housing expert, a historic preservation expert, and interestingly, they have an urban agriculture expert on their team. You know, your first thought is what is an urban agriculture expert? And I thought it was very interesting because specifically the Main Street neighborhood has an existing urban agriculture facilities with plowshares, as well as the urban farm. And I thought it showed staff thought it showed a real attention to detail for this is what's in this neighborhood. This is what could be done to leverage the existing facilities in the neighborhood to increase the community benefit. And it just showed a strong attention to detail. Finally, financial. This is a $250,000 grant from Mtc's staff is the city is matching that with staff time as well as an additional just over $6,000 because the cost of the consultant exceeds the $250,000. That's my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any quick clarifying questions. Member Data. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me hear what your thoughts are on this issue. I think in a way, city council as well as staff have to act like a master developer, that we have to take a look at what we're doing at Parcel A in conjunction with, say, the Main Street neighborhood in conjunction with, say, the historic district. We have to look at how all these different interact. Understanding that there are different needs and different place in it in the different sub areas. So are you saying that if we move forward with the Main Street neighborhood planning, that there's enough flexibility in there to deal with issues in different areas that might be somehow treated by planning in, say, the Main Street neighborhood? Let me give you a case case example. Overall, we have a 1400 residential unit number for Alameda Point of the 1400. We're looking at roughly 800, possibly at the parcel, a specific town center. Now, that means that there's roughly 600 to be divided somewhere at Alameda Point, some of which will be at Main Street neighborhood, some of which could be at the at the historic area, the adaptive reuse area. As we move down the pike with Main Street area, at some point in time, we're going to move down the pike with Alameda. The adaptive reuse area and the adaptive reuse area has certain costs there unknown. But we know that there are costs that are associated with dealing with the historic structures, costs which would be in part underwritten by the ABI residential parcel potentially. So to the extent that we isolate in on the remaining 600 balance or Main Street neighborhood, that could then have some effect in terms of residential for the historic area. So the question is, is there enough flexibility to take in the fact that there are these different areas, these different costs in different neighborhoods, and that the residential outside of parts of L.A. now is getting less and less. And yet it's the residential that is potentially a source to help, not the full answer, but to help deal with these different costs in different areas. I'm glad you asked that question. Yeah. I mean, there is definitely a amount of flexibility in these documents. They do look at, you know, first I should say, as I should repeat, that it doesn't the document specific plans do not allocate housing units directly. So they are a higher level view. And they they they do talk about the different financing issues. But specifically, you're just as these documents allow the flexibility by creating a framework within which development can happen. So they're not directly they want spillover from I guess I'm what if this is what you're asking they don't spillover from one district to another. Right. So it'll it'll give you the framework for what the street neighborhood may look like physically, and it'll give you a sense of the density of what the development may happen. But it it's not going to directly apportion different housing units to different neighborhoods. So what you're asking it's. Part I am partly asking about apportionment apportioning quantitative units, but it's also apportioning types of units because to the extent that you say that, that the adaptive reuse place is going to have. Actually, to the extent that you say Main Street neighborhood is going to have single family homes rather than multi-family homes, that has fiscal impacts in terms of revenue generation, feed generation that could be used towards dealing with, say, the costs that that are the historic renovation costs in the historic resource area. So it's not just a number of quantities of where the quantities are allocated, but it's also knowing that we're going to have enough flexibility in terms of the types of housing , because whatever business deal that we strike with whomever is as the main street area, there might be more revenue generation through single family homes rather than multi-family homes and is in it. And it doesn't matter whether it's multi-family homes, single family homes. We can only deal with 600. Correct? No. That is the flexibility that we need to deal with those. How much? Is there a question? But the question is, is there left flexibility? Yes, the answer is yes, absolutely. And Brody. Can I kind of add to that? Can you kind of explain to some of us new on the council what exactly is going to be in this specific plan? Because, you know. I've been told there's location studies in there, but then maybe that's not true. And then there's, you know, financial analysis. My concern is not getting to count somebody's socks when he said they're 625. You know, we have to take care of APC and of that 200 and we're only left with 425, so. Correct, I guess. So what when we see this stock, I mean, what what are we going to see, you know, in layman's terms or or rookies on the council? Sure. Specific plan generally includes, you know, they'll be chapters about building typology and street typology. So talking about the physical nature of the space and what the open spaces look like, how they may be arranged. There also is a financial analysis that looks at the different costs and how things different unit types and how things may pay for different types of financial strategies that that we may take to move forward. There's also. Let me think about. They're kind of the constraints issues, right. So you look at the types of. Constraints that we face. So like the first chapter is basically going to look at, you know, what are the seismic issues, what are the, you know, floodplain issues, how do they affect this specific area and, you know, as opposed to just the base as a whole? And so you get a chapter on constraints. You get, you know, a section of finance, you get a section on the built environment. It's kind of a big picture of it. And then what are you using as the base? I mean, are you using an idea of 600 units, 400 units? I mean, or there has to be some, you know, some guidelines where you're going forth and doing the specific plan. Sure. I I think there's a there's an ultimate sense that Main Street neighborhood is going to be of much of a lower density than the town center. We're also very aware, you know, that there's a limit on the number of housing that can happen. And so the documents definitely take that information in mind, but it won't specifically say, you know, this number of units have to go here and this have to go here and you have to keep these things in mind as you go forward. But it won't be specifically dictating those things. Thank you. Any other council questions at this point? Hey, I have a question. We had spoken before as a council in regards to transportation plan, and I don't know if you were aware of that conversation. That's my understanding. At some point, staff will be coming back to us in regards to an overall transportation plan. Will this be considered in that plan or will we be or are we being asked to approve more housing without a transportation plan? You know, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I know you. Yeah. So we will be coming on March 12th to talk about a response to I'm sorry, 10th. Night. At 12 at night. Now March 10th next week to respond to Councilmember de. SAG's referral. Regarding a comprehensive citywide transportation solution, Alameda Point in particular already has an approved transportation demand management plan, which is essentially a transportation strategy, gets into a lot of detail about costs, how we're going to fund it, what. Services are going to be provided, how fast those services are going to be provided. Who gets to do a lot of detail that was approved in May of last year, and then every project that comes through is then required to actually submit and get approved at what's called a TDM compliant strategy or essentially a transportation compliance strategy. So they have to show. Every project. Has to show how they're in compliance with that overall. AMI 2.2 plan. So we absolutely have a plan for transportation at AMI two point. This project was contemplated as part of the Aluminum Point EIA Environmental Impact Report. Which studied. All the potential traffic impacts related to the 1425 units in the five and a half million square feet of. Commercial. So we believe that we have we've addressed these issues, but these issues as the team plan, clearly states are going to evolve over time, have to adjust. We have to adjust what's successful, what's not successful. And so a big part of that plan is monitoring, you know. Every year, doing surveys. What's working, what's not working? Are we meeting our goals? And if we're not meeting our. Goals and things aren't working. Then how do we. Tweak things? We might need to spend more money to do something to be more effective. And so these plans, even though we've put in the framework and we've approved them with a lot of detail. There needs to be. Constant kind of monitoring and evolution of those plans to make sure that they're successful. And as part of this plan, will there be a designation, for instance, of affordable housing for seniors or affordable housing for vets or affordable housing for families? Well, the the settlement agreement with the city has requires 25% affordable housing. For. All new market rate units, which that settlement actually actually excludes the collaborative units. So in addition to. 200 supportive housing units gained rebuilt the new facility, which is the plan that provides supportive housing for. Veterans, for women. Survivors of domestic women. And children, survivors of domestic violence, and families at risk of homelessness. Those are the 200 units that are being rebuilt on site. And then an additional 25%, which will. Be 9%. Moderate income, 10% low income and 6% very low income. So it's. Actually when you actually add those. Together to even. You know, it's going to be over 30%, you know, even more of affordable housing. And in regards to the selection of so it's my understanding we're being asked to approve the selection of a specific planner this up. And have they done any projects for the city of Alameda in the past? Yeah. Uh, uh. They worked in, uh. A while ago on the on the northern waterfront, they did community meeting facilitation and they worked at the city's behest to. There was a citizen advisory council that the 15 member citizen advisory council that they worked with. Is that included in the report tonight? I didn't see it in there. And I just think that if we have if they if an entity has done work with us in the past, that should be included and disclosed to the public when you recommend not use specifically, but when they're being recommended again, because the public then will know if they may have an opinion, if they agreed with the projects that a certain company had been involved with in the past. Does that could be included in the future? Sure, absolutely. So they were involved with the Northern. They worked on a quite a few projects out at the base as well as the Northern Waterfront. Yes. Okay. And then do you know specifically what people were involved on the panel from the community that are not staff members? I'm sorry. Is this the silver lining? Mm hmm. It was Doug Biggs from APC, as well as Donna Alvarez. Is that her last name? Tanya Alvarez. And then, I don't know the name of the woman from the Alameda Association of Realtors. And to Bartolo. Thank you, Stephane. So there was really one member of the public and a buyer leaving this because I believe Doug Biggs works for APC and Donya is on our commission. But. Thank you. And, um. And then the timeline to accept this grant. When when does that expire? The current grant is the. With the grants. You know, we've accepted the grant. We're slightly ahead of schedule for some of the other communities, municipalities. But there's there's not necessarily a timeline. If we delay beyond a certain amount, it's possible that they ask us to reapply for the next grant cycle. But I don't know of a specific timeline. Okay. So so in regards to narrowing it down to one firm that's being recommended, do you know what criteria was used? Yes. Because I think our choice is really to go with this one as well. You really asking us to approve one planner this evening? Yes. This is the you know, the selection committee reviewed all the different applicants and decided this firm was superior. I can read you the selection criteria. Would you like that? Yes, thank you. A the consultant teams project manager and key staff persons, persons past experience and results with similar projects and demonstrated expertize outlined in section four. Role of the consultant. Of this request for proposals. B The consultant teams demonstrated understanding of the proposed project in the Alameda community and of the need for an efficient and effective approach to successfully completing the project. C The consultant team's ability to deliver a high quality, specific plan within the budget amount of $256,500 in 12 months schedule. D The consultant team's ability to meet the city's standard contract requirements. Thank you. And in regards to the the percentage of far below market rate housing. Is it possible that this planet could come back with a higher percentage of below market rate housing than the 30%? Because I think we all know that the 200 are used all the time that we could. Absolutely. Is a greater percentage in our community. I'm sure we belong to look into that. Thank you. One more question, but I think I've already asked question if there is a. I am Mormon. Oh, and that the mayor's comment about the affordable housing just reminded me. I really like this yuppie consultant agreement exhibit too, and I think this is pretty exciting. But it does have this section on phasing and financing that I think you use the term fine grained Mr. Christian, but it talks about the cultivate slash urban planning partners team will identify existing priorities and conditions that will impact implementation and establish a plan for the chronological order and location of proposed development. This chapter on phasing and financing will include a financing strategy for infrastructure, transportation, affordable housing, open space and other capital improvement elements necessary for specific planning implementation. And then into the next paragraph it talks about. In addition, the strategy will include discussion of how financing needs relating to the reconstruction of the supportive housing facilities. At some point, collaborative can be integrated with the overall specific plan implementation. It is assumed that the affordable housing developers selected by the locals, supportive housing providers and or collaborative representatives will provide information on project financing gaps, i.e. subsidy needs that would remain after accounting for anticipated project revenues, tax credits and other affordable housing funding sources that the developer anticipates utilizing. I appreciate that depth of information being in there and also that people who know a whole lot more about financing affordable housing projects. I know it's a lot of cobbling together of different sources from the ones that I've seen, but I know that they'll do their best to include as much affordable housing as possible. I'm sorry, is this. So I'm just asking is that that would be part of the to look at how much affordable housing could go. In. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I have a question. Yes. Now the the parcel a process started the specific planning process started by getting. So I think it was someone to be the outfit that did the specific planning for parcel a which kind of which did a great job of kind of filtering out, tweaking what we had done through the zoning process . And I imagine that for the Main Street neighborhood yuppie, that would do the same. Now the thing about the parcel a so and process, the city council was not as involved in that process. So what thoughts have you given to having council involved in the process with through that this process and Main Street neighborhood. That we're definitely committed to involving council in the in moving forward with Main Street specific plan in much the same way that we're doing with the city development. Wonderful. That's great news. Thank you. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. My question back on flexibility. Hypothetically, this is Question Time. Hypothetically, if the council later on today says we just want you to focus this specific plan, the priority is the 200 HPC replacement units. Mm hmm. And then we're not going to prioritize the remaining 425 or the remaining part of of the main street neighborhood. Is there a flexibility in this specific plan that we're going to ask to, that we can separate an evaluation of APC and from the rest? So if we want to move forward with APC and we want to shelve the rest or delay the rest for some undetermined period of time, will that flexibility if the council decides they want to do that well, that flexibility be in there? That's a good question. I would imagine, like you can defer to Jim, but I would imagine that we would since we're required to do this document, it would make the most sense to do the whole neighborhood while we're at it. You know, if you've got the hood up, might as well do the work on the entire neighborhood. And then you can always choose to move forward in phasing as council decides. You know, and again, this this specific point doesn't really speak to disposition, you know, issues such as that. This is really just creating a framework and city council can decide as at a later date to move forward and whatever phasing they decide. Yeah. Just want to add, as I think we could absolutely. In this specific plan. And I think Doug. Biggs executive. Is probably going to make sure we do this. Is that we create a phasing plan that contemplates them moving forward without the rest of the neighborhood. So that when we talk about our infrastructure. And financing and. Implementation approach in. The specific plan, we do it for the whole neighborhood. But that we're very clear that there's a way that this. Project, his project, can move forward without the rest of the neighborhood and start. And if there's. Some potential infrastructure issues with that that we outline what those are, so that it's very clear how he can march. Forward. Without the rest of the neighborhood. I think we can absolutely do that. I think that we would probably be. He's going to make sure we do that. Okay. Thank you. Now remember questions. We have a speaker, Doug Biggs. Speaking of. Thank you for being so patient. Good morning. My name's Doug Biggs. I'm executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. And I guess since I'm. Not a member of a public, I get to talk a little longer than 3. Minutes. Thank you very much, Mayor. Appreciate that. But I'll try not to. ABC as you do know, I was a partner of the grant submission to the MTC which has funded this proposed project. Our role in the project is a critical component since we make up the bulk of the housing and community space that's in this area. A key outcome of the proposed project is to do a site and financial analysis looking at alternative locations in the Main Street area within which we can rebuild our community. I can't overstate how important it is to us. And I can't read this thing right now. I can't overstate how important it is to us and our families that we have housing that supports efforts to overcome homelessness and allow children and families to thrive. As I like to tell folks and some of you have heard me say this before, I think we've built a pretty amazing community out there with really crappy housing. It's time. You know, we could do so much more with accessible, appropriately sited housing. We can't get there, though, unless we take this important step. And as was mentioned previously. We need to have a specific plan in order to move forward on any development out there. That that's part of the agreement that's in place. We need to. Look at alternative locations because that's going to impact the financing. And you can't do that in isolation of just doing that component. You have to look at what's going in around you, what's potentially going in around you, whether that's phased in later or not. So so it all is kind of tied together and it's hard to pull out one piece. The grant was awarded in June. Of 2014 and written up in the local papers. Shortly after the grant was awarded, we worked with the city to help identify prospective planning firms. We brought to the process skill sets around supportive housing that we would want to see in a firm. We wanted firms that would be able to talk our language and know the people that we're working with. After RFQ was sent out, there was a well-attended applicant briefing that was held to discuss the project, and we participated in that as well. Once the applications were received, interviews were held and we participated in those. And as live mentioned, while there were several firms that impressed us, Urban Planning Partners brought a breadth of experience and approach that was very much in tune with our desire to build on the successes we had already achieved. We believe that the UP team has excellent, supportive housing expertize and one of their team members, Bruce McCuddy, who's actually worked with us for several years on community planning efforts. He understands our community. He understands the people we're working with, and we're really excited about Sage, the urban agriculture experts, because bringing them in really indicates that they're willing to work with what's out there already. They're willing to help us create an innovative, sustainable main street. And to build on the work we've. Already started. DeLay of this project can greatly impair our ability to provide the services our residents need and desire. Moving forward will provide critical information and data that can inform our process. At the end of the day, though, as has been mentioned several times tonight, this is a planning process only it does not break any ground. It does not approve any development. It only informs and as we tell our youth every day at our education center, information empowers leaders, approve this contract and allow us to move forward. Thank you very much. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any comments? Vice Mayor What I'd like to get out of this for Alameda is, number one, that we take advantage of spending other tax dollars that don't come directly from our general fund. So that's number one. Number two, I'm looking at the tasks that have to happen, and I would like to prioritize the repair, upgrade, redesign and rebuilding of the 200 collaborative units as the top priority. I'm looking at test number two, where where it says cultivate up will prepare a market assessment of various housing types and densities. And then working off this marketing study and in meetings at Task one, they will prepare a series of site planning alternatives. I'd like to have them include a site planning alternative that caps the number of units to what exists they. Not what was talked about in 2008 or in 2012 or 2014, because those didn't anticipate the multifamily overlays outside of the base and the northern waterfront. So I'd like to have an alternative that's discussed that that puts the cap. On on building new units over and above. What's there? I'd like. An alternative that preserves the neighborhood around the big white. I'd like an alternative and that comes back to the Council for a preferred alternative is selected so that the council is the gatekeeper of what's the preferred alternative. I think it's very important to look at this not only in the context of other development at the base, but the other development in the rest of the city. And I think that goes back to the comments about addressing the transportation, addressing it both locally in and in the city. So that's that's what I'd like to see us. When in place is controls and guidance for this group provide us with a specific plan because that specific plan is going to be the foundation of how we zone it and then what's built there. Make no mistake. Amber Ashcraft So I was thinking about this. Mike Grant It's it's pretty impressive that we have this $250,000 grant to work with and, you know, $6,000 of our own money. But we're leveraging quite a bit because when I represented Alameda on the Alameda County Transportation Commission in the last administration, it was a constant source of frustration to me that I would see these MTC grants being doled out to other communities around this large table. And Alameda wasn't even eligible because we had very few PDAs planned development areas because at that point we still hadn't had the conveyance from the Navy. So it wasn't our property. We couldn't do, you know, the things that were required to get this grant. And so this is public money and yet it was going to trust me. And Oakland got a lot of it, but every every other jurisdiction around the table. So now we're in a position to take advantage of this. And I did enjoy reading the staff report in the consultant agreement, and I did have some questions that I emailed to staff earlier. And one of the a couple of things that I want to make sure are incorporated is I asked if our existing development guidelines require that new construction be energy efficient or achieve zero net energy objectives. If not, how can we include these objectives in this specific plan? And the answer I got was that staff intends to address sustainability issues in the Main Street specific plan, much as was done with the recently completed town center plan. And I, I'm also pleased to see that there will be sustainable streets. So again, not just complete streets that look at all different modes and users, not just autos, but bicycle, pedestrian transit, but also taking the concept one step further, including bio swales or something similar to treat runoff on site. I love the urban agriculture component of this and that's important for so many reasons. First of all, there's not a lot of places around the Bay Area where you have urban agriculture. And I have been out there. Mr. Biggs gave me a lovely I think we walked for 3 hours one day tour and his residents in a lot of them, the young people are out there and they're working in these various agriculture enterprises, whether it's the beekeeping or the planting and the orchards and plowshares is lovely. And I want to see and you know, we're doing a community garden at the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. I mean, this is something Alameda can really be known for. And so I'm glad to see that that's a big part of this specific plan. And I'm the OC and so I think it was Councilmember de SAC raised this my question was with regard to the preferred alternative selection, I wrote how and when does City Council offer its input on development and evaluation of these alternatives? It seems like everyone but the City Council will be consulted, yet we have ultimate responsibility for approving the draft specific plan. I prefer a process similar to what we're doing with City I. Monthly updates to the Council with Opportunity for input and I. The response I got was that's what we're going to do. And a couple of things that I especially like about this was the development standards I thought were very well stated, the flexible form based standards regarding existing historic structures and compatible new construction. I know Christopher Buckley has left, but he would he would like that too. And finally, in the in the agreement on pages 17 and 18, I said I'm very cool online participation platform, so not everyone can come to a meeting that lasts until 1230 at night, but everyone can sit at their computer or a computer somewhere and let your your thoughts and your your opinions about this Plan B be heard. So I'm looking forward to seeing this go forward. Thank you. Remember, Audie. So this was the other item that I was very torn on. In addition to the weather one. You know, in an ideal world, we would put this off, we would take care of make a decision on siting and see where we're going on site, a work on a site, B, developing the enterprise zone and put off the decision on more housing until we're further down the road on site A and we've had an opportunity as a council to evaluate traffic and show the public that we're taking the results of the election seriously. But on the other side, you know, we have the 200 substandard units that the folks in APC are living on a living in. So we need to, you know, rebuild and relocate that the APC housing, I mean an ideal world we'd have that inside a and then we wouldn't have to worry about this and we could push this off for another couple of years. But I don't think that's going to happen. But these people need better housing. They need to be better situated. They had the same infrastructure issues in the housing that we've heard from the business, the businesses that are out at Almeida Point, you saw the map. They have a huge footprint. We want to have a smaller footprint for APC. So. I, I like the idea that the Vice Mayor suggested that we really have a robust series of site planning alternatives. Again, if APEC was not in here, I would not be voting to move this forward. I would just say, let's not deal with Main Street neighborhood until we've we've taken care of site. But, you know, we do have a social responsibility to the folks that live in APC to get them out of their substandard housing as soon as possible. So I'd like to see the, you know, the hypothetical I mentioned where, you know, we focus on taking care of APC and, you know, the alternatives, maybe some that turns out do nothing. Maybe the alternatives are having the cap. Maybe, you know, the alternatives, you know, are banking the land and dealing with it, you know, in five or ten years, I don't know. But I'd like to see those alternatives, but not hold up the process of of taking care of the APC residents and getting them into higher quality housing. Well, thank you. First and foremost, I want to say thank you very much to Doug Biggs for coming out to my office hours this past Thursday. We had a great conversation. He, you know, let me know about the planning that the homeless collaborative Alameda Point Collaborative has undertaken and why this is an important step in moving that along. It seems to me that in moving forward with the Main Street neighborhood, we can certainly help his cause even more. And it is important to remember that, you know, base conversion isn't just about, you know, working with the catalysis of the world or working with the streams of the world or the slums of the world. But it is intimately about also working with the Alamo to point collaborative of the world for that reason, you know, to give real meaning to turning arms into plowshares. I think it's a vital part or what we're all about at Alameda Point. So I think we should, you know, be unapologetic in and in doing what we can to assist Alameda Point Collaborative in achieving their goals. From my take, I think the framework began when it comes to residential is the 1425 and of that 1425 we're looking at roughly 800 for parcel a and I hear clearly what staff is saying with regard to Main Street that that we're not locking in into any particular numbers. But I do want to raise, though, that the point that Vice Mayor Matt R.C. raised in terms of putting a cap that could have substantive effects. So I don't I think, you know, if Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C., would like to include a cap in his in his approach, then I say, fine, include that in your one of your analyzes. But as one of the analyzes, because it seems to me that if you put a cap based upon what's existing there now in total

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the Proceedings to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street); and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for No Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street). (Public Works 275)

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6901

Yes. Public hearing to consider adoption resolution confirming the ballot results to determine whether majority parties exist in the proceedings. To increase assessment in island city landscaping and lighting. District 84 to Zone four, Park Street District a resolution confirming the ballot results and providing for no majority protests and will have even annual assessment in island city landscaping and lighting. District 84 attached to Zone four Park Street. All right. And if this seems highly scripted, it is. So this is kind of like going through a pageant. We're going to see if we all get our lines right. But we should because they're right in front of us. Am I on? Okay. Mayor, I am the man. This is the time and place fixed for the public hearing related to the modification of and proposed increases to the levy of assessments within the island city. Landscaping and lighting maintenance district number eight for dash to the zone for Park Street to fund ongoing maintenance and servicing of landscaping improvements in the Park Street Business District area. I would now ask the City Clerk to report on the notice of this public hearing. Notice of the public hearing and distribution of the assessment ballots has been completed in the manner and form as required by law. Before proceeding further with the public hearing. I would like to ask the City Clerk to provide both the City Council and the audience with a summary of the proceedings that will take place both during and after the close of this public hearing. So the process that will follow for the assessment ballot procedure and tabulation is that after the staff report is provided to the council, the mayor will open the public hearing a step one. Step two will be to take comments from the public. Step three request any additional ballots be submitted to the city clerk. Step four, close the public hearing. And step five, audit the tabulation of ballots once the ballots have been tabulated. The city clerk will announce the results of the tabulation. I would now ask Liz Acord from the Public Works Department to provide the staff report. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I'm Liz Accord, Public Works Coordinator. As you know, assessments in the Park Street Zone of the city's landscaping lighting district have been flat for over two decades since the mid 1990s. These assessments primarily fund enhanced maintenance, including sidewalk cleaning, tree trimming and litter and graffiti removal. As a consequence of the flawed assessments, levels of service have decreased over the years. Beginning in 2013, Public Works has been working with the downtown Alameda Business Association to develop a proposal to increase assessments and thus restore or improve services. And this year, a proposal to more than double assessments in the coming year was approved by the Downtown Association Board. And then the City Council took the necessary steps to initiate the ballot proceedings in April of this year. As you are well aware of, votes to increase assessments are difficult. No one wants to pay more, especially when assessments have been flat for more than two decades. Yet the Downtown Association Board has endorsed the raise assessments, even though there's always a risk of a failed balloting, as occurred when the zone did its last balloting in 2015 . However, let us now turn our attention to finding out whether this balloting effort was successful or not. And following the public hearing and the tabulation of ballots, I'll be back before you to discuss the outcome. That completes my report, and I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Counsel, do we have any questions for Miss Acord, a council member? Vella. Do you have any questions for Mr. Corey? Okay. And I don't see any other indications. All right. And do we have any public speakers? We do not have any. We do not. Well, going through my script, the city council will hear from any interested person who desires to address the City Council on this matter. So can I safely assume because no one's getting out, that no one is interested? All right. Seeing no one else who wishes to be heard or no one who wishes to be heard. Do any members of the city council have any questions for these city staff or consultants now? Okay. I would like to remind everyone that all assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots must be received by the city clerk before this public hearing is closed. Assessment ballots or replacement assessment ballots received after the close of this public hearing will not be tabulated. Are there any owners who have not submitted their assessment ballots and need additional time to submit their assessment ballots? Or are there any owners who have submitted their assessment ballots but now wish to submit a replacement assessment ballot? I see no motion from the audience. If so, the City Council will take a five minute recess before closing the public hearing to allow for the submission of such assessment ballots. I am going to proceed on the assumption that no, no one is moving, that we do not need to recess for 5 minutes. So the public hearing will now be closed. The public hearing is now closed. Assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots received by the city clerk after this time shall not be tabulated. The city clerk shall now recess. While the city clerk tabulates the assessment ballots and replacement ballots received by the city clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. Any interested persons are invited to view the unsealing and tabulation of the ballots in Conference Room 391. So then, Madam Clerk, so you and your. Consultant from NBC. Okay. Yeah. Staff will open the ballots. Anybody can watch and will be right in 391. So we have to recess. To do this quickly. So we're now in recess to for the tabulation of the ballots. And we think that might take about. 10 minutes at. The most. 10 minutes or so. Don't go too far. Um. Well. And the council can watch to correct. And if we. Why are you sit here? We'll be. Looking. All right. Okay. So. So Council is now in recess. I'm going to say about 10 minutes. It's 850. We'll see you at nine or I'll check back in with you at 9:00, let you know. Where we are. All right. We went in place. Okay. We are going to resume. Madam Clerk. Okay. 219 assessment ballots were mailed to the owners of property within the boundaries of the assessment district. And 91 of those assessment ballots were received prior to the close of the public hearing. 48 assessment ballots representing $35,204.86 of assessments were submitted in support of the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. 42 assessment ballots representing $35,038.79 of assessments were submitted in opposition to the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. Since a majority protest to the levy of assessment has not been filed. The Council may proceed to impose the amendments, and you can consider the resolution confirming the ballots results and providing for no majority. Protest exists in the proceedings to increase assessments and the levy of annual assessment for island city landscaping and lighting. District number 84 to Zone four Park Street. So the city clerk has notified the city council that she has completed the tabulation of the assessments ballots. Will the city clerk please report the results of the tabulation? And so what you just did. I did well ahead of your part. I'm so sorry. That's okay. Okay. Yeah, you're right. So let's go on. Liz Corey, there. Is. So obviously this is really great news for the zone and it's especially important given the over 20 years of flat assessments and the decrease in service and what this positive result of the balloting means is next fiscal year, an immediate increase in service to better, clean and maintain the district, including sidewalk washing. And that ultimately creates an even better park street for residents, visitors and shoppers. The Downtown Association, including Steve Bucy, Donna Labor and Ron Mooney, Rich Creek's Kyle Conner and Janet Mckelvie deserve a ton of credit for tonight's results. These folks did a lot of outreach to their members and property owners to make this happen. And so with that, I'd like to invite Donna Leyburn with the Downtown Association up now to share a few words. Thank you, Mr. Card. Miss Leyburn City Council Mayor. I do a wahoo if that was okay. But we all. Want to do it. So we're here on behalf of the Downtown Business Association. Our merchant members. Speak, rent a microphone. We want to capture this, have them be a little more centered on the microphone there. They want to speak right into the microphone. Oh, closer. Okay. Everybody that was involved, we're thrilled that we'll be able to enhance the maintenance of the district. And we'd also like to thank the association's landscaping lighting committee. And you've got the names, but they're all here tonight because we were all we've put in a lot of hours working on this Steve Bussey, Brian Mooney, Rich, Chris Kyle Conner and Janet Maccabee diligence and hard work. And I just have to say that the L.A. doesn't just stand for landscaping, lighting. It stands for Liz and Liam, and we just can't thank them enough for being part of this incredible process. And we're so glad it's over. Thank you. Thank you so much. And so now council, we're not done. We need to adopt a resolution confirming the ballot results to determine whether a majority process exists in the proceedings. Do we need to do that, Madam Clerk? Yes. Okay. To determine whether a majority protest exists in the proceedings to increase assessments in Island City lld8 for Dash two zone for Park Street and adoption, a resolution confirming the ballot results and providing for no majority protest in the levy of an annual assessment in Island City. LG eight for dash two zone for Park Street. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. A move by Councilmember O'Toole, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White will not take a voice vote. Councilmember De Sang. Yes. Knox White. Yes. Yes. Vella. Yes. Mayor as the. Ashcraft. Yes. That carries by five. This and the resolution passes unanimously. Congratulations to all involved. I know a lot of hard work and effort went into that. Well done. Okay, so we now move on to item six, c, d, d I know it says that rent frenemy. I'm. 60 man quick. Public hearing to consider adoption resolution establishing integrated waste collection ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period 18th July 2019 to June 2020. Welcome back. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Liz Acord, public works coordinator. The idea before you right now asks council to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or rate period. This public hearing is part of the annual rate setting process that is set forth in the city's franchise agreement with Alameda County Industries or ASI. And I'm going to turn it over to Marva Sheehan with H.f. and each to walk you through that process and the results. And at the end of Marv's presentation, Marva Staff Ken, Kenny, Criswell, Busa and the team will be available for any questions that you may have.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 16 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 10711 8th Avenue NE from Neighborhood Commercial 3-40 (NC3-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 3-65 (NC3-65), and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by Kevin Cleary, Baylis Architects, C.F. 314287, DPD Project 3018442)

SeattleCityCouncil_05092016_CB 118676

Those in favor of granting the application is conditioned. Vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. You should read the next corresponding bill into the record. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118 676 Relating to land use and zoning amending Chapter 23.32 The City Code at Page 16 of the Official Land Use Map series on property located at ten 711 eighth Avenue, northeast from neighborhood commercial's three dash 42 Neighborhood Commercial three dash 65 and accepting a property use and development agreement as condition of rezoning approval. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. I think Councilmember Johnson adequately described the bill. Are there any further comments, Councilman Johnson, you want to make on the bill? All I would say is that this is the official action to amend the land use map and it's all contingent on execution of a properties and development agreement. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez and her bill by Johnson Suarez. O'BRIEN All right. So what I beg your president. Carol, I. Ain't in favor. And unopposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it, reported the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Go ahead and read the items eight through 12, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing, and adopt resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), to benefit Springdale West Preservation Limited Partnership, or its affiliates, Springdale West Apartments, in an amount not to exceed $80,000,000. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_06092015_15-0519

Item 17. Item number 17 Report from Financial Management and Develop and Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Public Hearing and adopt resolution approving the issuance of relevant revenue bonds to benefit Springdale West Preservation Limited Partnership in an amount not to exceed $80 million. District seven. There's been a motion and a second councilmember your UNGA or Austin would you like to. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank city staff for preparing the team, for hearing today's vote, especially important because it will allow us to continue to offer affordable housing at Springdale, West and west Long Beach, while bringing property upgrades to the residents such as landscaping, new kitchen appliances, countertops, canned cabinets, fencing, painting, water heaters . All of these are very important to raise the quality of life in the Springdale housing area, and I would really want to encourage your support of this. Council member, Austin. I think that Motion Council member, I think said it best. Council member super or not. Yes. I just had a suggestion. I noticed in the discussion that newer kitchen appliances are included in the rehab. And I just wondered if Senate Bill 88 might apply, and that is assistance for low income residents to purchase energy efficient appliances. Maybe the developer can exempt sales tax and use tax from the appliances in the modernization, since the property will be designated as low income housing for the city's housing element. Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. We did discuss this with the developer representative and unfortunately AB 88 requires that the local public utility purchase the appliances in order for them to qualify for this. And in this instance, the local public utility is not purchasing those appliances. So the project does not qualify. For for that. Is that it, Councilmember? Yes. Okay. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wished to address the Council on item? 17. Seeing nine members cast your vote and I'm a yes. Councilwoman Mango. Thank you. Motion carries nine zero. Item 18.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1925 Olive Street in South Park Hill. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x, (allows for an ADU) located at 1925 Olive Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-20.

DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0620

Absolutely. Madam President, I move that counts. Votes 6 to 0 be placed on final consideration and do pass second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0620 is open. May we please have the staff report? All right. Good evening. This is Libby Kaiser, senior planner with CPD. This is. Another 80 year rezoning. Request for 1925 Olive Street. This is in Council District eight in South Park Hill, and it is the first rezoning request. For an 82 in the neighborhood. The property. Is located. In between and then went on the street to approximately 600 square feet and as occupied by a single unit dwelling, the property is currently in the urban edge, single unit de zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban edge single unit d1x to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The sub one x requires a minimum size of 6000 square feet and allows for the urban house, suburban house and detached 82 building forms. The maximum height for a house is 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the detached adu. As mentioned, the subject property is owned. ESU, D, X and surrounding zone districts include single unit, campus and mixed use. The site is occupied by a single unit dwelling and is surrounded by other single unit uses as well as public quasi public uses, including Johnson and Wills University immediately to the East Denver School of the Arts to the Northeast and the Odyssey School of Denver to the Northwest. The subject property is a two story house as shown center right in the photo, flanked by single storey homes. All have generous setbacks, front loaded garages and attached sidewalks. To the east are two and three storey buildings at Johnston in Wales and to the west is a single family structure. This application has followed all the typical rezoning process. The planning board hearing was held on June 17th and the application was unanimously recommended for approval as a present. We've actually had two individuals express opposition, including one that came in last Friday. Both individuals are concerned that the rezoning. Will negatively impact the neighborhood character. And infringe on the privacy of their backyards. To approve a rezoning, it must be found that the requested amendment is consistent with five criteria found in the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is that the rezoning request must be consistent with adopted plans at which there are four that apply to this property, including the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver Park Hill Neighborhood Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. The rezoning request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning would allow for an additional housing option within walking distance of four bus routes in an established neighborhood consistent with three strategies and the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements. In addition, the rezoning would allow infill development that broadens the range of housing types available in an area where infrastructure and services already exist, consistent with the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision elements as well as the environmentally resilient vision elements. The rezoning request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the Urban Edge Neighborhood context, which is predominantly comprised of residential uses with single and two unit low scale homes on short walkable blocks. In blueprints under the future. Places MAP designates the subject property as nouveau residential place type, which has single and two unit uses and 80 use are appropriate. Olive Street is categorized as a local or on designated street, which is generally. Characterized by. Residential use as. As far as blueprint Denver's growth strategy, the properties in the all other areas of the city category where 10% of future jobs and 20% of future housing are desired. This is the least intensive growth category. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of its use throughout all residential areas, while housing Policy five recommends removing barriers to constructing a two use as this rezoning would accomplish. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan also applies to the subject property and the rezoning would help implement two of the plan's goals and recommendations, including maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood while allowing for a mix of housing types. Housing an inclusive Denver encourages expanding the development of its use to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing and to help build wealth for low and moderate income homeowners. And the proposed rezoning is consistent with this plan. Staff concludes the requested zoning meets criteria. Number one, consistency with adopted plans. Staff also finds that 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 its implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing ESU de zone district, the city has adopted the plan. 2040 Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver. As stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Overall, the rezoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and the purpose and intent of the ESU, D1 UX District thus meeting the fifth criteria. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. I'm available for questions and assuming the applicant has hung in here for this long, they should be available as well. Thank you, Libby. We have tonight counsel has not received any written comments on counsel Bill 620. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. That evening. Members of council, my name is just there. I reside in District eight, right up the street from where this rezoning is going to be. I'm represented for Denver homicide law, black strikes and self-defense of the Mexican-American commitment to social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. No, and I will be your next mayor in 2023. And this meets all the criteria. I would assume it's going to pass. I just had a question. I wanted to know what this is going to be used for. Is it going to be for a family member or somebody that is low income looking for a home? Thank you. And you will conclude our speakers right now and we'll go to questions by members of council. And I'm looking here and I don't see any members of council, and so I'll go ahead and pose that last question. Libby. The use of the you. Sure in the near term the applicant plans to use it for their aging parents. All right. Thank you. See no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 0620 is closed. Comments by members of Council. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon. I. Hynes Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega, i. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Clark. Right. Flint. I. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 620 has passed. On Monday, September 14th, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 711, changing the zoning classification for 2535 through 2545 East Ashbury Avenue in University Park and a required public hearing on Council Bill 716 Changing the zoning classification of 755 Lafayette Street and Country Club.

A bill for an ordinance amending sections of Chapter 54 of the Revised Municipal Code to provide definitions and enforcement of bicycle lanes accompanied by a buffer area. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code to allow parking protected bicycle lanes. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-8-15

DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0692

For Lebanese, one nay, one abstention. The Lebanese one day, one abstention, 720 has been adopted. All right. Now we're on to the next one. 692 Councilman Flynn bills for introduction. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. Just had a comment. Go right ahead. Thank you. With regard to the buyback program. And the expansion and the addition of protected parking. Protected bike corridors, I'm very excited about this. And I want to ask that public works. As we move into this and as we expand them to take advantage of the opportunity to take measurements. Now. As far as vehicle traffic speeds and the impact on this expansion, on vehicle traffic speeds, because I believe that this can be one of our vehicles, if I can. Use a pun for a moment. For calming traffic in our not just in the central business district, but out in our neighborhoods as well. And as as the City. Council's. Newest. B cycle. Account holder, I would certainly appreciate that information. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. I believe that was it. So we are now ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council Assessment. Will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block? Certainly, Mr. President, I put the following resolutions of in a block for the option series of 15 resolutions 724 726 727 696 623 636, 46, 93, six, 94, six, 95, seven, 21 and 734. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Clerk I Espinosa Flynn i. Gilmore i. Cashman i. Coinage i. Lopez. New Ortega. Assessment by Brooks. Hi, Black. Hi. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please. West Virginia announced the results. 3939. As resolutions have been adopted in the block. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block? Yes, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration. And do pet be and do pass in a block. Council all series of 15 council bills 668 673 674 675 684 671 686, 97 698 699 700 7017027037047057067077087097 ten 711 712 713 and 556. Thank you. One I also make sure we get it 668 as amended because we did them in that last week so got them all just want to know it. Six, six, eight as amended. It has been moved and seconded, seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, welcome. Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Cashman. Kenny Lopez. Hi. New Ortega Sussman. Hi, Black. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting out the results. 3939 The bills on final consideration have passed since there are no public hearings and if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess. However, one German announcement Monday, November 2nd.

AN ORDINANCE relating to a Community Service Officer program; amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07012019_CB 119547

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the a report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities New Americans and Education. Committee report at the Gender Equality Safe Communities, New Americas and Education Committee Agenda Item seven Constable 119 547 Relating to a Community Service Officer program amending ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2019 budget, lifting a proviso inviting fire and confirming search prior acts committee recommends of El Paso. And Dallas. Thank you. Council presidents want council bill 119547. As I mentioned this morning during council briefing would lift a 2019 budget proviso to allow the Seattle Police Department to advance its implementation of the Community Service Officer program really quickly. By way of background, this program and this unit will be staffed by noncommissioned officers who are trained and work as liaisons between the community and the police department. Community service officers will not carry weapons nor enforce criminal laws. Instead, they will serve to bridge the service gap on non-criminal calls for service and perform a variety of public safety related community service and outreach work, therefore, freeing up sworn police officers to focus on more critical matters. They will receive training in police operations, social work, de-escalation, conflict resolution and mediation, crisis intervention, institutional racism and cultural competency using internal and external training channels. The Community Service Officers will also develop community partnerships to support increased collaboration between the Seattle Police Department and the community for the purpose of leveraging community strengths and identifying alternative strategies to various law enforcement and social issues. Community service officers will work assigned areas of the city on foot or in marked community service officer vehicles. Responding to radio dispatch calls for service largely at the direction of patrol officers. The Seattle Police Department plans to deploy initially ten community service officers and two community service officers. Supervisors across two shifts shifts up to six days a week, Monday through Saturday, excluding Sundays and holidays. That is subject to change depending on calls and demands of the program and of course, future funding in in the future. So I promise this morning during council briefing that I would bring and share with you all a copy of the job description and posting for the Community Service Officer Program. I've distributed that for you all to take a look at, but I think with all of this information, we are ready to lift the proviso and the committee recommends that we do so to allow the Seattle Police Department to advance the Community Service Officer program. Very good. Any other comments from her? Thank you. Real quickly, I truly believe that bringing back the Community Service Officer program will be a really valuable addition to policing in Seattle. In the Southwest Precinct, a top community concern is that the number of police officers are not sufficient to meet the staffing needs to adequately address public safety. I am a proud co-sponsor of legislation to bring back the CSOs, but recognize that Councilmember Councilmember O'Brien took the took the lead on proposing it in a couple of budget cycles back. And many, many thanks to Councilmember Gonzales for adeptly and expertly getting us to this. To this point, unsworn officers can prioritize non-emergency community services associated with law enforcement. And as we've heard, that frees up police officers to better respond to 911 calls and needs for. Proactive. Policing. Given our challenge in this city, as well as other large cities in hiring new officers, bringing back the CSO program is a really important step and also a shout out for two Assistant Chief Diaz for his work on this as well. He's done great. Work in the. Other comments. Yeah. Councilmember Gonzales, I really appreciate your leadership on this. I apologize for not being able to be at the community meeting last week. But as Councilmember Raul mentioned, it's been over a year and a half since we allocated the budget to this. And I'm it's a little disappointing it's taken this long. But setting that aside and how we move forward, I really appreciate your leadership and keeping an eye on how this means for. And so I'm grateful for that. Thank you. Absolutely. All right, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw. Gonzalez I Herbold I was. I. Was going to. O'Brien high Pacheco I president's warrant seven in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the judge will sign it. Is there any other further business to come before the council? Skater. Thank you, Madam President. I would like to be I would like to ask to be excused next Monday for the purposes of going to Washington, D.C., to meet with the folks from the National League of Cities on their housing task force revealing of the report. So I'll be a very short trip, but I won't have to miss next Monday if I can be excused. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I see, I. None of us. So that passes any other motions. Seeing none. Meeting is adjourned. Gave.

Resolution Recognizing August 7 - 13 As National Community Health Center Week. On motion of Councilor Murphy, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted. President Flynn in the Chair.

BostonCC_08102022_2022-0968

Docket 0967 has been adopted. Mr. Clarke, if you would, please read in to the record docket 09680968. Councilor Murphy offer the following resolution recognizing August 7th through the 13th as National Community Health Center Week. Thank you, Mr. Clarke, and thank you to Counsel Arroyo. The Chair recognizes Counsel Murphy. Counsel Murphy. You have the full. I do. Council President Flynn. So August 7th through the 13th of this year marks the annual celebration of the National Community Health Center Week, honoring the extraordinary contributions our community health centers provide to every community across the nation. And here in Boston, we have 22 community health centers that serve one third of our residents in the city, including myself and my children. So the community health centers serve as a beacon of strength, service and care in their communities. And this National Health Center Week honors those frontline providers, staff and beloved patients who lost their lives during the ongoing COVID 19 pandemic. From the very beginning of the crisis, community health centers began finding groundbreaking ways to provide preventative and primary care to their patients. And we know the incredible work they did in trying to get the vaccines out. And all of the health centers do great work that I know many in East Boston and the Mattapan Health Center really came together and did great work trying to make sure that the residents were educated and had access to that. And each day of the National Community Health Center Week celebrates the work and services of health centers provide to the unique populations within their communities, and highlights the innovative solutions they produce to address the most pressing health care issues that our residents face. So I hope it be resolved that the Boston City Council recognizes August 7th through the 13th as National Community Health Centers Week, which will honor our critically important health care centers that keep our communities healthy and thriving. So I do ask that we suspend and pass this, please. Council President Flynn. Thank you. And thank you. Counsel Murphy. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to add their name? Mr. Clarke, please add counsel. Royal Counsel Baker. Counsel Blair Counsel Braden Counselor Fernandez Andersen. Counsel Farrelly Counsel. Lara mara Constitution. Council were all employees at the chair. Counsel Murphy seeks suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket 0968. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. Opposing nay. The issue of Advocate 0964 has been adopted. Mr. Clarke, we're on to personnel orders. Can you please read the docket? 0969.

Recommendation to request City Manager to have the Long Beach Airport Director work with the Airport Advisory Commission, community members and airport stakeholders to develop a long-range master plan for the Long Beach Airport.

LongBeachCC_11012016_16-0998

Okay. Thank you. Next item we're going to hear is item number. I think it was 18. No, I'm sorry. We just heard 18. 27. Thank you. As we're getting up to the urban common guys, we're back there. I just want to thank you all for your commitment to this project. We look forward to being really strong partners over the next few years and many years ahead. And we'll look forward to the economic driver, which is going to be that development, but also that Carnival Cruise Line terminal, which we know is going to bring hundreds of thousands of passengers to the city to invest back into the city . So thank you guys very much. Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilmember Super Now Council member Urunga recommendation to request the city manager to have the Long Beach Airport director work with the Airport Advisory Commission. Community members and airport stakeholders develop a long range masterplan for the Long Beach Airport. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues, Council Supernormal and Urunga, for signing on. There's been some misinformation and speculation in some of the press as to why this agenda item is before us here tonight. This is actually something that we have we first considered back in February of this year. So this is not a last minute tactic or or this this wasn't a short sighted agenda item. However, I've been concerned that it seems to when it comes to the Long Beach Airport, the city has been in a very reactive mode, responding to external pressures to pursue certain development objectives. There is not a clear, articulated vision of the direction where the city wants to see the airport going in the long term. And that has eroded confidence of many residents in impacted neighborhoods throughout the city that are truly looking at the interests of all the stakeholders when it comes to decisions affecting the airport. Most airports, whether they are large commercial airports or small general aviation airports, have airport master plans. The FAA described the goal of a master plan is providing guidelines for future development. Hurry back. So the FAA describes the goal of a master plan as providing guidelines for future airport development, which will satisfy aviation demand in a financially feasible manner, while at the same time resolving the aviation, environmental and social economic issues, the existing existing in the community. The FAA guidelines also state that each master plan study must focus on specific needs of the airport for which a plan is being prepared, and the scope of the study must be tailored to the individual airport. Therefore, in a given study, certain master planning elements may be emphasized, while others may not be considered at all. Clearly, with the Long Beach Airport, the driving factor in any plan must be protecting our airport noise ordinance. And with the long range plan that involves, it incorporates the views of the stakeholders to the airport, which not only involves airport users and businesses, but residents and communities in several council districts. We can articulate a vision that inspires confidence and provides an appropriate balance between the community, passengers, environmental and economic interests. However, I do recognize that not everyone has had the opportunity to fully invest the gate and the concept of a master plan. And so I'd like to ask my colleagues to support a revised motion to to the agenda item, which is to request the city manager report back to the City Council within 30 days on the process involved. Potential scope and the pros and cons of developing a long range master plan for the Long Beach Airport. And I would ask for my my colleagues support on that. Sorry, I Brosnan just wrapped up. And is it now controversy? Controversial product. You want to comment on the second or. I'm fine. I think the motion and I don't want to speak for my colleague because he's right here. But the intention is this all came at us very quickly and we had very quick briefings on this. So if the intention is to get an official response from city staff, I support that. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So just to clarify, this isn't going to delay at all the process that we're going through with the FISA. My understanding is based on this motion. Well, doesn't mention anything about FISA. Okay. So that that process is unrelated to this and this issue. This request is just for a report that will outline what the process is, what a master plan is, what it could include, and the pros and cons. So it'd be a comprehensive look at what it would look like to enter that process. Basically. Is that your. Understanding, your your intent? Okay. Great. Thank you. Councilwoman Pierce. Yes. I had one question about Alps and how they might relate to master plans. I mentioned that over to our airport director, Jess Romo. Yes, Councilwoman. Just remove from Long Beach Airport. An Al Port Airport layout plan is a document that the airport, each airport has to maintain and update based on changes that occur from time to time at an airport. As an example, Long Beach Airport has a submission in with the regional FAA office, currently as part of the decommissioning of the two North-South runways. In essence, an Al Pea is a very abbreviated version of a master plan. It is not a full blown or a comprehensive master plan, but it is it is considered an alternative to a master plan. And can you also elaborate on how land use elements might complement that? Yeah. Well, as relates to land use, two elements are contained in an LP. Those are considerations. Long Beach Airport as part of the city's general plan. My understanding is that because it's within the city limits, general land uses specifically with zoning have been considered as part of the city's general plan. A companion piece, separate but parallel, is the county's Airport Land Use Commission, which looks specifically at land uses and around airports. And that is also something that has been done over the years for Long Beach Airport, specifically as it relates to zoning, as it relates to the terminal concourse improvements that were recently done, as well as the two business parks that are adjacent, that are that are actually part of the airport property. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I'm going to ask my colleagues to support a received file of this item tonight. If I could get the button to make a new motion, a substitute motion. Over my term with several different airport directors in several meetings with business associations and aviation community and the new community at Douglas Park. I think that what I have learned, especially in discussions with neighborhood associations, is that our number one priority is protecting the noise ordinance. Airport director, would you state for us a little bit of your background and information related to master plans at airports that you've experienced? I know we've discussed when that started in I think it was 1996 and another one that started after that and the amount they cost and how long they take and that truly that would actually be a greater threat to our noise ordinance than anything else. Well, I can speak to, you know, first and foremost, my experience. I'm approaching my 19th year as an airport professional. You know, before coming here to Long Beach, I spent that time with L.A. World airports in a various number of positions, including airport manager for both Ontario and Van Nuys airports. Van Nuys Airport did complete a master plan that started in 1992 and was completed in 2006. I chose essentially a 14 year endeavor. The focus was land use, but it was called a master plan. The bulk of the work was done internal. So was both city planning staff as well as airport staff. So I don't have a specific number, but I can tell you that it was with a lot of resource support that went into producing and finalizing that document. More recently, even though it's still been a while, Ontario Airport initiated a master plan in 2001 over a four year period. The city of Los Angeles, L.A. World Airport, spent $2 million on that effort. That that effort stopped after 2005, with the new director coming on board in 2007. She made the decision that it was not the time to complete the master plan. So it has been shelved, practically speaking. But knowing that the airport is under a new authority as of today, actually, they may reinitiated. But to your to your question, in both cases, one, it was a 14 year effort. In the second case, it was something that lasted four years and cost $2 million. And would you speak to whether or not you personally believe we would be at greater risk should we pursue a master plan? With my understanding of master plans and what they are and what they're intended to achieve in primarily master plans, corporate comprehensive master plans. By definition, are either when you are planning to develop an airport or if you've got an airport where you are contemplating adding capacity. Those would be the primary times that you would want to do a full blown master plan. So in that regard, if you're going to explore the ten elements that make up a master plan, including airport capacity, in my opinion that does elevate the level of risk. I'd probably defer to the city attorney on what that amount might be, but I think that it is fair to say that you you would be elevating the risk. And I know that I stand with some of my colleagues in that the number one priority is not to expand aviation at the airport, but to maintain the balance that we have today and the quality of life that we have for our neighbors, that that is a high priority. I know that while there have been discussions of distribution of those flights across other runways, that's not something that I'm interested in exploring. I think that we have done a lot of research related to the pavement and the investments that have been put in, both by the federal government and others that have put the airport in a position where we're able to protect the noise ordinance and that we're able to monitor and protect those buckets. And so at this time, in an effort to protect our neighbors and ensure that we do not increase the risk to the noise ordinance, I would like to receive and file I have shared with my colleagues, including Councilmember Austin , my intent for a more broad East Side plan that could consider transportation and all the other components that allow for economic development without expansion of flights. But I feel that at this time this has not been on The Matrix for eight weeks. This was added on the supplemental agenda. I know that at previous meetings Councilmember Austin specifically stated that he was not favorable of Councilmember Pearce's addition of items on the supplemental agenda. And I, I think that this is a significantly similar and if there are differences, I apologize that I don't know them. But I wished that a partnership could have been formed to move forward on this from a more holistic approach as it is in the fifth District. And I've worked with the Douglas Park planners, I know what's coming down the pipeline, I've worked with the Spring Street Business Association, I've worked with South of Kona and Art Craft Manor and Lakewood Village and a lot of the neighborhoods on the side. And I would look forward to the opportunity to partner and work with the other neighborhood associations as well. But I am not ready to take this on at this time because of the additional risk and until we have some clear scoping on what we would want the city to bring back to us, then I think that that's not enough direction. So I'm open to what Councilmember Austin proposed, if it had a scope that I think maybe we could discuss or. Get some feedback from the Airport Advisory Commission on what that scope would look like. But I think that that the city needs proper scoping. And and this is not to be disrespectful to the city staff, but we have far too many report backs that have not come back timely. And I'm not looking to add any more that would delay the ones that we've already committed to. I really would like to see those return as there are certain components of some of those, including the Internet and the infrastructure and others of economic development that I think are a factor in this. And I've been waiting for those and I know that I'm working with Brian Stokes of it, but I think that some of those are really crucial in scoping what we want to do at the airport. So I hope my colleagues will support a received file and that it doesn't need to come back in 30 days. But we could revive a new a completely new and different item that has all of the proper elements when the time is right. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Thank you very much. And I just want to address she said a lot, a whole lot there. And I don't think it was all accurate or nor did it accurately reflect my my intentions here. And so, Ms.. McGill, I'm going to restate the motion. It was the request of the city manager report back to the city council within 30 days on a process involved. Potential scope in the pros and cons of developing a long range masterplan for Long Beach Airport. That in no way puts our airport noise ordinance in jeopardy. And that is absolutely the last thing that is on my agenda or that I would want to do as I live under the flight path that represent thousands of residents who also live under the flight path of Long Beach Airport. I would also also just just just like everyone to to understand that I certainly would have included Councilmember Mongo in the this item. However, you were you were absent for three weeks in a row. And so there was not a lot of opportunity to have conversation with you during that period of time and that the airport is a citywide resource. When we were talking about redoing the Civic Center, we're talking about doing anything major here. It requires nine votes in every one of these council members are engaged and and respected and brought to the table and engaged in the process. This is not a fifth District asset, and I want to be very clear on that. And so. We this is something that and again, the the intent here is to help us articulate a vision, but more importantly, bringing all of the stakeholders to the table, including the community. Right. We represent and we are elected by residents of the city. And I've heard on many occasions from individuals who say, well, you know, there are people who bought their homes next to the airport or underneath the flight path. And what is. Well, nobody knows what to expect because we don't have a long way to play it. We don't have a long range visit. We do have an ordinance which is very, very important. And I think that is the Holy Grail. And if we were to pursue a master plan, I think that should be on the first page of the master plan in terms of our intention, the city. Mr. Romo, you talked about master plans that that seek to expand capacity. I can tell you that I would not be in favor of any sort of master plan that would seek to expand flight capacity at Long Beach Airport, because that, too, would be counter to our airport noise ordinance. And so I'm looking at a document right here that says that. And I got to reference this document, but it's pretty voluminous. It's. But but it says that there's a great deal of flexibility for for airports that go into scoping their their master plans. And I would imagine that any master plan moving forward, should we go down that route, because what we're asking for and what's only before us this evening doesn't even go there. But should we do go that route? I can imagine that that, this, this. And since everybody here says that they support our noise ordinance, I wouldn't imagine that anybody would do anything to to to suggest we should expand our capacity or jeopardize the noise ordinance. And so, members, I would ask that you reject the receiving file motion and support the original motion, because it is a common sense approach. It's a responsible approach to to looking forward and including all stakeholders in the airport process, planning process. A controversial panel. Yeah. And thank you for that clarification. I think we know where council member Austin wants to go with this. It's it's not going to a master plan. It's asking for a report back from city staff. I think Councilmember Mongo kind of made the point in that this was rushed. We had. And kudos to our airport director. He's new yet he was able to get an opinion back to us over a weekend, basically. So I think all we're saying is, let's give him a little more time. Let's get a more thorough report back to see the merits of this. And maybe we're hung up on the terminology of a master plan. Maybe that's something some type of a hybrid that we need moving forward just to let it go. I think some of this was triggered by the fact that we sat here in these council chambers a week ago and we heard the consultant deliver back and economic feasibility report that did not isolate the city of Long Beach. What we have here is a failure to communicate. So I'm thinking that that kind of triggers the fact that we need to get our act together on the city side here a little bit before spending $350,000 on a consultant's report. I can't speak if that was the motivation for Councilmember Austin, but it sure made me think about how exactly are we directing this consultant before we spend money on this? So what I'd like to do is just respectfully ask Councilmember Mongeau to withdraw her motion and move forward on the 30 day plan. Thank you. Councilmember Austin, would you be open to 60 days? Why? 60 days? Well. E The specific question that was asked was whether or not. It would create a greater risk. And our airport director has already stated that it has. And so if we're going to do something bigger and greater than that, there's a lot on our plate on the east side and a lot of other report backs that are coming within the next 30 days that I think are crucial. Specifically, I'm to two of the items that Councilmember Gonzalez and I brought forward that I think can create an impact on the overall plan of Eastside. And I understand that part of the question is whether or not it hurts the noise ordinance, but I think that he's clearly stated that. And so for a more comprehensive report, I would like to have those two other reports back. And if that was possible that they could be considered, then I think that that would give another to get us up to either 45 or 60 days and just mindful that many of the reports we've asked back in either 30 or 60 or 90 days have not come back timely. So maybe we would just pick a date certain that we would get an I'm asking we're doing a two from four from the city staff or you're asking for it to come back to council? Well, I was asking for a report back and a report back can come in either way. Okay. Secondly, I think you're making up facts because I didn't hear him say that this is going to create a significant risk. He said that if we move forward with expanding capacity, air capacity at our in our airport, it would create a significant risk and so on. That point would building. I'll just ask a question to the airport director since we're on the question of risk, does this building infrastructure at our our airport infrastructure capacity to airport expose us to risk as well? Well, the general term infrastructure, whether you're talking about something on the airfield. Versus terminal. Terminals, you know, I think any time you are looking at changes, there's always going to be some risk that that will come up again. As I said, with with a master plan, I'm not going to speculate in terms of the amount of risk. But I think that any time there's a change, you know, as a city, you have to manage that and acknowledge that that, you know, there is risk there. There's risk there if we do nothing. I appreciate. And and so the request is what I would accept a friendly amendment to to do 60 days. I would the question is to the airport director, can you get this back to us within 30 days? Well, my preference would be to have more time so that it's a thoughtful document and I'm not trying to fish for a longer period. But I think something, you know, in between maybe 45 days would make sure that we get the council back, something that's thoughtful and thought out. I could accept 45 days. I can accept 45 days. Thank you. Okay. That's good. Look, before we move on to the rest of the council, do you want to continue to go to the public first? Okay. Can we please go to the public for public comment? Good evening, Mayor and Council Members Ray Garbage District eight. When this first came to my attention, I over the weekend I connected with two area airport managers. And it was interesting because both of them were on opposite sides of their position on this. And one of them said that your noise ordinance is your master plan. It controls what's going on at the airport. He also said that if you do do a master plan, you're going to have regional, state and federal attention looking at you. And the very first thing that you do in a master plan is determine capacity. Our airport can build a very large terminal on both the east side and on the north side. We have lots of property. Would that be a demand? I am not sure the FAA would be watching as well. The other points that he made were, after all the years of the litigation that you went through to discover environmental capacity, the footprints that we have equate to our noise limits. He also said that while while this would be ongoing, there are other issues that we should be concerned about. And one of them is there is a environmental justice lawsuit at L.A.X. in the poorer communities. And in that litigation they're talking about, why isn't John Wayne in Long Beach taking more of their share? And then you look at the Scaggs travel documents and they are forecasting and they recognize in their document that we could handle we have a noise ordinance, but we should be able to handle 5 million passengers. That's a 50% increase of what we do today. So there's that side and then there's the other side of, oh, no, you know, the more study, the better. But but the other person said to me that an office facility would have to be part of the master plan. And there I think there's going to be other people here, I think, to talk about the next gen situation that's going to begin, I believe, in the middle of November and it's going to the third phase of it is going to come in in March. And there are cities on both sides of us that are suing. There are cities on the East Coast, the state of Phenix, Los Angeles, Culver City, that are suing because the noise has been expanded. And if you read what our former airport manager says when he wrote about next gen, his concern was that the flight patterns are going to impact larger areas of the seventh and the eighth District, but they're also going to impact the east side and the southeast side. So I think there's a lot to be considered. And if the master plan is something that you're going to go forward with, the office absolutely has to be a part of that. I know that's what you asked, Suzy. And and I think that maybe that was the wrong answer that you received. And, Daryl, what you said about they didn't really give anything specific to Long Beach. That was one of the tasks that they were assigned at 3.4.1, they were to give you quantify the economic impact to the city and the local regional economy related to an FAA facility. So they didn't complete their job. They didn't do what they were asked to do. So I'd like to see that go back to them before you make any further decisions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is run in fifth District. I support Al Austin and Darryl Soup Supernova and Iran guy who's not here, but he's got a short fuze somewhere down the line. Just joking. I understand Stacy's concerns about the airport. As a District five resident, I've tried and tried and tried to ask a number of questions through my own district office. And I've had a lot of difficulty getting many of the same information that she says that she has to us to give it out to the residents. I can't get it. We've demanded meetings. We've tried everything we can do regarding the airport and we haven't gotten anything. If the only way we can get information out to the residents is to get a report or something like that, I think it's fine. I come out of the aerospace industry and I understand what people are saying, Oh, it's so difficult. But there's never been a project that I've ever been on and I've been on projects that are larger than than the budget in the city that were. I can't figure out how to solve and get a report back to me in a fashion that I want that will be in a way that will be risk, which will remove the risk that we have our concerns. We can do it. I know Romo is an intelligent guy. He can do it. I know he can. It's not hard, but all we're doing is asking for a report from our city manager. You know, it's just can we do it? Why do we need to have done. It's not a it's not rocket science. You know, what do we need? What are the elements? That's it. You know, we got a report from Jacobs. I used to work for Jacobs, and I'm telling you, it was insufficient that this is for Long Beach. We're spending $300,000 of taxpayer money for this thing. And that was garbage. And I'm not I'm not saying that that's bad. But we got a guy who comes from JetBlue. He goes to two different meetings and he's giving false information to both people, to both meetings. I got his name up already reported in to the executives in the company. He's going to be gone. I mean, these are things that are happening. We're seeing all this stuff. People running around. Residents don't have confidence in the way that this is being handled. We're trying to get information and we're not getting it. And no matter what we do, there's a lot of misinformation, people connecting the noise ordinance to the to the this report. Yes. And I understand it's not there. You know, there's no connection right now. So but we need to get information to us. And this is a minimal standard that we have to ask for. You know, I'm looking through all of the numbers that Jacobs has. I'm an expert in this type of stuff. And I'm telling you, there's no backup information for the hard figures that we got. And I'm trying to figure out where they got him. And all I got is a computer program that they're relying on that we have no idea how it works. And this is a problem that I have. I'm sorry. I got a little emotional. I didn't mean to do that. It's okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councilman Mongo. Just to follow up on what Ramon had mentioned, we're so fortunate in the fifth district to have an expert in pavement management and aviation and soccer living in our own district. So Mr. Ramon has received every report that we have available and there just aren't some reports because they have not been requested or commissioned by the city . And so while I appreciate that he wants more information, we've provided everything that we are available to provide. Thank you. Continuing public comment. Yes. Hi, how are you? Laurie Smith. Uh, district. Three. I've talked to you guys about this before, but I just want to talk about what you guys had mentioned about elevating the risk to our noise ordinance and also what airport director Romo had mentioned that, um, the risk is that we, that we do nothing as well, is there. So I do want to mention again, as I read to you last year. Former airport director Bryant Francis had sent a letter to the FAA regarding his concerns about how it's going to adversely. Affect our noise ordinance. And these these new procedures are going. To be affecting us beginning November 10th is. Phase one. March 2nd is phase two and April 27th is phase three. And last week the Culver City and Newport Beach City Councils were so concerned that they filed lawsuits to block the FAA metroplex. And so, you know, I'm just. Looking for you as our elected officials. To support us, your constituents in our quality of life. So here's here's some things that Bryant. Francis had sent. In his letter to the FAA regarding the. Metroplex Metroplex, which is going to be affecting everything in the Southern California area, that he believes that the FAA has. Not given appropriate consideration. To the reduction of environmental impacts, particularly noise and developing the airspace proposals presented, and that as a result, the proposals do not meet the goals. That Congress had defined for it. He further goes on to say that he has some concerns with regards to how these changes could impact. Citizens and communities near airport. He further goes on to say that it will neither. That it could jeopardize or preclude the ability of the air carriers and general aviation community from utilizing procedures and complying with the city's noise limits. So airport director Romo had mentioned that there is a risk that we do nothing. And that's what I'm sorry to say that the city council has done with regards to taking into account the FAA metroplex that's going to be affecting us. It's not just this airport, it's the other airports. So in that time, the city government which manages the airport, has allowed us to move forward with nine supplemental slots and now a feasibility study. And it seems to be that the sole wants to be done before the FAA metroplex comes down on the residents. And it's a little concerning that that that seems to be what city. Government has been looking to do is push this through before we all get affected by. By heavy noise impacts. So I just like to also know if. You take your time I'm sorry, time is up. If airport rama if we've gotten a response back from the FAA, from the airport director, I just would like to know if we have a response back and if this is something that is is able to be given to your constituents. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming. Time is up. And Mr. West, maybe we can follow up on that last question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Soto. Joe. So, Mr. Mayor and city council members Joe Soto, Mr. Airport Manager, there's a. Meeting tomorrow in Orange County. It's a NexGen meeting. In Orange County, one of our local high schools. So we were wondering if you were going to attend that meeting. Or if you knew about it. I guess you don't answer back, but that's I want to put that out of. Thank you. Carney I see no other public comment. Public comments closed back to the council. Councilman Pearce. Thank you. I just wanted to say, you know, I think giving this 45 days something I support and wanted to see if we can make sure we include in that report things that are already tied to similar things as a master plan, as we discussed earlier, and what the timeline of a master plan would be, what the cost of a master plan would be. And that would be it. So I support, you know, Councilmember Mungo's substitute motion. So. Councilman. Councilman Austin. So I don't believe that was a substitute motion. It was a friendly amendment. Is that correct? Yes. I requested to remove my substitute motion and and Fred instead made a friendly that Councilmember Austin accepted. Yes. Sorry, but it's still on the board under the previous. So we'll fix that on the board. The motion is Councilmember Austin's 45 day motion. Thank you. Councilman Roston. Anything else? Nope. Councilman Mongo. No further questions. Okay. There is a there is a motion in a second on the floor. It's not yet up on the board. If I. Right now, there's. No it was. It was. It was. It was. Yeah. Okay. It's recorded. Okay. Members was going to cast your votes. Ocean carries. Okay. Thank you. Now we're going back to a presentation that we had earlier that we didn't get to, and that is going to be the presentation, I believe, from gas and oil. And I think Mr. West was going to start off by saying something.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement between the City and Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co., LLP (VTD) for Two Years with Three - One Year Extensions for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $703,460 for Independent Auditing Services. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_01202015_2015-1171

And sometimes it's just good to get some fresh thinking and new blood in. And if we do approve this contract, we will actually be saving $32,725 over a five year period compared to the previous fees charged by the previous firm. So. I would certainly move approval or of the recommendation. I second it especially given the. From a pool of eight candidates. And a city auditor was on the selection team. Any other comments? All those in favor. I oppose motion unanimously passes. Thank you. Now of. In regards to the other the balance of today's agenda numbers. What would you like us to do? My opinion? Yes. My opinion is that we continue the matter. Moreau but doing so if if if allowable under Brown Act and and that's an ordinance because no 130 right now and you know you just think that will be fresher and the public would be better served. So like yes I just make clarify. So just to be sure that what we're saying here, all of the items that are still remaining, you want to continue to tomorrow night's meeting that correct. It's just technically it's actually tonight because. We. Also know but in regards to her question is is the answer yes now staff. If we just if we do all of them, I think the priority is the referrals is what I had heard of, and I guess we can try again to address that tomorrow. So and if there's if there's some items that can wait, then maybe we could get together. We can discuss that to. Met a mayor asking a question to the city attorney. So is the correct way to proceed and make a motion to recess. And. Uh, what, what. You should do. Is motion to continue. The specified items to a date certain meeting, which would be today, but later today. Okay. If I may, I may help you, too. And I'm just. So I'm looking at Mrs. Warmer than item six eyes six J and six L which were not handled tonight. You we do not have to have them handled tomorrow. Those can be those. I would suggest you move those to the meeting of February 3rd so that you can focus on what you're going to be doing tomorrow and getting the referrals done if that's what you're going to do. 66 J and six L do not have to be done tomorrow. They can be done on February 3rd. Thank you very much. All right. It says that. So our February 3rd agenda is not too crowded already. No, no, it is not. All right. It's pretty light. I just approached him. Okay. So, Madam Chair. Yes, I would move to move it in the manner that the city attorney had indicated. To continue the items, other specified items other than six. I just and AJ and AJ now. So which will be dealt with on February 3rd. So as we speak in the specificity, are we talking about? Can we specify then is that nine? Yes. And then the balance in the referrals, it's those items. Nine are the referrals, nine and ten and ten. I can second that 1003. You will pick it up tomorrow. Okay. And we have a second. Any comments? All right. All those in favor. I. Suppose. No motion passes for the one. Oh. You can. Yeah, I know. All right, I think we should. All right. Thank you. And, uh, the meeting resumes tomorrow. 630, and we are here? Yes. So we look forward to seeing you back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Recommendation to inform the Harbor Department of the following City Council recommendations and requested actions and coordinate with them as necessary to explore discussions with another major international port city with the intentions of creating a green shipping corridor similar to the one in development between the Ports of Los Angeles and Shanghai, including exploring joining the Los Angeles/Shanghai clean shipping corridor as a partner; Add support for legislation or administrative action to rapidly decarbonize the maritime shipping industry and to create green shipping corridors along the California coast, the West Coast of the United States, and across the trans-Pacific trade route to the City’s 2022-2023 State and Federal Legislative Agendas; Request City Attorney to draft resolution calling on top maritime importers to Long Beach to adopt existing emissions-reducing technologies and take steps towards making port calls to the San Pedro Port Complex on zero-carbon ships by 2030; and Pursue all the above items with a focus on incentives and provide input on incenti

LongBeachCC_06212022_22-0699

Thank you. Item 30, please. Item 30 is a communication from Councilwoman Allen, Chair of the Climate Action and Environmental Committee, recommendation to inform the Harbor Department of the following City Council recommendations with the intentions of creating a green shipping corridor at support for legislation to rapidly decarbonize the maritime shipping industry and to create green shipping corridors to the cities 2022 through 2023 . State and federal legislative agendas require city attorney to draft resolution, calling on top maritime importers to Long Beach to adopt existing emissions reducing technologies and take steps toward making port calls to the San Pedro Port Complex on zero carbon ships by 2030 and pursue all the above items with a focus on incentives and provide input on incentive types. All right. Great. Councilman Allen. Thank you. Vice Mayor, can I kind of request that we go to public comments first? Great. Is there any public comment on item 30? Yes. Dave Shukla. Patricia Chen. Grace Lawrenson. Do Denuncia hinder. Anna Kristiansen, please approach podium. All right, come on down. Who's first? Dave Shukla. All of you. Okay, well. Every one of them first. Okay, fine. Whoever is in front. Chen Grace. Good evening. I'm Patricia Chen, and I'm a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach. And I am here to support or to express my strong support for item number 30. Um, our faith centers around eight principles, and I'm just going to tell you, the seventh and the eighth are about focusing on respect for the environment and responsibly dismantling racism in ourselves and in our institutions. Um, I see supporting the proposed resolution and the item in general as an opportunity to support our principles in improving environmental quality and addressing harm to the many people of color who in the past had very little choice in their housing, and thus they have been in close proximity to uh, harmful emissions from the port area. And particularly, I've seen maps of cancer in the city of Long Beach and they're very tightly clustered around the port, and that makes me feel very strongly on these issues and just really want to express support for, um, asking our large major retailers to please insist on clean shipping , uh, for the goods that they're importing to sell here in Long Beach. Thank you. We'll let you finish. But we I don't think we have quorum right now. When we pause. When we pause for a moment, we establish quorum. Is that councilman super over there. Does that count for quorum? Nope. No. Okay. Councilman Suber. No. We're going to need you to come back behind the rail. Sorry, buddy. All right. I think we're going. To end with a thank you to you for bringing this item forward. And it's very important. Thank you. Certainly. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Bruce Lawrenson and I'm from the seventh District. And I do appreciate everything that the city has been doing to combat climate change. And the, uh, the, the part is a particularly difficult issue and it every little bit helps and decarbonizing shipping will be a big step in creating clean air and preventing disease in West Long Beach and will also help to stop global warming. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, Mr. Vice Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Daniel Heydari, and I am the Sheppard Zero Campaign Lead with Pacific Environment, which is a global climate NGO that focuses on serving poor communities and advocating for zero emissions ocean shipping. We possess rare consultative status at the United Nations International Maritime Organization, and I am based here in Long Beach. Pacific Environment. Cyber Monday 2021. Report Shady Root How big retail and their carriers pollute along key ocean shipping corridors can target an Amazon to be top big retail contributors to Long Beach ship congestion and pollution crisis. And these companies reliance on the dirtiest fuel in the market for ocean shipping. Heavy fuel oil is causing high rates of asthma, cancer and premature death in West Long Beach, where residents experience up to eight years shorter life expectancy than the Los Angeles County average, according to the city of Long Beach is 2019 Community Health Assessment. Indeed, Black Long Beach residents are hospitalized with asthma at eight times the rate and Latinx residents are twice the rate as white Long Beach residents. The problem has only worsened during the pandemic. In 2021, cargo ship congestion at the San Pedro Bay ports caused an increase in nitrogen oxide emissions, equivalent to adding 5.8 million passenger cars to the region and an increase in particulate matter emissions equivalent to 100,000 big rig trucks per day. Both pollutants are associated with higher risk of premature death. The global shipping industry accounts for 3% of global climate emissions, more than global air travel. If shipping were a country, it would be the world's sixth largest polluter, about the same emissions as the entirety of Germany. On its current trajectory, ocean trade is projected to grow as much as 130% by 2050. Over today's trade volume. If ships remain on fossil fuels, they will represent 17% of global carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century, as the most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns. If we hope to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and save our home on Earth, we must have our greenhouse gas emissions from 2019 levels by 2030. This includes demand, including industries like cargo, cargo shipping work alongside ports, governments and retailers to transition to 100% zero emission shipping this decade. Otherwise, we risk frequent power outages, deadly heat waves and uncontrollable wildfires. All life as we know it is on the line. We must do everything in our power to save everything we can before it's too late. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And a kristensen. He had me at all. Life as we know it is on the line. Just saying. I really want to thank Cindy Allen for this, introducing this item as well as the next one, which has a lot of lines crossing it out because apparently our city attorney needs to take a harder look at it. But I think we're coming to the point here where our city, our city council, our city manager are all of our staff. We need to pull together to realize that it's racism. Environmental racism and environmental justice and environment, period are all, you know, needing an awful lot of attention here. And it's really weird how when you think like growing up, how Signal Hill got separated precisely because the oil industry didn't want to have to contribute to the well-being of all the people whose oil that they were drilling. And now we have a port that's a very wealthy port. I mean, it just grows and grows and grows. And we have the president making special effort to keep the cargo moving. Right. But what about the quality of life? It's kind of stunning that you can't it doesn't make sense. Why should Wilmington be so, so poor when the port is creating so much wealth? So this disconnect, I'm not saying anything new here. Not like the guy behind me. I mean, there is your expert. When the city outsources and looks for experts, hire that guy. I mean, pay him because this is an NGO. An NGO appeared before you today that that is government standing he government his organization has government standing before the United Nations. He knows a lot about this. You know, my son did tell me this week that one cargo ship generates an incredible amount of pollution, more than so many cars. So it's good that we try to drive electric cars and conserve and do all of that. But these are the big polluters. They're are also the big job creators. And the unions back them. And that's our other issue with workers. Workers whose lives are at risk, whose own family's lives are at risk, are showing up to support big pollution. And that's something also quite unfortunate. I just came here to say that we know in the world when the oil terminal issue came up, the room had a lot of people from out of town. I don't think we are SEAL Beach. I don't think we are suspicious of someone who didn't grow up in Long Beach. That were bigger than that. We're the largest city in California. But but I do think we should pay attention when people bother when these and I know probably a lot of people were planning on coming tonight for the next agenda item as well . I saw the list of people supporting or taking a hard look at what we're doing right here in town when it comes to ending our own pollution creators, our own oil industry. So thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you. David, your last speaker. It's okay for me to speak last. Gave me time to caught the world, so to speak. Thank you for letting me speak last. It gave me time to look up my comments on Earth Day that are not part of the comment on legislative. But it doesn't matter. Very briefly, Councilwoman Allen, thank you for bringing this forward from Earth Day to today. The issue of green shipping corridors isn't just an environmental one. It's an economic one. Being able to control these shipping corridors, being able to control where the ships are charging up, especially about 200 mile marker where we were just breathing in all that pollution over these past month. That's going to matter for competitiveness for our port. As I've explained to Director Cordero and others there, it's an important item, and it may well be that the Port of Los Angeles is as much a frenemy and competitor as it is as a partner, specifically on this issue of the offshore wind leases, because that's where you can get all the juice you need to cool down the ships. I would love to see what the incentives and some of the details are of a detailed guide. Sure. But overall, thank you so much. It's a really great idea. Happy to support it. Thank you. That satisfies public comment. Take it back behind the real councilwoman Allen. Yes. I just want to say thank you to all the members of the public that came here and commented and thank you to Daniel Heydari from ship at the zero four. You said it all. I agree with everything that you said. I appreciate the advocacy of all of our allies. We're fighting the good fight. So I appreciate you showing up and speaking. This is a great item that signals our city's alignment with the green shipping goals. And I want to thank the Port of Long Beach for joining the ally Shanghai Green Shipping Corridor. This was absolutely great news. And I know that we heard this in committee and it hadn't happened yet. So. So just. Thank you. It's just positive news, you know, all around. Once this agreement is finalized, I would love to see it become a playbook to work with other ports to create more green shipping corridors. The city of Los Angeles passed a green shipping resolution on October 9th, 2021. And tonight, I hope that Long Beach will do the same and approve this kit, this committee recommendation. Our two ports, one beach and alley, both represent much economic activity and also incredible opportunity to improve our local air quality. So by working together to clean up our regional air quality. Long Beach and L.A. will continue to make a very significant and big impact. So thank you all for being here. And tastic. Thank you, Councilman Zoro. Yes. I want to thank Councilwoman Allen for her leadership on this item. You know, I think that it's important that we really look into all avenues of ways that we can reduce climate change. And I think this is a really important item that we begin to work on. So I support this item. Fantastic. I also want to just say great work to Councilwoman Allen and your committee. I've been briefed by this group and I'm happy to support the resolution today. I, I understand. Is the staff have any comments or the. From a staff perspective, I think this really is something that we'd be asking the port to take the lead on, as they're kind of the experts. We would certainly added in to our legislative agenda and be able to support the concepts and we haven't had a chance yet to really have that discussion with the port yet. But it's my understanding they're prepared to start looking at this. Okay, great members, please cast your vote. The motion is carried. Thank you. Item 32, please. Item 32 is reported from Economic Development and Public Works recommendation to execute a Supplemental Agreement to Management Agreement with ASEM Global to complete various capital improvements at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center in the amount of 1.4 million. District one. Mayor Can I just say something? I mean, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor. Let's just get the motion cleared up. I just want to go through it, Councilman. Alan, 1/2. I know I have to recuse myself because I do own two properties that are within the the FT 500 feet of the convention center. But does that lose quorum? Okay. Great. All right. Is there a staff report here? Yes. Johnny Vallejo can give a very brief staff report. Yes. Good evening. Vice Mayor and city council decided is for a supplement supplemental agreement with ASM Global to complete various capital improvements to the Long Beach Convention Entertainment Center. These improvements would include improvements to the areas of the Beverly O'Neill Theater, Terrace, Theater, Terrace, Plaza and Promenade, among others.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3429 W 3rd Avenue in Barnum, with a reasonable condition. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D1x to E-MU-2.5 (urban edge, single-unit to urban edge, multi-unit) with a waiver, located at 3429 West 3rd Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-29-19.

DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0247

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can you please vote council 247 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 247 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 247 is open. May we have the staff report? Q So Jeffrey, it was CPD, so I have a rezoning request for a property located at Third and Knox in the Barnum neighborhood. So the property is located in Council District three. Again in the barn and neighborhood. So the request area is at the northeast corner of Third and Knox Court and the request area is about 0.6 acres. The rezoning is to go from ESU, D1 Ex to EMU 2.5 with a waiver. And I'll of course explain what that means. The purpose of the request is to accommodate multi-unit residential development on the site. So the subject said again, easy d1x. So that's urban edge context, single unit. And the D1 one x denotes that an accessory dwelling unit is allowed and the surrounding properties are also ESU, D1 x. So again, ESU, D1 exits a single unit, residential zone district, which does allow for accessory dwelling units. And importantly, the maximum building height is calibrated by the front and rear of the lot. So the front, 65% of the lot can be up to 2.5 storeys and actually up to 35 feet depending on the lot with the slots big enough to qualify for the 35 feet and the rear, 35% is one story and 17 feet in height. And so the requested zone district is IMU 2.5 A Sense for Urban Edge Multi-unit 2.5 stories. And I'll get to the waiver request here in a second. But I mean, 2.5 is a zone district that allows single and two unit and multi-unit residential with multi-unit residential typically being embedded with other residential areas. And it does allow for a variety of residential building forms up to 2.5 storeys. The building height is actually similar to the existing zoned district. And the anomaly here that we'll get to in the waiver is the apartment building form and actually only allows up to two stories in height in the front 65%. And so looking at the minimum loss size, it's a bit smaller than the current zone district, but importantly also to note the half storey definition. So 2.5 storey is the maximum height in the front, 65%. And so a half storey is defined as essentially a third story. That's 75% of the floor area of the story below it. So there's a massing reduction. Additionally, within the zone district, there's standards depending on the building form for upper storeys setbacks and setbacks to further reduce that massing. And so I know this is a lot going on in this table, but it is important to kind of note this is the the basis for the waiver. So this table shows the allowed building forms and IMI 2.5 on the left hand side. And then looking at the heights, the building heights across these building forms and the front, 65%. So really uniform across most building forms with a 30 to 35 feet in the front, 65% and the 2.5 stories. And so this is the issue right here or the reason for the waiver request as the apartment building form has the same height allowance, 30 to 35 feet, but it only allows two stories and the rear 35% is similar to the other building forms. So this is just visually showing what the waiver request is on the screen. So it is a request for IMI 2.5 with the waiver. And the specific waiver is to the apartment building form to allow 2.5 storeys instead of being capped at two stories in the front, 65%. And so looking at existing land uses. So the subject site is currently it's actually vacant, it's shown a surface parking and the existing land use and has been vacant for some time. You see up and down the Knox Court corridor, while it does have that single unit, residential zoning, there's actually a mix of land uses. The read on this map is office and then the blue as a church. And we'll talk a little bit more about the Knox Court corridor here in the next slide. So the Knox quiet corridor is, I would say, a significant North-South connector in terms of connecting Barnham to the rest of Denver look in between federal and Sheridan . So it is a corridor that has some recent investment in terms of a new bicycle lane. And and then I also noted that there are several existing nonresidential uses along this corridor. Despite the residential zoning, most structures on this corridor are 1.5 storeys. There are some exceptions to that, even though the zoning allows buildings to go taller than that, going up to potentially 35 feet and two and a half stories in the front, 65%. And there's also a couple nonresidential commercial nodes within two blocks of the subject site on the Knox Court corridor at first and fifth. So you see it's a it's a mixed and mixed corridor in terms of land use and character, despite its its zoning. And so looking at the current site and on to some images here. So as I said, it is currently surface parking and actually has been vacant for several years and it's fenced off and has seen a fair amount of disrepair in recent years. Historically, it's always been a nonresidential use as far as we can tell in our records. Previously, before being a surface parking lot, it was a telephone service company garage with a small structure there. And so looking at images of the subject sites, those looking northeast at the site, you see it's fenced off and it was surface parking. You see the bicycle lane. I will note there's also a bus stop right in front of the site that connects this site along with the bicycle lanes pretty well to the overall mobility network . But you have to the north, the west light rail line, Knox Court Station, which is less than a mile away. Straight, north, north, straight. Shot from the site. And so this is looking kind of south, south, west say it is on the left hand side of the screen and this is looking from Third Avenue West. So you can see where the alley meets the subject's site. And so this is looking straight west of the subject's side. And you can see the the mix of land uses there and beliefs as an office mixed them with some of the single unit residential. And then this is looking south more broadly of the Knox Court corridor. Looking north. So you see again, the mix of land uses in this case, on the other side of Knox Court, we have the church, which is two and a half ish stories. And then these are strong properties that are directly east of the subject sites or across the alley, both fronting on Julien Street. You see the the one, one and a half storey character of that area as it jumps across the alley. So the process to date has been a normal rezoning process leading to the hearing tonight in terms of public outreach and public comment. There was extensive dialog between the applicant and the neighborhood organization, and I'll certainly let them talk about that if they'd like. But we did not ever receive a position letter from the Concerned Citizens for Burnham on the rezoning, but we did receive a total of three letters on the rezoning, two in support, and then one letter expressing concerns about the potential scale, inappropriate scale of buildings with the rezoning and some reference to the Barnum neighborhood plan, which we'll talk about, and policies there supporting continuance of the low density residential character and a stated preference in that letter for RH 2.5 instead of the requested zone district. So these are the criteria staff used to evaluate rezonings. I'll go through each one of these. And so we have the newly adopted citywide plans, comp plan and Blueprint. Denver And then we have the Barnham neighborhood plan. And we'll go through here briefly. So in terms of the conference plan, 2040 staff cites a number of policies in the staff report in support of the rezoning, mostly related to promoting infill development on a site where services and infrastructure already exist. And then also a number of policies in the comp plan supporting encouraging a diversity in a variety of housing types and each neighborhood. And this rezoning would do that. So staff finds the request consistent with those policies in terms of blueprint. Denver The newly adopted blueprint. Denver There's three topics that we look at, and I'll go through those briefly here. So in terms of future neighborhood context blueprint, Denver calls the site as urban edge. And so they are going to the urban edge zoning neighborhood context. It also does have language and blueprint in Denver within this context related to allowing some low scale multi-unit embedded with neighborhoods. In terms of the future places. The subject site is in the low, medium residential category, which is different than what it was under the previous blueprint. This particular category does have language that supports additional density at appropriate locations and multi-unit residential embedded in some neighborhood, some residential neighborhoods. And it does also look at vacant corner sites as potential opportunities for increased density. And I should note also that the Knox Court quarter is a residential collector. Third Avenue is a designated local. So in terms of the growth strategy, kind of the third tier blueprint, it is in the all other areas of the city. There is language in the, um, uh, within that category of supporting some rezonings and some investment at appropriate locations. So the barn and Barn West Neighborhood Plan is an adopted plan. The site is subject to for the rezoning. Her staff recognizes the plan is 30 plus years old and community conditions have changed a lot since then. However, it is important to look at that document and there are a number of policies that do support continuance and preservation of the existing low density residential character. There's also other policies in there that support reinvestment at strategic locations as well. And so looking at sort of the balance of adopted plans across the citywide and local plan, staff does find the request consistent with adopted plans because it would promote infill development in a place where services and infrastructure already exist, create a greater diversity of housing choices in this neighborhood, and be consistent with the context, the urban edge context called from Blueprint in Denver, and then also support a context sensitive scale of investment through the height and the transitions within the zone district. So criteria to the number is off your stuff to find the rezoning will result in uniform application of standards within this unique zone district related to the public health, safety and welfare staff does find the requests are consistent with that criteria, primarily through implementing adopted plan policies, as I said, related to encouraging a diversity of housing types and encouraging an investment that is context sensitive. And then looking at justifying circumstances. The fact that Blueprint Denver was adopted is in itself a justifying circumstance. And the the policies, the new policies that were assigned to this property. But we also staff also cited other factors, including some recent investment in bicycle infrastructure, better connecting the site to the nearby light rail station. And in terms of the consistency with the urban edge neighborhood context description, staff does find the request consistent with that criteria related to the description about block sizes and the overall grid pattern and access off of alleys, things like that. And the fact that the request is going to promote multi-unit residential embedded within a primarily residential area. So at that staff does recommend approval of the rezoning and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening. So first up, Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris represent for Denver, home of Salau, Black Starks and Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm on. Top of the ballot for at large. Make sure you vote by tomorrow. I was originally against this rezoning request because I thought it was just going to be more gentrification as usual. This neighborhood, this part of town, as all other parts of town, has been rapidly gentrified to no avail. Seeing that there's. Going to be allowed to use. I'm a supporter to use. So I'm in support of this rezoning. I had a few questions, though. I wanted to know exactly what the RMR level was. Going to be for this. This was going to be a rental. Or if this is going to be market. Is it going to be ownership? If you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Oh. My name is Chairman Sekou. I will be the. Next mayor of the city. And. This particular item. I support. Finally. You'll get this right. You got it right. And I expect a unanimous. Vote. On this thing. Well, because it satisfies all the criteria that exist. That's number one. And two, what's different about this one is that it finally begins to do the. Innovative process of creative thinking of how we can begin to. Address this housing issue. Now, I know we ain't supposed to be talking. Good about folks up here, and this is just generic. It doesn't apply to any one particular use class. But you know what? Congratulations. And you know what I'm talking about. And we go a long way back. Almost 15 years. This thing. For me. And those would probably be the last time that I show like this on this side of the podium. So. Happy birthday for. Congratulations on a successful. Year living my. I didn't know this is his birthday. Yeah. He's going to. Basketball. And I just want to say that and good luck. In the future. You're my hero. You did good. Thank you, ma'am. And keep on doing good. That's all I got. Thank you. Next up, Phil Workman. Thank you very much. Phil Workman. 130 Rampart Way. Denver, Colorado 80230. Found out when I was signing in on the iPad that I didn't have my readers. Which reminds me, I had a birthday not that long ago and and reminds me that I'm getting older as well. It also brings up that we started working on this project three years ago. Our first meeting with neighbors was in April of 2016 at the site, and I let the applicant describe what they do or what their vision for this. But I want to thank the neighbors that have worked with us over the last three years, as well as the city of Denver, to help get what our vision is, what what what the mission is of what the applicant would like to do, as well as what fits in within the plan and things that we heard from the neighbors as we went through this process. Basically, when we first met with the neighbors, the applicant came to us and and said, what, you know, what can we do? Let's meet with some neighbors here. And this has been vacant land for a long time. It's been commercial land. It was a parking lot used by a church. What's the vision? What, what what are the neighbors want? And we went through a process. We've met with the neighbors and small groups. We've met with neighbors one on one. We've met with the neighborhood organization. We've done a SurveyMonkey that was sponsored by the neighborhood, both in English and in Spanish with over 100 responses, which was gave us a lot of feedback of what we were looking to do and this or what what the neighbors were looking for at the site. And every one of our when we would announce our neighborhood meetings, we would go door to door with fliers, English on one side, Spanish on the other side. We didn't initially do that, and there was some came from the neighborhood and say, what about letting folks from the neighborhood also know what's going on in Spanish as well ? So that's when we put out the survey in both English and Spanish and also door to door. Initially, we we heard a lot and and just presentation, which I won't go through again, like the rationale or where we are with the particulars of the zoning. But we heard a lot from, you know, a lot has changed along this corridor. A lot of exciting things have happened in Branham birthday or a lot of exciting things have gone. A part of this is a corridor is the bike bicycle corridor, Parks Rec Center. I mean, this this neighborhood is is fantastic. And going to have some neighbors here speak to that in a second. So we wanted to take advantage of of that. And we wanted to provide a product that the neighbors can be proud of that would fit within the framework of what the neighborhood would be most interested in. Interestingly, there was a I'm. Sorry, but your time is up. Okay. All right. Next time around for any questions. Thank you. Next up, Greg Osborn. Good evening. My name is Greg Osborn. I am a partner in unlocking equity, the owner of the property. My address is 4021 Nassau Circle, West Inglewood, Colorado, 80113. Some of the initial questions that were thrown out were, what's the what's the mix here? What does this thing ultimately look like? And while we've done lots of iterations on what might work here, it all depends on what the ultimate density can be. I do want to commit to you all that we are attainable housing people and our vision for this site is and always will be attainable. Housing as informed by the neighborhood conversations we've had and the need in the market. I want to share one quick anecdote from an elderly gentleman who attended one of our earlier neighborhood meetings, and he said, Please build something here that my daughter who's entering the workforce in Denver can afford to live in while she starts her career in Denver. So that's something we won't forget in our quest. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Charles Moore. Hi there. My name is Shayla moore. I live at four, six, eight Stewart Street in Burnham. West and I've lived there for ten years now. I've been a residential realtor for over seven years and I've been on the Barnum Arnaud's board KBE for over four years. I spoke on behalf of Matt and his team at the. Zoning meeting. In March. And over the last few years, Matt and his team have reached out to Barnum's community many times, surveying what Barnum neighbors would like to see built, as well as attending and engaging with residents at multiple neighborhood meetings. One thing I hear from the. Neighborhood in our meetings. Over and over again is that we need attainable. Housing that is. Compatible with Barnum. Not with our northern neighbors. I believe that Barnum needs density. In order to create this attainable housing. As you know, right now, the site is an overgrown parking lot. I'd like to see this development set a precedent for future developments in Burnham, one of attainable housing. Architectural facades in line with the neighborhood, and one that encourages more community and. Activity. Within Barnum. And I believe Matt and his team. Can do this for us. That's it. Thank you. Next up, Matthew Guarino. Good evening. My name is Matt Guarino. I live at seven 221 South Pontiac Way, Centennial, Colorado. And I'm a partner with Greg Osbornes who spoke just a minute ago and we received a call four plus years ago based on our mission from someone that owned, owned the church and this parking lot. This property was not on the market, but they heard our mission was and this is on the back of one of our cards. It's twofold. One is to provide housing for those that need it. And the second part is to create opportunity for those that want it. You know, we understand that nothing happens without a roof over your head. So that's why we put that as a focus for our work. But also, we're trying to create empowerment and that trying to encourage people that they can own their own home. So the sisters, not nuns, but the sisters that own the church. Where this was a part. They also owned this parking lot, called us because of our mission. And they said, we'd like you to buy this because we think that you can do something important not only for Barnum, but hopefully for the city. And one of the things during this three plus years. Talk about birthdays. Birthdays, three plus years that we've been on this journey is that I've been blown away by the folks at Barnum. Blown away. You know, there's so much divisiveness, divisiveness in the world today and people making the other side wrong to make their side right. We've had 30 town hall meetings, 30 to create this outcome. Opportunities for housing for those who need it and opportunities for those that want it. And we're really proud to be coming towards the end of this. And in this period that we've been working on this process. My oldest child, I have a 24, 22, 20 and 18 year old graduated college, worked for the U.S. government, doing a Fulbright scholarship in South America, came back and she can't afford to live in Denver. It gets really real when that starts happening. So we are more empowered and emboldened than ever to make this happen. And we appreciate very much the folks at Parnham and hopefully we have your support tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Sarah Brown. Hi. My name is Sarah Brown and I am a resident at. 114 Knox Court. Which is less than two blocks from the potential site here. And the reason that I am here tonight is my husband and I finally were able to afford this house in this beautiful, wonderful neighborhood. And we've taken a lot of pride in this home. It was built in 1915, and Helen Bartle originally did own this home at one time. We put a lot of effort into preserving this house and I've had to do a. Lot of research to learn about what's happening here. I am an education coach with early childhood. Teachers, so I knew nothing about this. So I have been reading and following along for over a year now. And the biggest thing that I, I like about this is that. This process is unique and that the neighbors and the. Neighborhood organization have the opportunity to work through the site development plan process, ensuring architectural dignity in Barnham. And I think that's really important for those of us that live there, especially being that close. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Coleman. Hello. My name is John Coleman. I'm a resident of Barnham. I live at 345 Irving Street, so actually just right around the corner from this proposed site here. I'm actually the president of the the Barnham R.A. Organization. I'm not actually speaking on behalf of our organization. Anything I say is just coming from me personally. But I've taken that role since January of this year. In addition to that, I'm also in residential real estate, and I've been in real estate for about four. This is my fourth year here, so I kind of know the. Some of the markets as well around. Our house as well. I guess one of the things I kind of want to bring up in the I guess my biggest. Point is that through through the last several years that we've been talking about. This with Phil and the Parker Company, is that I mean, a this is a developer that is actually looking at what the community wants and working with us and saying, hey, you know, what does the community want to see? Do you want it? What esthetically do you want to see? We can't work on that yet because we have to get through this process first. So I really appreciate that they're actually working with the community and not just saying, Hey, we're going to build this and we're going to, you know, not take anything and take into consideration . On top of that, I feel like there was three main areas that we could actually have this lot developed into because we know it's going to be developed. It's just how long it's going to take to to be developed. And so those three options were residential single family homes, which is zoned now for with the ADA use on there. One of them was a mixed use which would have retail on. The bottom and residential on top, which I believe was denied and taken out of the context here. And then the other option, which is what we're looking at here, is the affordable housing and the attainable housing that would be smaller units. I am all for that. As I know for a fact that single family homes with resident or ADA use in the back would be well over half a million dollars. I know that I'm closing on a property that is a 82 home with the single family home blocks from this, and it's over half a million dollars and it's built in 1950. So I know for a fact that this is not going to be affordable if you put single family homes with 80 use, if we can build something that's actually obtainable because that's the other thing, there's affordability and there's a attainability and they're kind of two separate issues. But I know for a fact that that's a lot of when my my first time homebuyers are dealing with. So if we can build something that would actually be affordable and obtainable for people. I think that's the best use of this out of this lot. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this? Councilman Espinosa. Yes, I think I. Actually Jeff and the owners as well. So. Is there is there any limitation prohibition on what can be built here, meaning that? I mean, there's a lot of talk about this affordability component, but, you know, in the study X, a townhouse is not an allowed form, but in the IMU it is. But in order to let it, which is a very different outcome than what is being seemingly discussed about the apartment form. So so you're you're wanting to know if I understand it. The resumption of developer agreement that compels this affordable project to go forward. Not as part of the rezoning. Is. So to the owners, is there some sort of agreement in place that compels an affordable project to go forward? There's not an agreement that I'm aware of. You know, we've like you've heard we've been in this thing for three and a half years and we have no idea what the numbers are for, depending on what the what the density outcome is. We've got several different concept plans, all in the attainable housing space, but nothing definitively ironed out yet. We've got job costing to do. We've got architectural to do. We've got all kinds of work to undertake. Once this, you know, hopefully we get we get your support, but there's no definitive agreement in place. I assume that that would be part of the development plan and permitting process once we submit. Actually, I'm asking a question that is recognizably extra extra outside of the two true criteria, but it is been a lot of the dialog, both from you, your representation and the community. And so therefore it's part of the public hearing and I'd like to elaborate. So attainable housing. What is your definition of attainable housing? So attainable housing to me is very simply something that an entry level worker could afford, whether it's market rate, whether it's rental in the apartment form, or whether it's if these things are rowhouses or townhouses, if that's the highest and best something that first time homebuyer could afford. That's what we do. That's our space. That's our definition. Okay, great. And I just wanted to elaborate. You asked a question about, am I right that that's typically something that's associated with low income tax credits, right? Public subsidies or public funding? We are completely private. Right. So we don't have those kinds of requirements. But, you know, we self-imposed those on our you know, on our work. What we're trying to do is create attainable housing. That's everything, you know. But for us, the speed and the the sometimes limitations that come with that are what we're trying to avoid. So our goal is to create, like said first time homebuyer. So I didn't actually say, am I? But I'm familiar with it. And so I appreciate you bringing it up. So in your attainable housing goals, what is your target? Am I for a representative household size of how big? We wouldn't. That's again, that's the criteria for it. But what we would say is that just like Greg indicated, for people that are, you know, first time homebuyers, that's what we're looking for. Right. So to say that that artificial income level is not how we look at it. Okay. So, Jeff, the real question I had to begin with is. You know, in first off, I want to appreciate the fact that CPD came forward with a 2.5 with waivers with the 60%, 6535 split, which is different than how we've been presented a similar waiver in the past. That said, this will allow an apartment for the apartment form still allows side by side dwelling units. Fortunately, there's a 50% maximum on the gross gross for the GFA of the structure. So we can't get a true slot home product. But you sort of could the. Is there anything. You know. Well, actually, it goes back to him now. And sorry, I'm realizing that this goes back to my original question about is there any commitment to use the apartment form for stacked units? But it's just one of the schemes, is that correct? It's it's they have that option and there's more flexibility with the apartment form than like the row house form, for example. But there's no mandate to do it stacked. It just allows more flexibility with the configuration of units. Okay. Then last question to you guys. Do you guys do condos? Because, I mean, is this would you this be a for sale product in a staff configuration or only a rental product in the stack? Once we get our density number, we can go back to the drawing board and run iterations on all of the product types allowed in the form that we're discussing, condos would absolutely be one of those performers that we would run, as well as for rent and row house. Okay. Thank you, guys. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I was looking at the map. Mm hmm. How long is that parking lot? I mean, just. And I live not too far away. I live over on Sixth and Knox. All I remember, I mean, the little neighborhood of one of the neighborhoods I grew up in. All I remember is that just being a parking lot, I don't remember anything else on that. I'm trying to think and that's a good maybe 35 years of of of memory that I can tap into what was on the site before and when was on that and when was that? Yeah, we had trouble pinning down a specific date, but we were looking at historic aerials and at least since the mid-nineties we found it was it's been a surface parking lot. And before that and I don't know exactly when it got demolished, but before that, the only structure we found evidence of was a a small telephone company service garage structure. And so I don't know the exact square footage, but you could see from the footprint it's pretty small, relatively overall. So I wonder if we went into the records if or any library archives if that at one point was connected to the Westwood Telephone Company. That's where Westwood gets its name, by the way, a lot of people think, well, Westwood, you know, as we California, this is not Westwood L.A., but it's completely different. But it it derives his name from the Westwood Telephone Company. A lot of the folks that were workers of the 20th century and turn of the century, but, uh, for those thirties were employees. I wonder if there anything. I mean, I can't do anything about it now because it's demolished. And I wonder if there's anything. That's why I'm curious as to what was there before and if that was the connection. Can you talk to me a little bit about if we're driving? If you're walking excuse me for riding bikes because there is a bike lane there. If you're commuting down Knox, you have a lot of single family homes. Some of them are in. You have some multi-unit. You have to go to a few to unit multi-unit uses. There you have commercial. You have front yards. How far is the setback from the property line. To the door? So it will be under the new zoning and the current zoning is subject to a context sensitive senator from Knox. So the baseline is 20 feet, which is, I think, pretty consistent with what's out there now. There would be an analysis done to make sure it essentially lines up with what's there, anything that gets built and good. Now, looking at the the corner. So that would be the. Looking at the intersection, the northeast corner, which is as you go up in that property, what does that corner look like? Is there a community space? Is there bike rack? Is somebody's front yard? I mean, I want to get a kind of a just a visual in terms of what that what that footprint would look like and if there's any kind of entryway into the units at that point or are they all just facing the court? Is there any kind of diagonal corner there? Yeah, that unfortunately can't answer. That's more of a design question. I don't know if the applicant's a be more of a question of the applicants in terms of the I mean, there's certainly bike parking that's required and things like that, but it doesn't get into architectural standards in terms of the zoning. And I understand that as part of zoning, I'm just trying to kind of visualize when you guys see context and context sensitive, you know? Barnum Our neighborhoods context is very the context is that it really has no one unique context that's a little different. You kind of have a hodgepodge, everything. You have a bungalow, next thing you know, you have a prefab, next thing you know, you have a stucco. Who knows what? Right. And then then sometimes you have adobe look in all the units as well, too. So I'm just trying to figure that out. All right. And I saw that there was some opposition with that opposition. I mean, there was some letters that came in the readdress those issues. Yeah. The there's one letter that didn't explicitly state opposition to the rezoning or just express concerns. And that's what I wanted to be clear. The concerns yeah, the concerns were and I could pull it up and it's certainly in your packet but one the scale of buildings potentially here relative to the surrounding area. And so going through each one I guess for example. So in that case, the scale in terms of how tall a building could be is, you know, something that is actually similar to what's allowed today. So the height is actually consistent today with what is going to be allowed under this new zoning, which is a different you could do multi-unit instead of single unit. The second concern is related to, I think, addressing the Burnham Neighborhood Plan. And so I think there were citation of some policies in there about preserving the low density residential character. And so that is certainly an adopted plan and we have to look at it. But I think on balance, in terms of the age and the change of conditions and the other citywide policies, staff's opinion was, you know, looking on balance of all the policies that the request are still consistent with adopted plan policies. The third issue raised in the letter was a preference for another zoned district and that being Area 2.5. And so that was a zone district that was part of the suite of options we looked at with the applicant team and ultimately it wasn't going to work for them. Okay. One more question, Mr. President, if I may. And I just I had it in they give me another year on my life here. So I'm starting to really feel that now. I'm 41, just July 18th, for the record. I am wondering about the neighborhood plan. How old were you in 1986? I'll take the fifth on that one. I was. Archive of my life, so I was. Probably watching Top Gun the day that it was adopted. Yeah. No, man Top Gun came out a little earlier than that. So is this being addressed? So is there any kind of update? My my worry is, is some of these older plans. Villa Park is 1991. Before we before we touched Westwood, that was 1978 and 79. Barnum is from 1986. It's a very different neighborhood is I think there's something coming up. Where is this being scheduled for review? And I'm I'm asking this in the context of this rezoning, because this is not the first time that we're probably going to see a rezoning in this neighborhood in the future, especially with this old, old neighborhood plan. Gosh, I apologize. I'm not sure when it's scheduled. And I know that given the date of the plan, I don't want to misspeak. But I believe it's it's up in the priority list. Okay. That's why I wanted to thank you so much. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez and Jeff actually got to the core of what my question was. It was about the single letter expressing concern, and I have read that email from Mr. Krueger about it. And I do note I guess the only thing I'd be interested in clarifying is does CPD have a threshold for the age of plans when when it because the direction in the Barnum Barnum West neighborhood plan would argue against this rezoning. But that was 1986. And Councilman when I was alive and I was probably sitting at that table covering the council, passing that plan for the newspaper. But I don't have a specific memory of it. But how when do we cut them off and no longer rely on them, particularly when it has direction that argues against the rezoning ? Yeah. I wish I had a specific metric for you. I don't. I think it's it's a case by case determination made. But I think in this case, you know, when you consider the breadth of plans and the average age of a plan, it's really in the in the very lower tier in terms of age. And so more. Important, I guess I'm sorry to cut you off, but more important than would be, how much change has there been in that neighborhood since the plan in Barnum? There's been a significant change since 1986, maybe. Yeah, that's certainly true. We've seen a lot of of new investments. The park, for example, nearby the West light rail line coming through there. I think that, you know, 30 plus years has been a lot of change. So it's a big factor in looking at the age of the plan relative current. Thank you. And well, certainly if if if a 3032 year old plan supported a rezoning 32 years later, we'd certainly be relying more on it. And we wouldn't be dismissing it, would we? Probably not. I think we'd still look at the plan with skepticism, regardless of the change conditions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Jeff. Can you tell me what kind of parking requirements would be included as part of this development? And and have you have you all jointly calculated just roughly how many total units can be on this site? Yeah, the first into the first question is one space per unit would be the parking requirement and there's bicycle parking requirement to figure out exactly what that is. But the second question, we haven't because we just don't know at this point. Unfortunately, it could in terms of the number of units. And so it really depends on the type of units and the configuration of units. And so, for example, we could be looking at really small micro units or we could be looking at 1500 square feet, you know, two and three bedroom units. So not knowing what the unit configuration is makes it really difficult to get at a unit count. But there certainly would be vehicle parking one per unit, regardless of the size of the unit. Okay. So let me ask either Matthew or Greg, if you wouldn't mind addressing the same question, just trying to get an idea of how many units you're proposing to have on the site. And I know it's not something you have to tell us, but I would assume you haven't spent all this time going through the process with the neighborhood without some idea of, you know, generally what you could build on the site. So so that's true. We've we've been running scenarios for three and a half years, you know, pondering what might happen here. A reminder that currently four units could exist used by right on the site, which clearly is not the highest and best use. Regarding parking, I would I would say that the remember the back 35% is restricted to single storey. So that's an ideal use for the parking required on the site. But, you know, we've run scenarios from, you know, from the from the four units when we first bought this thing up to, you know, 30 or 40 units in the micro sense, 15. I mean, so much of this is is hard to even address because it's not only the unit count, it's the cost to build it. And as Matt said, we're private people. We're not asking for public money to help get this thing done. It's all our money. So we want to we had all these costs and risk analyzes to do to run the numbers and make them work. So that's only just really begun with with the with the density in question. But I think in keeping with our mission of attainable housing, more units is our is our extreme bias. I mean, more people need housing in the city and more is better in our sense. So that's what we'll try to do as long as the affordability numbers are there from a market perspective. So if you do micro units, does the parking requirements change significantly? And Jeff, you may be better to answer this question. So if. Yeah. And I apologize. I don't. And Jeff, before you answer that question, we're having a little bit of trouble, the interpreter hearing you. So if you could speak a little bit louder in the microphone, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Yeah. Gosh, I don't I should know this. I believe there is some flexibility. I could look into it for micro units and some parking reductions. I know there's flexibility for proximity to transit. This is not going to be subject to that. But I'd have to look into that if the lower square footage brings you lower parking requirements. And I could do that. Okay. That that would be helpful to know. And so while you're doing that, the the last question that I had was related to whether there has been any exploration on where a curb cut would go, assuming there has to be parking on site, would that be off a court or would that be on the avenue? Yeah. So we asked that question of the folks that we review the site plan and what they told us was no access would would be allowed off of Knox Court. It would come off the alley more than likely. Okay. I'm sorry. I do have one last question. And it is about the the difference between the IMU 2.5 and the assumed DCS. One is the half story. The the main difference between the two in terms of of I know the the height is the same, but yet the IMU is being requested because it allows the 2.5 for the apartment concept. Yeah, the height is the same actually in terms of of how it's measured in feet and number of stories actually between the current zone district and the proposed district. It's just the ability to use the apartment form that allows a little more flexibility with the unit configuration within that sort of building envelope. Okay. All right. If you I don't know if anybody else has questions, but if you could just check on the. Yes. Amount of parking for the micro units, that would be really helpful to know, I think. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. That concludes the questions. The public hearing for Connersville two for seven is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Lopez? Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank folks for for doing such a good job of making sure that there is a lengthy community process, a robust community process. Y'all have been working this for quite a while and making sure that you're taking into account the current context in the neighborhood is good. I think there's been different iterations with different zone districts. I really appreciate you me coming to that meeting mean to that middle. There is no letter of opposition there. Council chambers are not packed with a bunch of folks who are who are opposed to it. And that's a good sign. And sometimes you will get a lot of folks in here upset about something like this and on its on its on its merits. And based off of the criteria that we have, it does meet it. And the important thing is it's a parking lot. It is a parking lot. And it's always been a parking lot since I can remember I was eight years old in 1986 and running around that neighborhood. And the fact that that parking lot will not be home to weeds, but be home to potentially families and folks that actually can afford to live there. And that's that's what matters. And, you know, taking that context and, you know, context and design is nothing. It's not something that we can consider legally based on that criteria. But you're going that extra mile and kind of helping. Describe to us what that looks like based off of the input that you've had in the communities is a good thing, given that I think, you know, you have an opportunity to actually create something that could be a landmark in this area. Burnhams For a little landmarks. Some of them are very disappointing forever. I thought, you know, Barnum had the zoo and all the zoo animals and all that stuff. And I come to find out that even the Barnum home, P.T. Barnum ever even laid foot in it. But it's good to have something that's not disappointing in terms of history like that. I think this is an opportunity for for you all to demonstrate to everybody else in the city that something like this can be done, giving a good community process, making sure you're taking those those strategies and those that that input into account. I think that matters, right? As residents, we drive by it every day. We live by it every day. We want to be part of the solution. But at the end of the day, it's still our neighborhood and it's a good, happy meeting. So and thank you for coming. And that traffic must have been crazy coming. Yeah. There are no more shortcuts to the neighborhood. And anyway, that's another conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Espinosa. Phil, Phil Workman, Speedy Jeff Hurt, Kyle Dalton. You guys did it. You painted me into a very, very difficult corner. And that one is you've painted this rezoning in just the right ways, big in. What I mean by that is this is a significant increase in entitlement and over any sort of adopted plan and it's loosely affiliated to the blueprint Denver but in it hits those recommendations but it is you know one of the things I've already articulated since we've adopted that and even before we adopted the new plan was the need to customize zoning so that we don't just take the recommendations verbatim and start mapping them into existing zone districts and hope for the best that you build in to those zone districts. The, the other things that those plans articulated. Now, I'd love to see the equity components that have been discussed here hardcoded somehow, but at least the form the transitional pieces are there with that 6535 split, the one story limitation on the rear. This is dramatically different than the holly situation that we had, which allowed that two and a half stories all the way to the rear setback line in a similar context. And so you've done it formally, but the thing that gives me pause but it's not enough pause is that we're now allowing both the apartment form and the townhouse form to enter into this into this parcel, into this loan line. And that's an easy exit in this market, right? Is if these guys realize that they can't make the numbers work on these affordable units, but they can capture equity that helps them complete their mission elsewhere. It's an easy turn and flip to another developer who can build townhouse product. Now, historically, that would have been a slot home. And that what bothers me about that is then we are jumping, we're going from Jefferson Park in the Sloan's Lake into West Colfax and then jumping Lakewood Gulch and Sixth Avenue into this neighborhood with a slot home. The good news is we did the slide home text amendment. So the combination of the form restrictions that are brought by the waivers and the slot home text amendment would sort of at least compel a different outcome from the public realm side. But it doesn't. There's nothing in here that precludes this from being market rate product scaled at a size that hits the maximum top dollar. And but unfortunately, that's not justification for denying an application. But I've seen all of this mostly for staff. Which is that you've painted a very narrow box that satisfies essentially all the all the things that I would push back on. But it doesn't hit a lot of those vision elements just by hitting the base entitlement and the upper storey step back requirements. There are other things in that plan that should be driving. There's no access to high frequency transit. This is just a couple blocks, three blocks from the fire station. You know, it's a dangerous place for kids necessarily to be at if there's high speed vehicles going up and down knocks. And so but it is access to park. So there's a lot of other things in those vision elements that I think we still need to be grappling with as we go, as we do land use map amendments and text amendments going forward. But this one will check all the boxes. And so you'll see me sort of begrudgingly supporting it, because until this project comes to fruition with those with that affordability lens, I worry that it may not. And that is that has ramifications for this community going forward. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Excuse me. So I just wanted to see if we can get the final question, the final answer to the question about the parking on the micro units. Thank you. It's a quick answer. No, they're not. They wouldn't be allowed to have the parking reduction for a micro unit on this zoning. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Black eye. Brooks. I. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I learned in. High. Cashmere. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Ortega. SUSSMAN Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours 12 hours counts Bill 247 has passed council minutes. Will you please put council bill 127 on the floor?

Recommendation to request that District One's carry-over funds from 2014-2015 in the amount of $29,102 be directed to the district office budget. These funds will be used for District One community and neighborhood events and meetings.

LongBeachCC_02162016_16-0160

Item 23 Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez recommendation to request that District Ones carryover funds from the 2014 2015 fiscal year in the amount of $29,102 be directed to the District Office budget. So staff report. This is a request from District one to carryover funds that aren't going to be utilized for infrastructure for other purposes. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. And I think this was just in response to a changed policy that we had from the city manager's office. So that's what we'll be doing. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. I support it and I anticipate a bunch of these coming forth with this new change in policy. But I'm glad to see it being worked through. Thank you. I appreciate that as well. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on hearing item number 23? Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report back within 60 days on how the City can work with traffic and navigation app companies to reduce the prevalence of cut through traffic routed through residential neighborhoods.

LongBeachCC_03192019_19-0258

If we don't just do a just a I'm sorry. You know, Councilman Price is actually here very kindly, but is actually not feeling well and hasn't been. And so she has one item which shouldn't take too long. So let me hear item 23. That way she can get better. And then we will go to the first to the hearing. So if the council doesn't mind, please let me do item 23. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Council Member, Super Knob, Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to request the city manager to report back within 60 days on how the city can work with traffic and navigation app companies to reduce traffic routed through residential neighborhoods. Thank you very much, Councilman Price. Thank you. The item pretty much speaks for itself. This is an issue that other cities have dealt with in terms of how some of the applications that are used for navigation are routing traffic. As we all know, some residential streets are not appropriate for a high volume of traffic, whether it's because they don't have appropriate crosswalks, whether it's because the roads are narrow, whether it's because of the noise impacts to the neighborhood, whatever the case may be. A lot of our residential streets are not designed for cut through traffic. And I know that companies like Waze and I'm sure there are other companies as well, have worked in the past with our city, but as well as with other cities in collaboration to try to identify streets that would not be appropriate for rerouting commute traffic. So the request really is to have staff reach out to any of these app developers to see if there's a way that we can take some of our residential streets that are being used as cut through traffic alternatives out of circulation for these app developers. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you. I think this is a good opportunity for us to do a little bit more research and report back. And and thank you for counsel to Councilmember Price for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Price, for bringing this forward. Being in the seventh District, we are highly impacted by a lot of this port traffic and are having this study would be a tremendous benefit to see that make sure that trucks are aren't directed to residential areas where streets cannot accommodate. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Pearce? Yeah. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I do want to ask staff, you know, I had a couple of community emails on this item around the fact that we're all taxpayers and pay for all the streets. And so I'm just curious if there's been cities that have been successful at mitigating traffic through residential neighborhoods. And then I'll say one more thing. Seventh Street, while not a residential neighborhood, has a lot of homes and driveways. And so I'm just concerned about the impact of of kind of trying to offset some of that. Councilmember. Different cities had mixed success on this. So we'll give it a try and look at what streets are important to us. And certainly Seventh Street is one that we can add as well. Well, I mean, Seventh Street is a main thoroughfare, right. Like people take it from Cal State to get to downtown. And so I know we've had a crisis, an identity crisis on Seventh Street, but I just think it is worth a fuller conversation about how we absorb traffic on those streets. And if there's I know we're trying to do a seventh Street visioning again soon. So I just want to be considerate about those main thoroughfares as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Good evening. So I just want a little clarification. I think this is a great item, and I know the intent is to, uh, to improve the quality of our neighborhoods. Right. Welcome, everybody. I got here a little late, but I wanted some clarity on on the app companies. Are we talking like ways that Google the for for like what ride share or is it all of the above for anyone that's using an app to get to Long Beach. The item is doesn't specify. So if there are if there is a particular interest we have, we can certainly talk about it and include it. I was thinking more the navigation apps like Waze or Google Maps that are routing routing traffic away from hazardous or, you know, not hazardous but congested areas. But certainly they can explore beyond that if that's something you're interested in, like rideshare apps. Right. And we're probably in an interesting time in our city's history with a lot of construction and infrastructure work going on. I'm sure that there might be a little bit of a I would just say it, like I said, an interesting point in time where we have to take that into consideration as well. But I'm looking forward to staff's report and I'm happy to support this. Thank you. There is a motion and a second is are public comment on this item saying none, please cast your votes.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP DV19-007 and award contracts to AECOM Technical Services Inc., of Los Angeles, CA; City Fabrick, of Long Beach, CA; Environmental Science Associates, of Los Angeles, CA; Gruen Associates, of Los Angeles, CA; HDR Engineering, Inc., of Long Beach, CA; Impact Sciences, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA; Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., of Orange, CA; Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., of San Luis Obispo, CA; LSA Associates, Inc., of Irvine, CA; Meridian Consultants, LLC, of Westlake Village, CA; Michael Baker International, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA; PlaceWorks, of Santa Ana, CA; Prevention Institute, of Oakland, CA; Psomas, of Santa Ana, CA; Rincon Consultants, of Ventura, CA; RRM Design Group, of San Luis Obispo, CA; S. Groner Associates, Inc., of Long Beach, CA; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA; Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc., of Culver City, CA; Veronica Tam and Associates, of Pasadena, CA; and, Willdan Engineering, of Industry, CA, for on-call environmental, planning, affordable housing, and community engagement consultant services,

LongBeachCC_03052019_19-0192

Thank you. Now. Could we please catch the votes? Motion carries. Now we move to item 32 with the cloak police without him. Report from development services. Recommendation to award 21 contracts for on call environmental planning, affordable housing and community engagement consultant services and an annual aggregate amount not to exceed 4 million for a period of two years citywide. Do any public comment on this item? Congressman Austin would like to begin. I'd like to get a brief staff report, please. We please have a staff report, please. Linda Tatum. Just in summary, every approximately every five years, the Development Services Department goes out and establishes an on call list for consultants. And the purpose of that is to make the development process more efficient so that we don't have to do individual contracts every time a development project comes through the process. And typically, that includes everything from the Historic Resources Survey, like what we just talked about. It also includes the preparation of environmental impact reports, consultants that assist the staff with community outreach. Just the whole range of the development projects that come through our process. Having the on call consultants list is very helpful to staff. It saves time and makes our development process a lot more efficient. And just so you're clear on the the costs of those contracts. Typically the vast majority of those contracts are paid for by the developer. So the amount that we're setting aside is primarily a pass through amount. So when the development project comes through, the developer pays for that in their application fees. And that's pretty much an overview of the process. We once you approved this tonight. These the city will enter into individual contracts with each of these firms and they are on the list. So when they do come to the city, we can get the projects through the process expeditiously. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. And I do notice that a number of these consulting contracts being proposed are local firms. And so I want to recognize and appreciate that. Thank you. I so move to support. Thank you. Councilman Pierce. Okay. Fine. Would you please let your vote?

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the issuance and sale of Tidelands Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022, to refinance funds for improvements to the Aquarium of the Pacific, approving the form and authorizing execution of related documents, and approving related official actions. (Districts 1,2,3,7)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0932

Great. Thank you. And, you know, we do have I believe we'll have we took one more vote on this issue for final reading next week. Correct? Okay, great. Thank you all. We're going to move on to item 22 and I believe it's 30, Mr. Modica, which are the two concurrent aquarium items? We have a long agenda still. We're going to take these two items really quick and get these, you know, get these pass through and then we're going to go ahead and move on to. Choose report from financial management recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving the issuance and sale of Thailand's Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2022 Refinance funds for improvements to the Cream of the Pacific District. One, two, three seven. Great. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Is there any public comment at all? Is there any public comment on this item? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 22 in person, please sign up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the race cam feature or dial star nine now. CNN. Yeah, that concludes public comment. Great. Robert, please. Councilman Sun has. High. Council. And Alan I. Councilwoman Price. I. Councilman but I. Councilwoman Mango. I. Councilwoman Sarah I. Councilmember Ranga. Hi. Councilman Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. And then we have our second aquarium item, please. Believe it's 30 item thirties.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 16.08.023, 16.08.025, 16.08.026, 16.08.140, 16.08.551, 16.08.650(A), 16.12 Title, 16.12.060, 16.12.061, 16.12.162, 16.12.270, 16.12.280; and by repealing Section 16.08.024; relating to Marine Areas and Pacific Ocean Areas, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07192022_22-0836

Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. 27, please. Report from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to marine areas and Pacific Ocean areas. Read the first time and later for the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded. Any public comment here at there? Any members of the public they would like to speak on item 27 in person please. And up at the podium in. Zoom, please use the raise hand. Feature or dial star nine. See. Now, that concludes public comment. Fantastic. Members, please cast your vote. Councilman Zendejas. Hi. Councilman Allen. Hi. Councilman Price, I. Councilman. Supervisor. All. Councilwoman. Mango. I. Councilwoman Sara, I. Councilmember Urunga. Hi. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Motion is carried. Nine zero. All right. Fantastic. That satisfies the agenda.

Adoption of Resolution Urging the United States Congress to Enact a Federal Carbon Fee and Dividend. (Public Works 4205)

AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4955

Second, I was in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. And then five I had pulled and we do have some speakers on it, but I had pulled it because I had reviewed with we had quite a few emails received from the public on this. I reached out to a couple and we were able to meet because I was concerned that the language really wasn't as strong as I think is appropriate. And I looked at, for instance, with the members of the public that when we discussed it, the city of Berkeley had this additional language, which is what my proposed revisions come from the city of Berkeley's resolution. So I'm going to go. So that's why I pulled it. The proposed revisions were added by our clerk. Thank you. And so I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers that are here on this side. And we have three Tony Serna, Anita Reese, and then Gabby Dolphin. Thank you for hearing me tonight. My name is Anita Reese. I'm a long time resident of Alameda and have been volunteering with Citizens Climate Lobby for the past couple of years. CCL lobbies Congress to act on climate change by legislating a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels. At their source. Then returning 100% of the revenue to our households to help offset costs and stimulate the renewables economy. Carbon fee and dividend is elegant in simplicity. Transparent to public scrutiny and clear in its signals and benefits. Municipal endorsements give us individuals a more forceful voice to express our political will to Congress and tell our representatives that we want to want action now to mitigate climate change. Over 1000 supporters, including several of our neighboring cities, have endorsed a carbon fee and dividend resolution. Already, 31 Democrats and 31 Republicans in Congress publicly support and campaign for this plan. And we are getting close to having the consensus we need to introduce legislation which can be supported on both sides of the aisle and be effective even during this challenging political time in Washington. I'm proud that our city is taking this step to endorse a resolution supporting carbon fee and dividend. And I encourage the Council to vote in favor of a strong resolution. Endorsing this resolution tonight will send almeida's voice loud and clear to Congress and tell them that we, the special island town in San Francisco Bay, support climate action now. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Council Member Ashcraft and all the council members and staff for working on this story. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Tony Sana and I am also with the Citizens Climate Lobby's Alameda chapter and one of the co-leaders there. And I'm just here to encourage the council to support the resolution calling on Congress to enact a carbon fee and dividend. Such a policy would help protect Alameda from the worst of climate change while creating jobs, improving our health and ushering in a clean energy future. Congress needs to hear a clear call from Citizens for Climate Solutions, from all citizens, but especially from business leaders, faith leaders, community leaders, and from cities across the nation. And I hope you will vote to support this resolution. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Gabby Dolphin, and she's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak out, please submit your set. Good evening, City Council. And Madam Mayor. And Madam Mayor, thank you so much. I cannot tell you how grateful I am to see coming out of this August body some movement around the climate change issue and hoping and knowing that that voice is going to be heard by our amp and people. I'll be real short about it. The people I'm with, Alameda Solar and with Alameda progresses and we believe we're in a full blown climate change emergency. And some of us feel that we have to mobilize on a World War Two level to ratchet back our use of fossil fuels, much as we had to ratchet up our efforts in order to fight World War Two and contribute to that effort in that victory. So there there is an emergency going on and we need to respond accordingly. And this it's not going to solve it, but it certainly is a huge step forward. And if Alameda can sign on it, will a anchor this attitude and this commitment within the city and also announce it elsewhere? And I always feel that when one city moves in a certain direction that is so positive like this, that it'll help others move in that same direction. So again, I thank you, Mayor, and I thank you city council for entertaining this. And I certainly hope that it does pass. Thanks. Okay. Well, I'd like to make a motion for the, uh, including the proposed revisions to the resolution. About second and third. Yeah. A quick question. Thank you. What's the process on this? Because I remember when we we did a resolution or we urge Congress to pass a resolution about an investigation. You know, we addressed this to our congressmember, Barbara Lee. I mean, what's the process that, you know, I mean, we just send a read, we pass this, and then. They just. I mean, what? Just just curious. Send it to our our congressman. Okay. Proactive Senators, Senators. And anyone else. So honestly, I have suggestions of who all you want us to Senate to just let us know. We're happy to send it off. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? And then we were moving on the revisions that you proposed in the yellow line? Yes, that was for my motion. I'm hoping that. It just means. That all of us and I. I, i. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Counsel and community. Okay. And five K was pulled. So I believe that completes our consent calendar now. All right. So now a six hour regular agenda item six, a.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP CM16-098 for Launch, Do, Grow: Business Solutions for Long Beach, Scope C; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary for the Lease of City-owned property located at 309 Pine Avenue (Subject Property) to the Long Beach Community College District and BlankSpaces, LLC, for the maintenance, operation, and programming of a coworking space, Small Business Development Center consulting services, and an international business accelerator pilot program; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Economic Development Department by $250,000, offset by a release of funds received from the sale of former Redevelopment Agency-owned parcels for improvements at the Subject Property. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_12052017_17-1097

Vice Mayor Richardson. Motion carries. Item 34. Report from Economic Development Financial Management Recommendation to execute all documents necessary for the lease of city owned property located at 309 Pine Avenue to the Long Beach Community College District and blank spaces for the maintenance operation and programing of a coworking space, Small Business Development Center Consulting Services and an international business accelerator pilot. Program. John Gonzalez Yes, I want to thank economic development staff, both Sergio and John, if you want to give us like a quick because this is the Sean LaMarche Innovation Center and I think it deserves at least one minute of discussion. So I appreciate it. Honorable mayor and members of the city council. Yes, this is very exciting. This is a process we began about a year ago when we released a request for proposals to do something creative and exciting at three or nine pine for entrepreneurs. And we had a number of different proposals that came forward. One exciting public private partnership with Long Beach City College and Blank Spaces, which is a private co-working space operator who has multiple sites in the region. What we're proposing tonight is a ten year agreement for the lease and operations of 309 Pine. Ultimately, Long Beach City College, as part of the agreement, will provide entrepreneurial support programs, which include SBA, the Small Business Administration Business Consultants. Their International Business accelerator programs for entrepreneurs in blank spaces will manage and operate, maintain the facility for us at no cost to the city. In fact, the city will do some initial tenant improvements in the amount of $250,000. However, we'll get that capital investment back over the next ten years as they pay approximately 40 $600 per month for these ten years with some CPI increase as well. So this is a very exciting partnership, as you mentioned. Last month, the council approved moving forward with a recommendation to name this Sean McKee Center for Innovation. And it will be a great asset in our downtown to activate a really neat governmental facility in partnership with the private sector and hopefully allow for lots of business start up as well as the creation of jobs. Thank you. That's the end of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. No public comment will go. Sorry. This is this is not the final public comment. I'll let all that. I'll let you know when it's coming. Okay. You want to comment on the show on the Marquee Innovation Center? Yes. Come down. Thank you. I didn't hear what we're. Going to be doing there. What are we going to be doing there? What are we going to be doing. So that it's over? It's time for a public comment on the show on the Marquee Innovation Center. Where what are we going to start? I think the goal in the center, please. The reports over. So continue. I didn't. Hear what the center's going to. Do. You need to take a seat, sir. I can't ask what we're going to be doing at the center. You can't see. It's not that. We just had the report. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Sounds great. That's my vote. Motion Carries.

A RESOLUTION amending and adopting the Policies and Procedures that govern the Reuse and Disposal of real property owned by The City of Seattle not subject to the City Light Department jurisdiction; updating certain portions of the procedures related to property reuse and disposal for affordable housing; and adding provisions regarding the use of proceeds from surplus property disposal.

SeattleCityCouncil_10012018_Res 31837

Agenda Item three Resolution 318 37 amending adopting the policies and procedures that govern the re-use and disposal of real property owned by the City of Seattle, not subject to the city department jurisdiction, updating certain portions of the procedures relating to property, reuse and disposal for affordable housing, and adding provisions regarding the use of proceeds from surplus property disposal. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended. Councilmember Mesquita Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, this legislation is a call for development done right? It's a call for development done through the community lens for the families and workers who want to and need to live within the city. It's in. It's in response to the call for density to help address the environmental impacts of displacement. Earlier today, I was listening to public testimony from the legislative body that oversees housing in Olympia. And Jaime Hahn, president of the Northwest Carpenters, testified saying the following. Despite the boom and despite the fact that our membership is overwhelmed with work, we are still not producing, producing enough housing, he said. Just like the police officers who cannot afford to live on the streets that they patrol. Just like the teachers who cannot afford to be neighbors to the children they educate, carpenters cannot afford to live in many of the homes we build with our own hands. This legislation is a response to the housing crisis and the injustice that many of us have talked about so far. We need housing. We need affordable housing. We need to house the homeless and we need to do it now. This legislation is in response to the call for reversing the exodus, especially of communities of color. As our friends from the tribal community said today. People who are the most vulnerable are losing out on the opportunity for housing. We're losing out on the opportunity for density in our neighborhood. We're losing the opportunity for more greenspace and public space for communities to engage and have opportunities for engagement. We're losing the opportunity for individuals to be able to live in the city that they work. And we need to make sure that all city property is used for the best use and not just sold at the highest price. Many of us know the root causes of the sad reality. The historic roots of redlining and restrictive zoning has often made it harder for working families, especially women and people of color, to have access to affordable housing. When housing is so limited in our city, it's often redlined communities where we see families and community organizations that are trying to serve those families who don't have the capacity to purchase new land and don't have the ability to create housing opportunities, especially mixed use opportunities for the density done in our for density in our communities. But when we remove the cost of land, the cost of producing affordable housing can be decreased by 15%. So in response to the comments that we've heard today, no, this legislation doesn't correct the injustice of redlining and it doesn't correct the injustice of having land taken. But it does help us begin the first steps necessary to make sure that more community organizations and individuals who are the most vulnerable have actual site control, and that we build the housing to respond our communities need. And now is the time where we have to act. Here is where we need to act at the local level. The Federal Department on Housing and Urban Development has just engaged in efforts to dismantle efforts to create affordable and fair housing. Here is where we have the opportunity, and I want to thank representative for you another woman of color who we should constantly thank when they are leading the effort, who passed House Bill 2382. She passed this earlier, this legislative session to make sure that we look at opportunities for us to take a step further and make sure that community has the opportunity to build the housing that we need on surplus property, that we commit ourselves to engaging and creating affordable housing to meet our fair housing goals, and that we are not only building housing but building community opportunities by making sure that housing is above child care facilities, above health facilities, next to public parks , and creating opportunities for small businesses to thrive on the first and second floors. And that we do this in a way that is built next to transit centers. And when we see maps of Seattle and where we know that displacement is occurring, especially for these most vulnerable communities, we have an obligation to do more. The community organizations who helped pull together this legislation have made it possible for us to now have tools in hand for us to take the next steps in living our values. And that is public land should be used for the best public use. And over the years coming up, I hope that we can act with urgency to make sure that these policies are set into place. Mr. President, there's six bullets that I'd like to read that outline what this legislation does, if I might. Please do. Councilmember. First, it sets a policy that requires the city to prioritize using surplus land for affordable housing in addition to parks and open spaces. Childcare and early learning centers. Educational facilities. Light routes. Light rail stations think little things like grocery stores so we can address food deserts. It allows for us to make sure that the land can also be leased, which means that the city maintains public ownership or partial ownership from municipal use. And that means that the property can be developed into affordable housing for mixed use. It directs the Office of Housing to partner with community organizations in areas of heightened risk of displacement, allowing for greater community ownership, site control and affordable housing to be developed through their lens. And it sets a benchmark that if a parcel is sold, if after an intense analysis, that the land is not going to be developed by the city in partnership with community organizations, that if it is sold, a goal of 80% of that revenue will be generated for parcels to go into affordable housing and into making sure that we meet our goals under the Equitable Development Initiative. It adds additional reporting from the Office of Housing regarding implementation to ensure accountability. So we're actually living our values and those organizations are serving the community that they intend to serve and that they're reflective of the community through their boards and leadership. It also cuts in time, cuts it in half the time for internal process in the city to review these parcels so we can build housing with urgency of the changes that I'm most excited about. It directs the Office of Housing to work with community organizations and to design affordable housing, especially for those who are at risk of displacement. To make sure that we are actually working with the communities that are at highest risk of displacement, instead of just assuming that that will happen with development and development is done right when community organizations are brought to the table, we can create the housing that we need and we can do it in a way that addresses the environmental impacts of displacement and as an effort to try to reverse some of the injustices that we talked about before. So I'm excited about this legislation, as you can tell. Mr. President, there's been a number of efforts that we have worked on together over this last year. But this is the piece of legislation that I think really helps us live our values in terms of how we can do a better job with publicly owned land and make sure that we get more affordable housing and community assets. This wouldn't have been possible without the organizations that you heard of today and a number of additional ones that I'd like to read very briefly, including folks from Puget Sound, Sage Got Green Interim CTA, El Centro 350, Seattle, Sierra Club, Campus Housing, Housing Development Consortium Future Wise of four Terra Enterprise Community Partners Chief. South Seattle Club. Seattle Indian Services Commission. Beacon Hill Development Group. Rainier Beach Action Coalition. Filipino Community Center Abundance of Hope Sustainable Seattle Sightline Mount Baker Housing Seattle Tech for Housing Seattle for everyone and so many more. I want to say very briefly before we get to amendments, a huge amount of appreciation to Sally Bagshaw. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, to your team Allison, Dan, Brian and Linda for their ongoing work with us to make sure that we got this right. To Tracy Radcliff from central staff who constantly worked with us to make sure this was possible and to the intense work from our team, especially Michael Maddox and all of his research on this. I want to thank also as well Aretha Basu and Farida Cuevas, who helped shape this work and working with community organizations. This is a continuation of the work that you all worked on, I think, in 2017 within Councilmember Burgess. What we've done today is taking it to the next level in terms of what we mean by highest and best use of the parcels. And I'm really excited with this legislation. We will hopefully be able to see more. PLAZA Roberto Maya's does more Filipino community centers, more literal shopping places and more opportunities for, for example, Seattle Club as chief Seattle Club to acquire site control for production of permanently affordable housing to serve communities who've been left out and are at risk of displacement. And this is, I think, how we respond to the housing crisis today and also the housing crisis that will be here with us in 20, 30, 40 years if we don't act now. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Catch from a skater. Any. My colleagues like to address the resolution. So we'll go with Councilmember Beckstrom. Thank you. I want to just say. Councilmember Mesquita, you and your office have been fabulous partners on this. Thank you very much for taking the lead. Michael Maddox, I know you're embarrassed in the background that we call you out, but truly working with you and with the folks in my office who've done that is make a big difference. I just want to say I completely concur that this is the right way to go and we simply need a whole lot more housing, a lot faster, which means much more resources in order to do this that people say, well, it costs so much money. And I want to remind my legislator friends that last year the housing trust fund offered $100 million, which was a great beginning, but not statewide. We could so easily use $100 million right here to build the kind of units that we need. And if we're doing full on brick and mortar, we know that it's about $30 million for 100 units. And if we want to look at some options, like what we've been arguing for around modular is to try some pilots to get some things built and up and on, just ready to go for people. I really want to encourage us to look at every possible alternative. And in that regard, I would like to say thanks to my King County colleagues, John Arthur Wilson and Adrian Quinn, who are helping us look at those kinds of opportunities across the county. We cannot do this alone. You will hear me say a thousand times. The city government can do anything, but we can't do everything. And we need help and we need money in order to get this going. So. Also, we've got the green space, the parks, the education, all the amendments that we talked about. Do you have an amendment, an amended version that we need to bring forward before we vote on this? I sure do. Great, July. Thank you. Please. So that's my comments. I just say. And what? Thank you. So why don't we take the amendments and then we could describe the the amended legislation and we have some closing comments. So you have, I believe, an amendment one councilmember mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I unfortunately described the amendments as I was doing my spiel. So I do have two amendments, both just to clarify legislation. So the first is Amendment one, I'd move to amend Resolution 31837 by using substitute version five for substitute for version for the second. It has been second. So basically we're just accepting version since she actually spoke to the the new version. So substituting version five for version for any comments on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. But I. I. Opposed the ayes have it and amendment one has passed. Amendment two relates to attachment. I'd like to move to amend resolution 31837 attachment A by substituting version five for version for a second. It's been moved in second on the attachment. Any comments those in favor of amendment number two, which is again the attachment a subsequent version five for version for a. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it and those two amendments are passed. So we have an amended resolution and Casper bring back show you're through with your remarks, I assume. And Councilmember O'Brien, you have the floor, sir. Thank you so much again. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda, for your work on this. And thanks community members for continuing to make sure that the city is focused on delivering as much affordable housing and using and prioritizing all of our resources towards that. I am thrilled to be supporting this going forward. I also want to acknowledge that there are there are surplus properties that are currently going through a process. Some of the homeowners spoke to that, specifically the Mercer Mega BLOCK, and I've been working closely on that and want to make sure that the process will maximize the amount, affordable housing and want to work with community members to really understand how we can do that to serve the best interest and get the most housing and in the neighborhoods where we need it most at the same time. So I think this resolution is a great step forward and we'll continue to work on those that are in the process. Thank you, Casper and Brian. I'll just say briefly councilmember skater that and I think what? What makes a difference in a good legislature legislator is the the ability by which they can get creative and really think outside the box and look at new problems and old solutions. And again, sort of put on their thinking hat and really push the envelope. And I think that's what you and your staff are doing. So I want to commend you on that. We've looked at surplus property and both from the generous Upton and for our utilities for years. But I think you've taken a much more aggressive approach and one that will better serve our residents and our our constituents throughout this city. So thank you for bringing forth this resolution. And with that, I think we are ready to vote. Are you ready to vote, Catherine Mosquito. Okay, all those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted. Then Chair will sign it. Please read the next. Yeah, let's step on that. Please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to request City Manager to study the feasibility of aligning councilmember and other elected officials officeholder accounts to those of state/FPPC regulations.

LongBeachCC_04042017_17-0186

Thank you. Okay. We're going on to the next item, please, which is with the 2021. Item 21 is a communication from Council Member Pearce Chair, Elections Oversight Committee recommendation to request the city manager to study the feasibility of aligning Council member and other elected officials. Officeholder counts to those of State FEC regulations. Council Member Pearce. Thank you for this. We had our Elections Oversight Committee meeting a couple of weeks back where we looked at this. Right now, the municipal code sections 2.01.380 and 390 currently prohibit the use of office holder funds as transfers, loans or contributions to any other candidate for elected office. I would like to make a motion to request the City Attorney to amend l l BMC Section 2.013.80 and three nine to permit office holder funds to be used and consistent with the provisions of state law. California Government Code Sections 89510 as amended. This would include the use of office holder funds to purchase tickets to fundraising events for candidates for elected office. I ask for my colleagues support. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Not any public comment. Senior members, please cash customer support now. Yeah, I just I just want to include here that I dissented on this vote. I sit on the election committee. There's a lot of good things about getting old. But I do remember when this, uh, this ordinance changed when a previous council voted this in, and I thought it was a good idea then, and I stand by it. I don't. I can't understand why if someone contributes to my campaign, why I'm going to turn around and give that money to someone else, to that person who donated to me, did not endorse. So that is the basic premise. I realize tonight we're just looking for a study. We're not looking for that absolute decision. But that was the rationale behind my my dissent before. Thank you. Thank you. Just to clarify, I actually think the council was actually asking for a change in the municipal code. That's correct. The way I understand the motion this evening, it is a request to prepare an amendment to the ordinance which would make those changes and not a study in that this would come back to the council for a first and a second. Reading at that. Time. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Rick Bohrer, Hearing Examiner Case Number CWF-0295, and from the final findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751.

SeattleCityCouncil_03152021_Res 31997

Agenda item 18 Resolution 31997. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Eric Garner. Hearing Examiner Case Number CW f-0295 and from the final findings recommendations report at the hearing examiner on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District 6751. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to adopt resolution 31997. Is there a second circuit? It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Suarez, you are the sponsor of the resolution. I'm going to hand it over to you to address it. Thank you. Council President. Okay. City Council rules for quasi judicial proceedings require that council set the time and place for a hearing of an appeal of individuals. Final assessment for a local improvement district, otherwise known as the Live within 15 days of the filing of a valid appeal. This resolution schedules an additional excuse me valid appeal filed with the clerk for the April six committee meeting. I recommend Council pass a resolution. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Juarez, are there any additional comments on the resolution hearing on will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. As Councilmember Mosqueda, I. Councilmember Petersen. Yes. Council member. So. Ah. Yes. Council Member Strauss. Yes. Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council member. Juarez. Yes. And President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed. Motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the corpses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business? Is there any further business to come before the Council? All right, colleagues, hearing on this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, March 22nd, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance approving the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan, the creation of the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area and the Fox Park Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area. Approves the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1353

I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1334 has passed. Thank you to the folks that spoke on that last public hearing. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1353 on the floor for final passage? Madam President, I move that council bill 21 1353 excuse me. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 15 1353 is open. May we have the staff report and I believe we have Tracey Huggins joining us virtually. Of the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan. Located in the Globeville neighborhood. The 41st and Fox station area outlined in this slide on purple is approximately 200 acres, generally bounded by I-70 to the north west, 38th Avenue to the south, I-25 to the east, and the freight and passenger rail tracks to the west. In 2009, RTD and the city and county of Denver finalized plans to locate a commuter rail station at 41st Avenue and Fox Street. In 2009. The city completed the 41st in Fox station area plan that describes the long term redevelopment plans the city has for the area east of the rail tracks to create a complete, transit friendly neighborhood. In 2019, the 41st and Fox commuter rail station opened serving RTDs B and G lines. The largest single property in the area is the 41 acre former Denver Post printing facility located on the northern edge of the site near the interchange of I-25 and I-70. The plant printed issues of the Denver Post from 1986 until 2007. In 2008, the land and building were sold to a developer. A metropolitan district was approved in 2016 and in 2018 the property was rezone to allow for buildings up to 12 stories. This owner, as was discussed previously, was never able to begin development on the site and in 2019 sold this site to Vita Fox Park. I'm sorry. Peter Fox North Limited Partnership. The proposed boundaries of the Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas are the same as the property purchased by Beta Fox North and are outlined in this slide in gold. Peter Fox Park will, in coordination with the existing metropolitan districts, design and construct certain infrastructure improvements and parks and open spaces, which I will continue to refer to as the horizontal infrastructure, as well as perform environmental remediation to support the revitalization of the proposed urban redevelopment area. Upon completion of the horizontal infrastructure. Vida Fox Park will sell improved pad sites to third party vertical developers to complete the vertical development program. The entire project is expected to be delivered in four phases over the next 8 to 10 years and will result in approximately 3400 forth rent residential units. Approximately 2 million square feet of office space. 300,000 square feet of retail space, 500 hotel rooms, 100,000 square feet of cultural and education space. Approximately 218,000 square feet of open space. And 5600 underground parking stalls. To help support this development project. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority is requesting City Council approval of an urban redevelopment plan to support the horizontal infrastructure needs of the urban redevelopment area and also benefit the remaining portions of the 41st and Fox station area. The objectives of the plan are to eliminate the blighting conditions in the area, improve access to transportation options, parks and open space. Promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy more effectively. Use underdeveloped land in the area. Assist the city in cultivating complete and inclusive neighborhoods, which all will help achieve the goals outlined in the 41st in Fox Station Area Plan. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan Plan 2040 and Blueprint. Denver. In order for council to approve an urban redevelopment plan, there must be a finding that the proposed area is blighted. During has commissioned a condition study which found that six of the 11 statutorily defined factors of blight are both present in the area and collectively are limiting its develop ability. These conditions are indicative of an area that has been vacant for a long period of time and lacks the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. In addition, the site has environmental contamination, which must be addressed in order for a development to occur. In addition to the onsite infrastructure deficiencies, there are additional infrastructure needs of the broader 41st and FOX station area. Redevelopment is currently being contemplated in the areas around the station, but the city's vision for the full redevelopment of the area is limited because of the lack of access into the area. Currently there are only two vehicular access points in and out of the area the bridge over I-25 along 44th Avenue to the east and the Park Avenue, 38th Avenue and I-25, the interchange to the south. Both access points are challenging for vehicles and especially for pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to enter Globeville to the east or downtown Denver to the South without the ability to generate more trip capacity to the station area. This project cannot be approved and the costs associated with these improvements are a material component of the need for public financial assistance. As noted earlier, the various city plans support the redevelopment of the 41st and Fox station area and the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area. The proposed Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area is identified as having a community center high, medium residential and high residential future place designations in the Urban Center Neighborhood Context Per Blueprint. Denver development in the community center area should have an active street level presence and should contain a good mix of commercial, retail and office uses. While the residential mixed use areas should be predominantly residential. They should be supported by a variety of embedded uses needed for a complete neighborhood. Urban center neighborhoods are dense, vibrant areas that are well-served by high capacity transit, where the plan recommends focusing growth over the next 20 years. The proposed Urban Redevelopment Plan will promote development that supports the complete Neighborhood and Transportation Network vision in Blueprint Denver, including neighborhood context, place, street type and growth guidance. In preparing the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Specific areas of compliance with Plan 2040 noted in the slides in Blue Blueprint Denver as outlined in the green boxes and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which are in yellow, were referenced. I certainly am not going to walk through each of these. I will note that this page in this slide identifies the goals related to infrastructure improvements and connectivity. This slide outlines the goals related to transit aurion development. Please note the specific reference to promote the mixed use redevelopment of the former Denver Post site. Blueprint. Denver also calls for an inclusive, equitable city through complete neighborhoods and transportation networks. Analysis from Blueprint Denver indicates the proposed urban redevelopment area lies within an area that has low access to opportunity, high vulnerability to displacement and low housing and jobs. Diversity. The utilization of tax increment to support the horizontal development addresses one key equitable development outcome, which is to provide infrastructure that will enable the transformation of the vacant industrial site into a transit oriented development that can create opportunities for new housing, amenities and employment. As was also noted previously, the Urban Renewal Project is only a portion of this. There is also a companion development agreement that the developer has agreed to address a number of different investment options to help in addressing the equity challenges for this area. The Urban Redevelopment Plan has been presented to the Denver Planning Board, who voted unanimously to find the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. In approving the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan Council will also be authorizing the use of tax increment financing and establishing the Fox Park sales and property tax increment areas which will be coterminous with the urban redevelopment area. Consistent with the onsite and offsite infrastructure needs. Approximately 50% of the estimated reimbursable project costs of just under $190 million are for regional infrastructure improvements and internal roadways and streetscape. The remaining reimbursable costs include parks and open space, demolition and environmental remediation and other utilities. To the extent that developer equity and metropolitan district bond proceeds are not sufficient to fully pay for the parking necessary to support the level of density in the development program. Tax increment can also be a source of repayment of these costs, provided they really relate to publicly accessible parking. It's important to note that in incremental sales and property taxes are only generated from the vertical development, not from the horizontal development veto, as the horizontal developer must therefore advance the costs of the taxing permit eligible expenses and then be reimbursed once the vertical development has been completed. This reimbursement structure puts the risk of repayment on the developer. The need for public investment through tax increment should always have a direct relationship to the elimination of the blighting conditions and support of the development plan consistent with the city vision for the area. As you can see, this relationship is clear. In addition to the developer reimbursement, the tip will also be used to make a $1.84 million payment to Denver Public Schools to address the service impacts expected to be realized as a result of the completed project. So therefore, the total projected tax commitment, tax increment commitment is approximately $191 million. In advance of Council's consideration of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, DAERA is required to enter into agreements with each of the other taxing entities in the urban redevelopment area. Georgia has negotiated agreements with each of these entities, per the terms of the agreement with urban drainage and flood control district. Georgia is allowed to capture and utilize all amounts attributable to their mill levy. As noted previously, Dora will pay $1.84 million to DPS over four years, beginning in 2024. And because of the direct use of the amounts derived from the West global metropolitan districts to support the same redevelopment project, 100% of the amounts attributable to the net district levies will be reimbursed to the districts. And finally, Dora and the city have also negotiated a cooperation agreement governing the collection and repayment of increment from the urban redevelopment area. In considering the approval of the Fox Park Group and Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following additional legislative findings that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as possible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan that, if any and if any individuals or families are displaced, or if any business concerns are displaced as a result of adoption or implementation of the plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals, families or business concerns in accordance with the Act. Due to the vacancy of the project area, it contains no residences or business concerns. Therefore, no individuals, families or businesses will be displaced. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. And no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. The urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land. And the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. I very much appreciate the opportunity to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for council consideration. This has been a very collaborative effort between and among Dora, the various city departments, the community and the developer to lot to allow us to find a way to revitalize a long, vacant industrial site and provide a significant community asset. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. All right. Thank you, Tracy, for the presentation. We're going to go. To our speakers. We have 14 individuals signed up to speak this evening hour. And we're going to go to the folks who are in chambers first and then we've got members of the community joining us online and then we'll go back to Chambers. And so our first speaker this evening is Mark Tompkins. Good evening, Councilman Tompkins. I am a public finance advisor to the developer, and I'm here to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Kathleen Fogler. And just so folks are ready. Blair Licht and Fields is next after or I'm sorry, Kathleen. Manuel Jimenez and then Blair LICHTMAN Field. So. Go ahead, Kathleen. Good evening, counsel. My name is Kathleen Fogler Architects. I'm just here to answer questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Manuel Jimenez. Good evening. I'm Manuel Humanism. I'm just here to answer questions. All right. Thank you. And then Blair. Okay. Good evening, council members. Blair Lifton I'm outside counsel for the applicant and I'm just here to answer questions this evening. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move online. Our first speaker online is Jeff Bader. Oh. Do we have you here? Sorry. In chambers. Good evening. Jeff Vader with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. I'm here to answer any questions in the event three CS. I'm able to virtually. All right. Thank you, Jeff. All right. Our next speaker is Maria. So Paul with that. And I believe Maria's is online. Okay. Maria, go ahead, please. Go ahead, Maria. You might have to. And I'm sorry about that. I'm Maria Silvano with Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver, and I'm here to answer questions. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. Yeah. A lot of it is just the muscle parts are preserved for Blackstone and similar for self-defense. Positive action move the chains as well as the unity party of our little black like those and I'll be the next Lib Dem play 23. I'm against this redevelopment tonight for several reasons. The first reason is this is a traffic catastrophe just waiting to happen. As I stated during the presentation, there's only two arterials in and out of this area, so I use that to draw people in, said this area with only two arterials. Second thing is there is a halfway house that is located to the south of this redevelopment. Is that going to be moved or that they're going to be present? What's happening with that? Um, so the house is going to be what am I level is it going to be affordable at. What is the with the stopping any kind of displacement from occurring from this new development from the surrounding areas this summer? Please answer that. Those questions I would greatly appreciate. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Kelly P. Am I unmuted? Yes, go ahead. Wonderful. Wonderful. I live on the Fox Island, on Fox Street and very close proximity for nearly a decade to this potential development. I'm over the moon to see good, conscientious development in such a long neglected space. I believe at. Least since 2007, it's been. Empty. Collecting tumbleweeds and inviting crime for the last 14 years with empty and abandoned structures riddled with crime, unsafe to walk, dogs, exercise or gather, but especially alone. This development will bring lights. Traffic, pedestrians, a lot of. Gathering, and most most importantly, safety. It'll bring music, tree canopy and safety where there is currently an unsafe dumping ground for stolen cars, mattresses and anything people don't want to pay to dump. We see this every day. When we drive by, and me and a lot of my neighbors are really excited for this. Jose and Manuel have engaged our most proximate neighborhood, plus surrounding areas and honestly listened to input and feedback. We welcome them with open arms. That's it. Ha ha. Wonderful. Thank you. Kelly didn't want to cut you off in case you had more to say. All right. We're going to go ahead and move to our next speaker. Anthony Syston. All right. We're not seeing Anthony's system, so we're going to go ahead and move on. L.J. Suzuki. Yes. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for having me here. My name is LJ Suzuki, president of the Global First R.A.. We would like to vote in support of the Fox Island, the Fox Park development, I have to say, echoing what Councilwoman CdeBaca said earlier, these developers have really engaged the community above and beyond anything that we've seen historically in the past. I really think they really raised the bar in terms of what it means to work with your neighbors and put together a good development. I appreciate that. Any time you put in some kind of tax based financing, there's going to be scrutiny and concerns, and I think that's totally appropriate. However, in this case, this is kind of a perfect opportunity for TIFF financing. It's a site that's generating zero sales tax and very little. Property tax right now. Unless you can find a way to tax the people that are stealing copper. Pipes out. Of the property, and they're planning to turn it into a significant amount of residential and commercial space that will add a lot of value to the neighborhood, bring a lot of people in the neighborhood, offer great opportunities for small businesses, for local artists. In addition to that, they really are going above and beyond the standard requirements for affordable housing. And I'm sure you'll hear from. My colleagues at the. Gas Coalition who are going to be helping address that. As well as my colleagues at the Birdseed Collective. That are going to be helping address that. Thanks to funding provided by this project in the Global First R.A., they have agreed to provide us funding and support to increase the tree canopy in the Globeville neighborhood outside of their sites, but just in the neighborhood in general, as well as funding to other programs to help children in the neighborhood. So I really want to encourage all of the council people today to vote in favor of this bill to support. The Fox Park development. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker joining us in chambers is Gail LaRue. And then next, we have Karla Padilla and Karen Gerhardt ready. Hi. Good evening. So as part of Global first we welcome the Fox Park Urban redevelopment as our neighbors. Since meeting Manuel and Jose in 2018 at a next step study. They have exhibited all the qualities of good neighbors. Good neighbors help feed neighbors, and they participate in distributing food boxes by delivering those to homes of our neighbors. And they listen to everyone. What are our ideas? What do we want to see there? And you don't have to be part of an R.A. to be heard. They make themselves available to listen. And having attended many of these meetings, I hear the voices of our neighbors in the Fox Park Community Plan. And they continue to listen. And they're committed to preserving perpetual affordability in Globeville through the land trust, through funding. And they're going to encourage other developers to add to that funding during community events. They don't offer to write a check. They show up with gloves, with shovels that are planting trees. They help out if we're giving away backpacks that are. At our school supply distribution. They they work. They pull up their sleeves. And they also talk more with neighbors. So Globeville is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Denver. Many of our homes are falling apart. They recognize this and have committed to a home rehabilitation program in Globeville. They understand the importance of our community center. And they have worked closely with our Community Center for Long Term Sustainability and to ensure future programs and offered long term support. Glover first has met with many developers where it felt like a formality to us. They didn't listen. They just had to work. Community engagement off their list to be able to present to you all. The Fox Park folks have helped educate us with metro tax districts tiffs and we know about their future sales plans, Dara's role. So they've really taken the time to educate us and plaques park will link isolated Globeville to its Sunnyside and Chaffee Park neighbors. You know, it's it's always tough getting over there. And I think this will be a great way to make that work. So we look forward to the Fox Park Urban Media redevelopment. We have allotted for each speaker. We appreciate it. Thank you. Would you reintroduce yourself for the public record, please? I'm Gail LaRue, president of Global. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Karla Padilla. Thank you. Karla Padilla, 4748 Sherman Street in Globeville. Good afternoon. Committee, council people. I come from many generations of Kosovo residency. I'm also the associate director of Birdseed Collective. We run the Globeville Center on 45th and Grant, as well as Alto Gallery, which has moved to the Reno Art Park. Many of you know and have worked with Anthony J. Garcia, senior, our executive director. And as you know, community rights are important to. Us. And are at the forefront of many of our projects. Growing up in Globeville, too, our family has had many occasions to work with organizations and have input on development in the community. Some have been good and some not so good. In my early life, we lived directly in front of the northbound 25 exit ramp and my mother was part of the Asarco lawsuit. But no matter what, Globeville has always been our community and I have raised my children here as well as my grandchildren. No community is like Globeville, and as a resident and organization, we have always tried to work for the betterment of the neighborhood. Many times I have had the pleasure. Of working with the Fox Park developers beat up Oxnard along with the Globeville, first R.A., together with Vera Fox. Our focus is and always will be community. No matter what the situation is, community is in their forefront of their project. We believe they are one of a kind. They listen to our concerns and needs and greatly take this to heart and adjust their development if needed. As you know, Fox. Street is. Undergoing a huge transformation from 46th Avenue all the way to 38th Avenue. Several times our groups have reached out to other developers along Fox Street and never received a call back. Their projects seem to be kept quiet so that they can continue their development without a worry about community or effects it has on our infrastructure. By approving this project through the bill, Veeder Fox Park will once again become a vibrant and inviting, safe place for all. Through their development, the soil will be cleaned up, affordable housing will be had, and opportunities for all other projects will become a reality, as well as a huge emphasis on housing stability. And along with our grassroots efforts. So thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Karen Gurwitch. And then we have Nola Miguel, and then we'll go back to Zoom and hopefully we can get Anthony Stone in the queue. Go ahead, please. Thank you. Madam President, members of the council, my name is Karen. Burwitz, and I am the. President and CEO of the World Trade. Center. Here in Denver, we. Are a nonprofit trade association with a world renowned brand that will be the namesake tenant of the complex formerly known as the Denver Post Printing Press. There can only be one World Trade Center per city. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. And there are 300 World Trade Centers across the world in about 100 countries. So a prominent World Trade Center branded complex sends a very clear message to the rest of the world that the city is, in fact, a global city and open for business. It is incredibly important that the size and scope of this development moves forward as planned, because a. Prominent development. Project matches the intent of that. Open for. Business message even more clearly to investors. Now as a trade association, our mission is to support local companies in helping them do international business. We do this through. Training, accelerators, tech support. We host 100 events per year, and we also advocate and convene a vibrant global. Business network in Colorado. The work we do is incredibly important to Colorado's economy, since one in five jobs in our state is created due to trade. We work with everyone from local designers and artists to helping. Now 100 immigrant entrepreneurs plan their first ever trading business. We also work with small and mid-sized manufacturers, innovative companies like tech firms and large multinationals. In total, we have trained over 40,000 people. In our state how to conduct international business. After moving our. Offices. Out of the buildings downtown at. 16th and Broadway, named after us for 27 years, we've been searching for the appropriate. Development site. That centrally located, highly visible to the public, surrounded by multiple modes of transport, and in a neighborhood that will benefit from boosted economic development and job creation, not to mention having a globally minded development partner who sees a need for the World Trade Center to be stable and prominent for 50 years. We have found all of these criteria in Fox Park and are so excited to activate the full campus in partnership with an incredible development team. By activating the campus, we intend to create an active. Business service center, unlike no other in Denver. To support mostly small to midsize businesses to grow and to connect to international opportunities. We also create a physical magnet for foreign direct investment. To open new. Offices in Denver and to partner with local opportunities by creating a unique placemaking opportunity in global. View. That's the time think you have allotted for each speaker. Thank you. Next up, we've got Nolan, Miguel and then Anthony Syston. If you are joining us via Zoom, if you can, please raise your hand and we can get you moved over to the Q. Shopping. Hi, my name is Nolan Miguel and with the Global Response Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. And I'm also with Theater Collective, which is the Community Land Trust that's incubated by the Colorado Community Land Trust, which is now merged with Habitat for Humanity, Metro Denver. Tonight, we are here in support. We don't. We haven't and still don't and won't take this lightly. We see urban redevelopment as as very serious and a potential threat to increased displacement. And as many of you know, our our mission is to prevent displacement of neighbors and Globeville and Elyria and Swansea. Our members debated this. We really had to wait it and really consider the different trade offs. And I want to talk just a little bit about what made that difference, because I think that might be something that you all are interested in. So one thing was really how the process with the developers was done. They showed up. Granted, a lot was virtual because it's been in the last several years and they were really there to build a partnership with the coalition, with other groups in the neighborhood. They unified groups in the neighborhood instead of trying to divide groups in the neighborhood. They listened like like Gayle said, like a lot of people have said they've and they developed an agreement and benefits that are specific to the community's needs. So it wasn't just a blink percentage that may or may not actually go to prevent displacement, but rather a very crafted and intentional community benefits agreement that we all got to chip, chip and chip our ideas into. So that flexibility has been super critical to us. And to be able to address the community needs having a community benefits agreement. We signed a community benefits agreement. We have something written. We have a commitment. We know that that is going to happen. That's super critical. And that those commitments were around increasing stability in the neighborhood. The the actual contribution, the $4.25 million that will go towards Tierra Collective, that is so significant to us. And it's not just because it's permanent affordability. It's because the collective is a movement driven by residents and Globeville and Elyria and Ciancia to build out the vision of the neighborhood and preserve affordability forever. So some of you may know how much homeownership has gone down in Globeville. There was a shift research lab study that said between 2015 and 2019, homeownership went from 61% to 36%. So that's a huge drop in homeownership. So it was important to the developers and important to us and other neighbors that they talked to to increase homeownership in the neighborhood. And that's something that we can do in theory, collectively. Thank you. That's the type. Thank you. Okay. We've got Anthony Syston, I think will be joining us online. Yeah. I can hear me. Yes. Yeah. I just want to chime in as a resident. Of Globeville and. Someone who's worked here for four. Years. I want to reiterate what Kelley, my neighbor, said. Earlier about the area. We really welcome this development and are really excited to see everything. That it can do to help take our community to the next step. Especially here on Farnsworth Island. And I would urge this bill's passage from Florida. All right. Would you if you wouldn't mind? Well, did we lose him? Is he still in there? Okay. I wanted him to go ahead and introduce himself for the public record. I know I called. Him, but. Yeah, my name is Anthony Stone. All right, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We're rounding out our fourth hearing tonight. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1353. All right. We've got Councilman Flynn. You're up first. Thank you, Madam President. Is Tracy still on the meeting through Zoom? Thank you. I just have a brief question about the urban drainage and dura district, urban drainage district and Dura agreement. It looks like it says for all of the increment in property tax, so over and above what might be levied currently. I'm curious, does the agreement with urban drainage require the the developer to use any of that increment for flood control or for drainage? Or can it be used for any general purpose? Thank you for that question, Councilman. And I want to make sure that I also clarify that for all of the taxing entities, any amount that the site is currently generating in property tax, those amounts will continue to flow to all of the taxing entities. It is just the incremental taxes that Europe will be capturing when it comes to the amount of the increment that is attributable to the urban drainage mill. There is no limitation or requirement on what those funds must be used for. I will only add, though, that the part of the infrastructure will be drainage across the site, but there are no more requirements per the urban drainage agreement on how their portion of the increment is to be used. Thank you, Tracy. So it just goes into the that into the pool that the that is available? That is correct. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Tracy, if you're still there. Yes, I am. Hi there. What's the difference? Remind me in what the TIFF funds will pay for. That is different than what the district funds pays for. Sure. That is another excellent question, Councilman. And I know it has been the source of some confusion. So the tax increment is expected to be used to reimburse the costs attributable to the offsite infrastructure that we have talked about, that larger regional infrastructure improvements, the onsite infrastructure needs, parks and open space, environmental remediation and publicly available parking . So those are the tax increment eligible costs. But part of the confusion that I think is coming about with the with the metropolitan district is it is the metropolitan district that will likely be the entity that contracts to have all of the infrastructure work be done. So to the extent the metropolitan district doesn't have immediately available funds, the developer will advance the money to the metropolitan district that then collectively the metropolitan district and the developer will look to the future tax increment as the source of repayment. So the metropolitan district will be undertaking much of this infrastructure. But the ultimate repayment source of those improvements that I outlined will come from the tax increment. The in my opinion, the developer is taking advantage of our obscenely low linkage fee. If if the linkage fee were to rise and that were applied to this development, would the difference then be made up in the TIFF program? Councilman. I think that is a question that is likely better answered by someone else in the audience, because the linkage fee, as I understand, has a has a very distinct need that is likely different than the infrastructure that we're talking about. So with all due respect, I'd ask that that question be put forward to someone else there in chambers. Good wine. And coming up, good evening Council Brad Whiting with the Department of Housing Stability. So answer your question. Councilman Cashman. The linkage fee is very much needs to be spent on the creation of new affordable housing. That's a that's a very specific use requirement of those funds. The way that this agreement is structured, should this be passed tonight, is that the developer for all nonresidential components would be paying 125% of today's current linkage fee for a period of 12 years, after which, whatever the linkage fee is in place at that time would then apply, as well as all of the on site affordability requirements that would be in place at that time would also come into effect after 12 years, but they have 12 years to work under this current negotiated agreement. So the amount of the linkage fee has no connection to either the Met District or the the tower. No, I assume that number comes into play in negotiations about what percentage of the property becomes affordable. Is that the only connection to linkage? Yes, it is. That's correct. But there's no direct linkage is a bad word. But that's just between the linkage fee or the initiative negotiated agreement at all. Okay, great. Thank you for that. And then that's all for you. We appreciate that. And last question is for someone on the development team. They're trying to get an idea of how much you'll be spending on the elements in the community benefits agreement, the land, land trust, etc.. Yeah. Good evening, Councilman Cashman. Yes. So our whole housing program and proposal encompasses a lot of it has had a lot of tools, so. Sorry, it has a lot of legs. One of which is the housing assistance program on the Housing Assistance Program will be directing $2 million to help the community with rental assistance, property tax assistance , security deposit assistance and other rehabilitation projects. And we will also direct $4.25 million into the Perpetual Affordability Housing Program with Terra Collective and. And. And the Coalition and Habitat for Humanity. As well as that we are creating 7% affordable housing on site of which 25% is going to be at 60% EMI and the remaining 75% is going to be at 80% EMI. We are also going to pay 125% out of linkage fee on all of the commercial spaces. Thank you very much. Could we go ahead and have you introduce yourself for the public record? Yes, I'm another few minutes. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman Council. Sawyer thinks that I'm president. Just wanted to clarify, and I'm not sure who I'm asking. I think maybe Brad, you are who I'm asking in terms of the affordable housing agreement. Does that then run with the land? Sorry. I didn't really give you time to get. Brad riding with the Department of Housing Stability again. Yes, it does. Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Council Councilmember Swire seeing no other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1353 council members say to Baca. Again, this is not to denounce the developers or the plan. This is to denounce the tool and our inability to protect or create protective policy for the surrounding areas. That will change in value because of this project when it's complete. So I will not be supporting this tonight. This doesn't happen very often where my vote does not match the community's vote. But I recall these same conversations just down the street in my district when we did the tiff for Welton Street. And, you know, it looks good. It sounds good, but we don't have the protective policies in place to protect a neighborhood when we're making these very big changes. And the size of this project is so much bigger than the other projects that we have financed through TIFF. And so I just want the community to know that, you know, this is complicated and it's not the plan or the developers that's the issue. It's the tool, the financing mechanism that has it. We haven't caught up with protective policies to go with it. So I will be in on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council president. I want to be as open and transparent as I can. I would agree with my colleagues that our linkage fee is dreadfully low. So developers will be supporting increasing our link with linkage fee as the conversation continues. Also, to be transparent, I don't want to hold off all development until we come up with these agreements. Our city, we should shape our growth and our city is growing. I'm glad that it's growing. I hope that that we get a better linkage. We sometimes just wanted to put that all in the record so that I'm being as open and transparent as possible. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Haines. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to thank the development team for coming. Even though this development is in northwest Denver, we share the railroad tracks and they spent several hours in meetings and came back to my community when there was confusion numerous times to meet with the Sunnyside neighborhood and how it would impact them. And I would also like to acknowledge the commitment for the infrastructure need that is desperately needed to connect Northwest Denver to this part of Globeville. And if it rains, you can't get to this neighborhood. You have the 38 bathtub that literally I have seen cars float in and I have been told by the city that it's in . We can't we don't have the funding to fix it because it's BNSF, the rail yard responsibility. And so with this tax increment financing, the ability to actually have a bridge go either north or go west and connect this area with my council district. Northwest Denver, I think is something that is desperately needed and is called out in the 41st and Fox station area plan, which I wish could be updated because that plan is so antiquated that all calls for tons of density in this neighborhood. Yet we don't have the car trips, meaning you can't have anything redevelop in this neighborhood because you can't have the cars. Meaning if there's a flood, you can't get there from 38th. And the 44th Street Bridge over I-70 is antiquated and needs updating. And this will also bring that project up to speed. So I do offer my support, but I do also understand the need to make sure that we have developers working with our community. And I will say. I started as an aide in Council District nine in 2012, and I have sat through four different developers on this site , and none of them have worked with the global community. None of them. None of them talk to them. None of them work with them. None of them asked what we needed. When we got the general development plan, which we don't do anymore, passed. None of them talk to the community who is desperately in need of this. And so I just want to say thank you for the community and the developer coming together and showing your offering, your support for something that has been languishing for a long time. I grew up and it was the Denver Post site, and I really do believe that redevelopment needs to occur here. And it's a smart place. I don't know how many of you know this, the first stop to Union Station, and I don't know how many of you in this room take that stop. I will admit I do not. It is scary crossing that bridge from Inka at night by myself. I don't like it. It doesn't feel safe. And as a woman, I often think about my safety in the built environment. And I really believe that this this urban renewal will actually create more safe environments for women to walk in, for us to be able to use transit oriented development. I know we talk about transit oriented development often, but as a woman living here at night when the sun sets at 426, it's not always easy for me to hop on a bike and drive through a neighborhood and have to get home in the dark. So I don't just end on thank you for this and I understand the need for all of the money going into this project. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. I'm struggling with the numbers. If I've done my math, we've approved between the Met District and the the turf about a half a billion dollars and about 6,000,006 and a quarter million is going back into the community, 125% of an obscenely low linkage fee and 7% affordable housing. I'm also hearing a lot of positive thanks from the community for improvements that will be made on the site. For the benefit of people on the site and off the site. So I'm just struggling a little bit here. It sounds to me like the city is going to get a lot of benefit out of what gets built. But I really believe this developer is walking away with a sweetheart deal. So I don't know that we'd get what we're getting without this type of trade off. But but I am struggling here for a minute. So we'll see how the rest of the chatter goes. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief with my comments. You all know that I always raise the issue of proximity to rail. This particular site is actually buffered by our commuter rail. That is our RTD. You know, transportation district properties on the West Side are closer actually than than this site for folks who are developing that don't have that kind of buffering. So that's why you didn't hear me raising a bunch of questions about proximity to railroad on this particular development. I also wanted to share with you all that when the Stapleton development came before this body, there was $300 million of tax increment financing that went into that project and that also offset the cost of infrastructure. They committed eight acres of the totality of the land on that site that went towards affordable housing. But it's not unusual in these big sites. And again, without the financing tools that the city has available, we otherwise would not see the development. It's why there have been different developers who have worked at this site that were not able to make the financing work. At that time, those developers also were not asked to build another road. Actually, two roads as well as redo the entire intersection at 38, Fox 25 and Park Avenue, which is part of what's going to be happening with the combination of funding that will be part of this project. It's also not typical that we see all these different funding sources come at the same time. Many of these projects, the rezoning is is on a different schedule from the district, which is different from the financing. And in this case, we're seeing it all at once, which is the way it used to be done before this body, when we saw, you know, not only Stapleton, but some of our other larger developments like Lowry, those all came forward at the same time. And we also got to see much more detail of what was going to be developed on those sites. So I just want to thank this developer for going that extra mile with the Coalville residents. I know he they also talked to the Sunnyside community. And the fact that everybody knows Jose Manuel on a first name basis tells you that level of commitment that they made in working with these communities. So I know that they're not here just to get this passed and to be out of these neighborhoods. They're in it for the long haul. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Kinney. Thank you. Council President. I will not restate the entire history that I went over in committee, but I just think it is critical to identify why the revisions that we will vote on after this particular vote to the redevelopment agreement or the development agreement between the city and the site were so important in terms of moving from zero zero units on the property to a significant percentage of affordability on the property, in addition to linkage fee dollars that come to the city, in addition to dollars for housing that go to the community. I've spent a lot of time talking with my colleague, Councilman Cashman, and understand his discomfort on one level. But I really think it's critical if we are going to say. That we want community benefits and we then don't accept or have consternation over the types of benefits that are most important to a community. Then I'm concerned about the message we're sending. In this case, the community is more concerned with and pushed hard for dollars that promote stability for existing residents over affordable units for new residents. And the developer responded and we have more units on the site, more homes on the site than we would have had under the prior agreements, but fewer than we might have seen in a different agreement, because millions of dollars are being spent on stability and homeownership just off the site. This is a large development area, and I don't think we need to be using formulas in large development areas. Some sites we do want to dedicate land for deeply affordable. Some sites that are in the area that's had a loss of homeownership, these types of stability investments might be necessary. I am looking forward to having a formulaic approach with our inclusionary housing debate that we'll have early next year, but that approach will be for single buildings. It's probably not going to be the best way to determine the housing outcome on a particular large redevelopment area. Those areas are too large, they have too much opportunity, and they need to be able to think about those subtleties with the community. And so I support this agreement because it is responsive to the housing investments that are most important to this community collectively. I just cannot accept the focus only on onsite units because that's not been what's prioritized. So so I think it is an important improvement over the prior city agreement. It is important responsiveness and it is a robust it's a robust investment that I would argue is on par with other investments made at other large redevelopment sites, even though those sites only were focused really on the on site units, they were focused less on these other components. But if you add them up together, it's robust. And so for me, it's the it's both the substance of the agreement and the principle that I support community responsive, large area development plans and that I need to stand with the community when those come forward. So I will be supporting this tonight and I do urge my colleagues to do so as well, because this is a precedent we want to continue. If we're going to see these types of efforts succeed, we as a council need to support them. So so if you know, both on the substance and as well, the precedent that it's important to have responsive dialogs that are true. Three party dialogs, right? Community and developer and city. Right. The first deal was so bad because it was city and developer alone and it didn't include that third prong. This one's better because it did. And that that is an important precedent for us to stand behind. So with that, I'll be happy to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Koinange. And I'll go ahead and go ahead with my comments. I would really like to thank the community who spoke tonight. It's not usual that we have this much consensus between community members, the developers and these agreements. And I really want to thank everybody for the ongoing work that they did to get us here to this position tonight. And I am happy to support this as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1353, please see tobacco. No. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. I'm fine. All right. Catherine they very hesitant, i. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. I saw you. I saw Torres. I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One May 12 US. 12 I's Council Bill 21 Dash 1353 has passed. Thank you to the community members and others who joined us. And now we are on to our final hearing of the night. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 13, the.